India�s dilemma: U.S. or Russian weapons

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Jeypore, Aug 1, 2009.

  1. Jeypore

    Jeypore Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    3
    Toronto, ON, Canada, — India is facing a decision that will affect its military and political future for a long time to come: whether to buy Russian or U.S. military hardware. Cost and capability are critical, but history and political realities cannot be ignored.
    U.S. high-tech weapons are like a finely tuned sports car, whereas similar Russian weapons are built like a freight truck – rugged and cheap. Third world nations tend to prefer the Russian hardware. Other than being cheap, Russian equipment does not require highly advanced infrastructure for maintenance, and the Russians do not insist on intrusive end-user monitoring.

    U.S. weapons are the preferred choice of its allies, of course. Others with deep pockets, such as Arab nations, also buy these weapons.

    From 1945 onward the Russians have built weapons to counter the inventions of the United States and other countries. For example, the MIG-21 was to counter the U.S. F-4 Phantom, and the MIG –25 super fast jet fighter was to counter the U.S. XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber. The Valkyrie program was cancelled as soon as the MIG-25 flew at Mach 3 speed. Russian nuclear submarines were built to counter U.S. submarines – and the list goes on and on.

    Similarly, the Americans have been building weapons to counter every new Russian weapon. The current basic rifle of a U.S. soldier, the M-16, is a counter to the highly successful Russian Kalashnikov rifle. Russian-designed short- and intermediate-range missiles that have proliferated around the world have a counter in the U.S. Patriot missile and the planned missile defense system. Not to be left behind, the Russians have built a missile that can dodge the U.S. missile defense system, countering all the technology and money that have gone into that system.

    Today’s highly publicized U.S. F-22 Raptor fighter, touted as an air dominance fighter, is a counter to the successful Russian Su-30 fighter. The Raptor appears to be an expensive lemon. At US$150 million apiece, it requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. The Pentagon wishes to cancel further orders after purchasing about 200 of these.

    The point is that any sophisticated weapon built today will have a counter sooner or later. Hence the high expense of staying ahead is sometimes wasteful. Less sophisticated weapons like rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices and rifle bullets continue to be effective, as the Americans and their NATO partners are learning in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Less sophisticated weapons are cheaply available and can do the same job as highly sophisticated weapons. The difference is that the former kills everyone in its path while the latter kills with less collateral damage. But terrorists who carry less sophisticated weapons do not distinguish; they are prepared to kill everybody.

    India’s dilemma is whether to continue to buy weapons from Russia, or go for U.S. or European weapons. Why worry about expensive Western weapons when equally capable ones are available more cheaply and with fewer strings attached from Russia?

    As a result of their defense hardware export policies, the Russians have mishandled the captive market they had in India in the last few years. They have asked to renegotiate contracts signed as much as six years ago. The refitting of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov is a case in point.

    In this process the Russians have lost influence with the Indians. Also, some of the weapons they supplied in a hurry in 1999, such as R-77 missiles and artillery shells, have been found defective.

    Still, Russia’s role in supplying defense hardware to India for the past 50 years cannot be ignored. They played a crucial role in India’s wars in1965, 1971 and 1999, enabling India to keep the Pakistanis, with their sophisticated U.S. weapons, at bay.

    India has imported 70 percent of its weapons in the last 50 years, the bulk from Russia and the remainder from Britain, France and Israel. Only a few items – including weapons locating radar and a navy landing ship – have been U.S.-made.

    India has domestically produced only about one-third of the weapons used by its army, navy and air force. This is a pity for a US$1 trillion economy that boasts of its high-tech industry.

    Indian defense factories, called ordinance factories, turn out only very basic weapons. With a US$2-billion budget, India’s Defense Research and Development Organization cannot compete with the West and the Russians. Its development projects take too long; its management techniques are faulty and it concentrates on high-value, high publicity weapons like missiles, light combat aircraft and large tanks. These require high technology and take a generation to develop.

    The DRDO’s successes include the Agni and Prithvi missiles, the Brahmos missile, the Arjun tank, a nuclear submarine and successful missile interceptor tests.

    But India’s armed forces are not helping the development process; they expect successful weapons or nothing at all. Like any science, weapons development involves more misses then successes, and perfection comes slowly.

    Western development efforts have been ongoing for many years, and upgraded, improved models keep coming all the time. In developing its jet fighters over the last 40 years, the United States produced the F-94, F-100, F-104 and F-111 – all lemons that were quickly taken out of service. The list of other weapons that never even became operational is longer.

    Russian military hardware also has problems, as India can testify. The MIG-21, considered a major success by the Russians, is known as a widow-maker in India. The Russians blame this on poor maintenance and substandard parts used in the 1990s.

    As for Russia’s highly touted MIG-29, it is developing cracks after 10 years of service. The Russians can take heart in the knowledge that the U.S. Super Hornet, the F-18, is having similar problems. Russian hardware has quality problems, but pricey U.S. versions are not problem-free.

    Enter the Chinese into the arms race. They have copied everything the Russians have sold them over the years. But reverse-engineered goods are never as good as the originals; hence cheaper Chinese products masquerading as originals are a bad idea.

    There is a huge marketing and publicity effort under way in India to discredit Russian hardware, partly thanks to defense hardware salesmen with political connections. Also, the Indian military would like to diversify its procurement sources. It will prefer any deal that includes technology transfer.

    A case in point is the US$10 billion fighter jet contract for which the Russians, Americans, Swedes, French and a consortium of European nations are bidding. The one that offers the best product as well as technology transfer will win the deal. So far only the Russians are offering technology transfer, while the Americans and Europeans are offering jobs for Indians in local assembly only.

    Political considerations could affect the decision too. If the Americans keep postponing implementation of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the Russians might be the right choice for the fighter contract.

    In short, the Americans may have the best-looking hardware, but the Russians are ahead in price and ruggedness. Only if India is looking for highly sophisticated hardware with high-tech gadgetry are the Americans and Europeans the right choice.

    --

    India?s dilemma: U.S. or Russian weapons - upiasia.com
     
  2.  
  3. SATISH

    SATISH DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    216
    Well the author makes sense in a few parts... The Russian weapons are great no denial. But I would prefer the best of both worlds.
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,228
    Location:
    BANGalore
    First of all India has bought Rusdian weapons for the last 50 years out of compulsion not by choice. We were at the wrong end of US friendship. It's all different now. No one is denying us anything.

    Second, Russian weapons used to be cheap. Not anymore. They are extracting the price.
    Cost over runs, delayed deliveries have only compounded matters. They have also acted up on tech transfers (engine fir MKI, and T90). Gorshkov is the mother of all screw ups. If we look at current cooperation, it's only where there is Indian participation in development from the beginning is what we are interested in eg PakFa. Even the ships that are being built there are because India doesn't have enough capacity to build.

    Third, quality of Russian weapons have been suspect.

    Russia will have to seriously introspect on how it is doing business with India. Otherwise we will see a shift in indias purchase pattern. Already Israel is breathing down on it.
     
  5. StarScreen

    StarScreen Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that we should go only for the best weapons/platforms irrespective of their nation of origin. We have defence products from different countries like Russia, Israel, France, UK and now even US.

    I agree that Russia has been our loyal and time-tested friend, but since the last few years, they have screwed up some major projects like Admiral Gorshkov with cost overruns as India is getting ready to shell out almost $2 billion (Rs 9,680 crore) over and above what was initially a 'fixed price contract' of $974 million for Gorshkov's refit!
    Can you imagine spending $2 billion for a second hand carrier that we will probably not get even by 2012... :gunfight2:
     
  6. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    451
    While i reserve my doubts over Russia's friendship towards Indian under Putin.It might not be prudent to burn all our bridges over one isolated instance like the Gorshkov fiasco.

    We have to admit that we made a mistake contracting Russians for the Vikrant replacement.Russia,for all its vaunted success in the defense Industry,never the cut the ice when it came to surface warship building(compared to its western counterpart),much less a full fledged Aircraft carrier.It was a gamble for the Russians and us.apparently it hasn't paid off.

    The decision was a clear case of trust overriding ability.Russia simply did not have enough expertise to adhere to the delivery schedule on the previously agreed price agreement.
     
  7. ajay_ijn

    ajay_ijn Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    28
    besides performance of product or weapon there are other factors involved.

    the fact it was Russia who gave us assistance with nuclear submarines and also leases us nuclear submarines gives some diplomatic leverage.
    Russia is the only country in past, present and in future which can provide such assistance. Its a long time before India can deploy credible nuclear submarine force and untill then russia assistance would definitely help our programs.

    Also the fact that russia or Soviets had very good diplomatic relations with us, no matter when since independence. but with US- its not the same, its like once up and then down.

    once we induct weapon systems we have to use them for decades and consistent support from company is needed for spares etc. but are US-India relations so consistently good?

    spares supply, maintainence was also a huge problem with russians post soviet collapse. definitely they have to catch up in lot of areas with US as far as military technology is concerned.

    besides all this- there are these agreements India has to sign with US which are intrusive. they can check and verify their weapon systems anytime they want to.


    But we are forgetting other major players
    there are Israelis, british, french, swedish, german and italian.
     
  8. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,175
    Likes Received:
    6,606
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    but i prefer Russian weapons with Israeli & European systems on will be sucessfull,
    they come up with no strings attached , they can used for Offence or Defence, no Verifications weather we are reverse engg or enything.
    SA-2 = Akash,......
    but best example comes with MKI ing the Russian platforms, eg. Su-30MKI...
    Russian weapon lacks something which can be replaced by Israeli systems... for this things Russians never say no.
    but will the US allow to add any systems of French/ Israeli / may be Russian on board of F-18/16?
     
  9. StarScreen

    StarScreen Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I agree that Russian weapons platform integrated with Israeli and French systems have been successful e.g. Su-30MKI, but what about the logistical nightmare that the Indian Armed Forces might face in case of an eventuality?
    Moreover, I would like to point your attention towards the Indian Phalcon deal that was delayed because the Russian platform IL-76 could not be delivered in time to fit the Israeli Phalcon system. This has ultimately snowballed into escalating prices for India. Now if India had directly purchased the platform + AWACS system from Israel, we would have been in a better position today!

    But yes all said and done, I am sure we wouldn't get the kind of freedom in customizing the platform that we would receive from US.
     
  10. Jeypore

    Jeypore Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    3

    Excatly right SATA, Russians are not used to the western style of business yet, where lead time is the upmost importance. What I am worried about is the quality that will come out of this. Overall, for the additional money, Russians have add other features that India wanted.

    YouTube - India to pay more for Gorshkov
     
  11. venom

    venom DFI Technocrat

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    8
    The purchases should be made as per the requirement of weapons let it be from any country.....
     
  12. K Factor

    K Factor A Concerned Indian Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    139
    Our strategy should be like Israel's, Take everything and give nothing.

    Take the good stuff from the Russians, take the good stuff from the Americans, take the good stuff from the Europians and in the meanwhile keep developing our own infrastructure and R&D for the future, so that we can end this dependence moving forward.
     
  13. death.by.chocolate

    death.by.chocolate Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    67
    Au contraire, become more interdependent more intertwined and benefit from what your partners have to offer. It is unlikely that India will excel in all spheres attempting such will only cause you to expend your energies reinventing the wheel. Focus on gaps in western tech instead and thus becomes a valuable partner – a partner whose interests cannot be overlooked or undermined.
     
  14. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    Good suggestion, but alas, the Western alliance is held together like a wheel with the US being the hub and all others mere spokes.

    India wants to be a hub, not just another spoke.
     
  15. Sridhar

    Sridhar House keeper Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    A consummate Russian diplomat, Vyacheslav Trubnikov is returning home this week after having served as serving as Russia's [ Images ] ambassador to India for nearly five years. The period has seen several highs and lows in the bilateral relationship, including the building of the first civil nuclear power plants by Russia and nagging problems over defence spares and equipment. Edited excerpts from an interview with Jyoti Malhotra

    In your last incarnation as ambassador of Russia to India you spent about four years, but 17 years altogether in India.

    I first came here in 1966 as a graduate student writing a thesis on the Tashkent Declaration. I spent six months here and was amazed by the country -- it was my first trip abroad. I came back as a journalist in March 1971, working for Novosti press agency, and stayed for seven years. I witnessed many milestones in our history: The Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship, the disappearance of East Pakistan from the map of the world and the birth of Bangladesh. In December 1971, along with some other foreign journalists, I crossed the border with Indian troops. I was fortunate to also serve in Bangladesh as ambassador. Yes, I am chained to the sub-continent !
    Many Indians remember the time when the American aircraft-carrier USS Enterprise entered the Bay of Bengal when India and Pakistan were at war in 1971 and the Soviets sent a warning..
    Yes, and many in the international community also remembers our veto in the United Nations Security Council. India was assured, as an outcome of the Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union, that it will not be a subject to military pressure from a third country.
    So much has changed since then, especially in the Indo-Russian relationship…
    Yes, the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia is a new country. India has changed tremendously too, today's India is a country which claims for itself a proper place in the international community. In fact, the relationship has now become more balanced, more pragmatic and our dependence on each other has grown.
    What does that mean?
    In the 1960s, India still needed external support, especially in building its industrial foundation. Today's progress, for example in software, wouldn't be possible without the creation of an industrial basis, in metallurgy, machine-building, etc, where Soviet assistance was a major factor. Independent India did not have enough hard currency to pay for building its economic foundation, and you know the private sector abroad is usually never generous about giving credits. But the Soviet Union gave state credits. Today, the relationship is much more equal. For example, in the military-technical relationship, we are now in the very serious process of changing it from a seller-buyer one to one where there is joint design, joint production and even joint marketing.
    And an example of this would be?
    The BrahMos missile. Discussions to sell it are on with several countries which have long seashores in South America. In India too, the missile is being integrated into Indian ships as well as on land. Indian submarines are going to be equipped with it as well.
    But India is buying defence equipment from other countries, which means Russia's share comes down. Does this worry you?
    Yes, the market is becoming more and more competitive as India diversifies its sources of arms and ammunition. This is normal as India cannot be dependent on one source. Even earlier, Russian MIGs flew side by side with British Jaguars and French Mirages. But what is new is that along with the licence to produce the equipment, India wants technology to be transferred as well. For example, in the deal to buy 126 fighter jets that is now on the table, Russia's Mig 35 aircraft is competing. But alongside the licence to produce a certain number of Mig-35s in India, we have also offered to transfer technology. By and large, other countries don't transfer technology, but as a result of our offer other countries who now want to be competitive will have to follow suit. Moreover, offsets are a very significant part of this deal, about 50 per cent (although for deals above $600 million, it is usually 30 per cent). This is not a very easy thing to do, but if India wants, the offsets could also be in the transfer of dual-use technology
    Do you think this 126 fighter jet deal, worth abut $12 billion, is also a political deal?
    Every military-technical deal has undercurrents painted in political shades. The most important point is, however, that the supplier should be 100 per cent reliable. India has had several opportunities to try the reliability of its partners. I believe Russia's cooperation has been the most reliable.
    Then why is there so much bitterness, for example, in the purchase of the aircraft carrier, Admiral Gorshkov; even Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has admitted that…
    Yes, I accept there has been some bitterness on both sides. But at the same time both sides want to come to consensus because we understand that the Gorshkov or INS Vikramaditya is absolutely essential for India. We could have taken it back to our own Navy and returned the money to India, but we did not do it. I am absolutely sure that some people in our Navy want it back, but we understand that this is the flagship of India's eastern fleet. We are responsible enough to understand that India must get this aircraft carrier. India understands this too. The question is tha of price and timing of delivery.
    So what happened over the years?
    The discussions between the two sides started when 'Gorshkov' was only a boat, without any equipment. You have to realise that the final price (of the aircraft-carrier) and the time of its completion, ultimately depend on the character and quality of the order placed by the buyer, which includes the refit, the equipment on board and its necessary upgrades. And usually the appetite changes as you eat.
    Are you saying the Indian side kept changing its order?
    Not changing, but the Indian Navy was eager to get the best, the most modern equipment.
    So the Navy's appetite kept increasing, they wanted more and more..
    Yes.
    ... But this constant back and forth, officials traveling up and down and the long delays?
    The major reason is that the contract was signed when the Russian side, the plant Sevmash, badly needed money and wanted to sign the contract, while the Indian side wanted to buy an absolutely modern aircraft carrier at lower than the cheapest price. After the contract was signed (in 2004), both sides began to understand exactly the enormity of the task they had undertaken to do. But the realisation came a little late.
    The Indians complain that the Russians are constantly changing the price.
    Yes, we are changing the price, but if the value of the dollar changes, should we stick to the same figure? If the price is in our favour, do you think the Indian side would pay more? I don't think so. It is a serious commercial discussion.
    Reports are that it will cost around $2.2 billion?
    It would be irresponsible of me to comment. Price negotiations are now entering the final stage. What is important for India is also the time of delivery. But the point is that if India wants additional equipment, the carrier will cost even more. So if both sides stop and decide, okay no request from India and no increase in price from our side, then we can finalise price and delivery.
    What do you make of the US Navy which wants to work with the Indian Navy to keep the sea lanes open, from the Straits of Malacca to the Gulf of Hormuz? India's Russian-built aircraft carrier will help in doing this?
    We are not adverse to this, we are ourselves prepared to discuss with NATO joint patrolling of sea lanes to combat against piracy. In this globalised world there are so many challenges which cannot be dealt with individual states no matter how mighty wealthy or influential they are. Everybody has to work together.
    What about the problem of defence spares? This has been going on for nearly two decades since the break-up of the Soviet Union in end-1991?
    Now this problem has almost been solved, but you have to understand why it happened in the first place. You see, when it was the Soviet Union, and India placed an order, the plant in question got an order from above and they produced whatever was ordered. The plant got everything it wanted from the Centre — money, etc. It was not their business to think about who the buyer was, what was the price, etc. But in the new market economy, things have changed totally. Now the question is, why should a plant that was producing a certain model of aircraft keep producing the spares of this aircraft when that aircraft has become outdated? Now the plant has begun producing something else and suddenly, the Indian side decides, oh we need so-and-so spares! So the Indian side writes to Rosoberonexport (Russia's arms export agency), which writes to the plant in question, which writes back asking for guarantees that a certain number of spares will be bought. This was the major difficulty that accompanied our switching from a centralised economy after the break-up of the Soviet Union, to a market economy. In the new economy, if there is no demand, there is no supply. And when the plant doesn't have enough money to produce the (defence) spares, they stop production.
    But there has to be a plan or a long-term strategy that will help both sides.
    Yes, now we have a long-term plan, because both of us finally understood what is going on.
    It took nearly 20 years to understand?
    Well, there's something else too. You see, India is a very different country. Most countries in the world, when something gets outdated, they throw it away and order new equipment. But in India, the defence policy-makers prefer to upgrade and modernize what is still possible to use. For example, you could change the engine of an aircraft, but keep its body, which is still good. But the point is, as things changed in Russia, we stopped producing both the engine and the body of the aircraft altogether. So now what to do? We are not going to produce a handful of engines only for India, so as to satisfy an Indian demand for the next three months only? For example, the IAF is still flying the Mig-23 Bis aircraft, but we forgot about this model a long time ago ! We don't even remember whether it exists or not ! But the Indians are still thinking in terms of flying this plane !
    Having said that, in the last few years, India's relationship with the US has become much stronger, possibly at the expense of Russia?
    I don't think so. Not only have relations changed between India and Russia, but India's relations with many other countries have changed in many ways. For eg, I believe it is the US which has changed its direction of cooperation with countries in Asia. I think it is the US which is tilting towards India, not the other way round ! But it is true that the Americans had a comfortable period of ten or more years to improve relations with India, (after the break-up of the Soviet Union) when Russia was busy in its internal transformation, and the US worked much harder (than us) in improving relations.
    So Russia lost out, in a sense?
    In the course of our internal transformation, it is true India did not play as big a role for Russia as it did for the Soviet Union. We had to change a lot of our priorities. We changed our ideology, we changed our economic patterns — from a centralised economy to market economy — we changed our psychology which is a very painful process. We were very busy with this for several years, as we were busy with mending fences with the West, as we wanted to prove that we were not a threat to the West. So the bulk of our attention and efforts was directed towards the West, I don't think India should be jealous about this ! Now that relations between India and the West are much better, we are prepared to participate in honest competition. India is winning new friends, but I don't think it is at the expense of old and tested friends. I think the Indian leadership is very aware of its national interest.
    Do you think the competition may not be honest?
    Yes, it may not be honest. Perhaps in a market economy it is the rule to paint your opponents black, to engage in character assassination, but we don't want to participate in this kind of competition.
    So you agree the priorities of both countries have been different in recent years?
    I would say, independent of the way Russia was changing internally, it was only Russia which began to construct nuclear power plants in India, when India was under sanctions from all over the world, at the initiative of the US. I think the Indian side appreciates what Russia did, rather highly. Not only this, we supplied fuel for Tarapur (nuclear power plant) for which we don't have any connection. But we did it for the safety of the power plant and because India needed it.

    continued ...
     
  16. Sridhar

    Sridhar House keeper Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    So why is Russia now party to a G-8 statement which will deny sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries like India which have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
    I think sometimes you don't pay attention to your own leadership. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee [ Images ] has explained everything perfectly. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, as it lifted sanctions against India last year, declared openly and loudly that it was making an exception only for India. The G-8 declared its own attitude only recently, and we are of course part and parcel of the G-8. But India is excluded from this. On the basis of the NSG exemption last year, we have an agreement with India…
    We don't have the agreement yet…
    We do have an agreement. We may not have a contract yet, but the over-arching agreement was signed when President Medvedev came in December 2008. We have an agreement to cooperate in full with India. France [ Images ] was the first and we were the second to sign this agreement.
    And this includes ENR technologies?
    Definitely.
    But isn't this contradictory?
    No, this is our usual policy, which is why we are with the G-8. But the point is that India is excluded by the decision of the NSG and also by its agreement with the IAEA.
    So India need not fear from the G-8?
    Of course not.
    But you heard what the Americans have said…
    With the Americans it is far more complicated. Unlike the French and Russians, the US administration can say one thing, and the US Congress can say another. Independent of what Madame Hillary Clinton [ Images ] said in India (that full nuclear cooperation would take place), a lot of things will depend on what the US Congress decides.
    ... irrespective of what the Americans decide?
    We have our own approach to this matter…
    And you will go ahead with full cooperation in nuclear issues?
    We will definitely go ahead.
    So Russia is building two reactors in Kudankulam at the moment and how many more?
    Two right now, another four will be built here, and another couple of sites are likely to be offered by India. You know the local population at Kudankulam did not at first want the nuclear plant, there were several demonstrations by the fishermen, but now they are persuaded. They have jobs, they know the reactors are totally safe. The new reactors also will be likely near the sea-shore, because you need a lot of water.
    India is committing to buy 10,000 MW from the French, the Americans and the Russians…does this sound like a 'khichri'?
    Not at all, I feel diversification is in India's interest. But India should be cautious choosing its partners and take into consideration, reliability. If something happens suddenly and this particular partner stops its work and freezes construction, then other problems will follow. There are so many examples (of this occurring), in Iran for example, we are assisting with the Bushehr reactor, but it was not the Soviet Union began to build the reactor…but we decided to take over the contract.
    I would like to ask you about the business relationship, trade is really low…
    Yes, it is really low. One reason is a result of our changing economic system and another is, the changing priorities of both countries. The most important point here is that we cannot limit ourselves to buying tea, textiles, coffee and tobacco from India. If we do, we will stick to today's meagre trade figures. So we have to transform the relationship into a high-tech relationship, where we look at energy and software, for example.
    Why is the relationship so bad?
    Because the businessmen on both sides don't know each other. In both countries there are very serious impediments, red tape and the bureaucracy. The process to get a licence in India is awful…you see, business like electricity, will go where it is easier to go, and will not wait for a visa. Mr Mordashov, the owner of Severstal, one of our biggest figures in the steel industry, he fought Mr Lakshmi Mittal [ Images ] for Arcelor, came to India a couple of years back to participate in the metallurgical congress. I told him, why don't you invest in India, there is such good iron ore and you can get a stake in a special economic zone…He told me that he had heard that it would take two years to get a licence and that he cannot afford to wait for so long.
    This is true for Russia as well?
    Yes this is true for Russia too.
    You have a Joint Business Council, but even that has not been able to do much?
    Yes, it is headed by Mukesh Ambani [ Images ], head of Reliance Industries [ Get Quote ] from the Indian side, and Mr Yevtushenko from the Russian side. It was created when President Dmitry Medvedev visited last December.
    They have met only once.
    Yes, but they are expected to meet again this year. But the business relationship is not only about two men… When I came to India five years ago, trade was only $1.7 billion, but last year it grew to nearly $7 billion. The upswing is there. Of course, the global financial meltdown has affected the relationship. We have now decided to consolidate the rupee debt and invest it in India or third countries. But a lot of apprehensions remain on the Indian side. You still talk about the influence of the Russian mafia, but you know that other countries are not afraid. German companies, for example, they are doing so well in Russia. But some people here in India are so attentive to what the newspapers say that they prefer not to look at the reality on the ground.
    So why has the visa agreement which will promote business between the two countries not been signed?
    Because the Indian side is not inclined to an agreement which was firmed up 2-3 years back, which includes 5-year visas for Indian businessmen, which includes a clause for "readmission" of illegal migrants who use Russia as a transit country to go to Europe. What we want is that illegal migrants, if they are caught in Russia or sent back by the European Union into Russia (from where they enter EU countries) should be taken back or re-admitted, by India. But India says it doesn't have such agreements with other countries with such clauses. That's fine, but we can't facilitate easier procedures for India because we have our own agreement with the EU which has India on a list of 14 countries, with high illegal emigration. Russia must abide by its commitments to the EU because it is supposed to be a major transit country for these illegal migrants.
    So what are the problems on the economic side?
    Like I said, we have to get to know each other better, including at the decision-making level. In Russia, people think, India is a country which needs help. Some of your people think, Russia is the same as the Soviet Union, Russia is going to assist us. Some other Indians say, Russia is not the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was a huge superpower and Russia is nothing compared to the Soviet Union, it is just another country with a very weak economy, etc. A third set of Indians try to assess Russia objectively, but to do this it is essential to know Russia today.
    You think not enough Indians know Russia?
    Of course! And not enough Russians know today's India. We are both developing so rapidly that we cannot imagine even the extent of this change.
    So we take each other for granted?
    Yes! And this is very bad. We must take each other as strategic partners and try and find out what is important to each of us in the coming years. Our strategic partnership is based on very serious parameters, such as energy. India is a huge consumer of energy, Russia is a supplier. We are natural allies in this. Then, in our military-technical relationship, a high percentage of Indian arms equipment still has a high Russian content. I watched the launch of India's first nuclear submarine at Vishakapatnam on July 26, and do you know about the design of this submarine? It is the Akula (the Russian submarine).
    So where was the Indian submarine designed and built?
    Here in India !
    Ambassador, you spoke of the changing relationship with India, but it also seems that Russia's relationship with Pakistan is also changing rapidly. The Pakistan army [ Images ] chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani was in Moscow [ Images ] recently…
    Just because someone, even if he has a high stature, visits another country, doesn't make the visit substantial. The most important factor in the improvement of Russia's relations with Pakistan is internal stability, which is not there. That's why I cannot say we are developing active relations with Pakistan. Of course we don't want Pakistan to be excluded from the international community, we want it to participate in globalisation and other processes, but I cannot say that there is something remarkable about our relationship with Pakistan.
    Your country knows Afghanistan well. Do you feel that Pakistan is still involved with the Afghan Taliban [ Images ]?
    Under military rule (in Pakistan), we knew that the ISI was a state within a state. But even today, it seems to me, that the ISI is playing its own game, because it continues to keep very close ties with the Taliban.
    So Russia's decision to allow American planes carrying lethal arms to overfly Russian territory, to Afghanistan for the first time since 9/11, is significant?
    NATO countries have been doing this for some time. Yes, this is the first time that the Americans have been allowed. But I cannot say that the Russian-US joint cooperation in Afghanistan is a unique feature because Afghanistan is a problem that affects the whole world. In fact, the problem of drugs is much, much greater for us than it is for the US. The Americans, I believe, have a higher tolerance of the drug problem because it doesn't affect them directly. But it affects Afghanistan's neighbours, including Iran. The Iranians fight like hell with narco-couriers on the border. The same with Tajikistan and other Central Asian republics. And because Russia is their neighbour, we are affected enormously by this menace, by this evil of the 21st century. But I believe we can effectively deal with this menace only when the international community is united, because drug dealers are always a step ahead, they are very inventive with taking the drug to new places. And over the last decades we have seen in front of our eyes how a transit country, like Russia, has become a consumer nation.

    'More upgrades will hike the Gorshkov's price': Rediff.com news
     
  17. Ratus Ratus

    Ratus Ratus Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    interesting interview. Confirmed some opinions on many subjects I have held.
     
  18. ajay_ijn

    ajay_ijn Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    28
    with the access of ENR technologies.
    can't India use the same technology to build reprocessing plants which are not safeguarded and use it to extract spent fuel from PHWRs to produce weapon-grade plutonium.

    India can't do that in safeguard facilities but they can't stop Indian scientists from studying the technology and rebuilding similar equipment elsewhere?

    already India plans to process lots n lots of plutonium for breeder reactors and is building large scale reprocessing plants.
     
  19. Kabuli

    Kabuli Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    That seems the best choice. Take the best from both worlds while investing in R&D.
     
  20. mig-29

    mig-29 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    And of course more private companies should be allowed to participate in mega defense deals , with more exposure they will gain enough experience to produce world class products.
     
  21. Tamil

    Tamil Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    9
    Friends in time and beyound it

    very good interview by the Russian ambassador against India

    :india::russia:
     

Share This Page