Russia-India ties face many odds

The year 2021 may prove to be an important milestone in the evolution of strategic relations between Russia and India. On December 06, 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew into New Delhi on a one day state visit. 

The one-on-one meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which lasted three and a half hours, was aimed at restoring confidence between the two powers as time-proven and trusted strategic partners.

For Putin, the trip to India was only his second overseas visit since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic (the other was the first meeting with his US counterpart Joe Biden in Geneva). That fact alone signifies the importance of India to the Kremlin and the desire to keep relations close. But Putin’s brief visit to New Delhi was just part of broader high-level bilateral talks, which included an impressive entourage representing both countries.

The last time Putin and Modi met was in 2019 during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. After that, the two leaders avoided their interactions. The reason, they claimed, was the Covid-19 outbreak.

The relationship had been cooling long before Covid-19 struck. New Delhi felt that Moscow was taking advantage of India, playing upon its fears of China. The case of India’s purchase of a modified Russian cruiser turned aircraft carrier is one example. It led India’s comptroller and auditor-general to lament that India had paid 60% more for a second-hand aircraft carrier than a new one would have cost. Admiral Arun Prakash, a former chief of the Indian naval staff, was equally scathing in his evaluation of the Russian MiG-29K aircraft that were to be used on the aircraft carrier.

Russia, for its part, was unhappy with India’s growing ties with the United States. Between 2007 and 2020, India spent more than US$17 billion on military purchases from the US. Russia was particularly unhappy that India had entered into four ‘foundational’ security agreements with the US that cover the transfer of military information, logistics exchanges, compatibility and security.

At the same time, Russia’s relationship with China was growing through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which was established to ensure the security of the Soviet Union’s successor states. Russia and China, seeing the US as a common antagonist, collaborated on technology transfers, Russia’s sale of energy products to China, and increased trade and tourism. They also engaged in joint military exercises and naval and air patrols.

That said, there remains the suspicion that Moscow is ‘passively facilitating’ New Delhi’s role in the Quad in order to restore equality in its strategic relations with Beijing. That could help revive, in turn, its stalled ‘new détente’ with the West.

India is suspicious of Russia’s developing relationship with Pakistan. New Delhi worries that Moscow is hyphenating its relationships with its two neighbouring enemies. That suspicion grew when Russia didn’t invite India to a meeting it convened with China, Pakistan and the US on the Afghanistan situation, a move that was seen as a deliberate snub in New Delhi.

India needs the potential security that Russia can provide. Little wonder, then, that it was prepared to purchase the S-400 air-defence system from Russia despite US pressure not to, and to offer an invitation to Putin to visit India, which he accepted.

The two countries launched ‘2+2’ ministerial consultations involving their foreign and defence ministers, making Russia the fourth partner with which India has the same format (the other three Quad members are Australia, Japan and the US).

They also signed another 10-year agreement on joint military–technical cooperation until 2031 and agreed to expand and deepen bilateral defence cooperation. Adding to that, Russia has reaffirmed its position as one of the principal providers of advanced military technology to the Indian military. Since 1991, India has acquired a comprehensive suite of weapons and platforms for all its fighting services worth some US$70 billion. The current value of India’s defence contracts with Russia is approximately US$15 billion.

Perhaps one of the most important outcomes for Russia was India’s reassurance that it is not siding with US strategic plans to form a regional political–military containment bloc. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the Indians ‘distanced themselves from the AUKUS bloc’. He said, ‘They are part of the Quad group, which brings together India, Japan, Australia and the US, and India … emphasises its interest in economic infrastructure and transport projects within this framework.’

Clearly, the talks didn’t eradicate all contentious points in the relationship. India is likely to remain concerned about Russia’s ties to China, Pakistan and the Taliban. Despite ambitious goals, the bilateral economic relationship won’t reach the levels of the ones that India enjoys with the US and China.

Even in the defence cooperation sphere, which is at the core of Russia–India strategic ties, some issues persist. For example, the two countries failed to finalize the reciprocal logistics support agreement, which was supposed to become an important stepping stone in closer military-to-military interaction.

The meetings in New Delhi came less than a week after the visit to Moscow of the president of Vietnam, a country with which Russia developed a comprehensive strategic partnership a decade ago. Both events highlight Russia’s more flexible approach towards its strategic engagement in the Indo-Pacific, despite the centrality of China in Russia’s Asia policy.

Putin’s meeting with Modi took place a day before the Russian president had his second major interaction with Biden, and just days before the US-led Summit for Democracy, to which Moscow was not invited. For Putin, it was important to show Washington and Brussels that Russia has a network of strategic partners it can call upon.

Recognizing that and Russia’s importance to India, New Delhi has tried to show Moscow that it’s not drifting away from the relationship. New Delhi recognizes that Moscow can’t fully trust Beijing, which makes the Indo-Russian relationship all the more important. India’s purchase of the S-400 missile system despite US pressure was meant to send exactly that message. The launch of the 2+2 ministerial consultations is likely to ease Russia’s concerns that New Delhi has been gradually drifting towards the US geopolitical orbit, confirming that India is ‘not in anyone’s camp’.

Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul freight train service

The Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul (ITI) railway project, or ECO freight train, was inaugurated with the first freight train moving on Tuesday during a ceremony attended by Iranian and Pakistani officials.

Pakistani Minister for Railways Azam Khan Swati, along with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and Adviser to the Prime Minister on Commerce Abdul Razak Dawood inaugurated the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul freight train at Margalla railway station, in Islamabad.

Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini, as well as the ambassadors of Turkey, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan to Pakistan, in addition to the representative of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) were also present at the ceremony.

Addressing the ceremony, the Pakistani minister for railways said, "Launching of the container train from Pakistan to Iran and Turkey was a long-standing dream of the countries of the region, which has come true again”.

Terming the ITI freight train an important milestone in Pakistan’s history, the minister said that business-to-business contact among the business community would further enhance through this train. He said the service would further strengthen relations between the three countries.

Also, Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi appreciated the resumption of ITI freight train and said the service would play an important role in regional connectivity and promoting economic activity in the region.

Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Commerce Abdul Razak Dawood, for his part, said that ECO train as one of the most effective vehicles can help in expanding exports, imports and trade between member countries.

The length of the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul railway is 6,500 km, of which 2,570 km is in Iran, 2,000 km in Turkey and about 1,900 km in Pakistan, which takes less than half the shipping time and will also be safer and more economical as compared to road.

ITI freight train will be operated regularly on Tuesday of every week. The freight train had nine wagons initially, said a senior railway official.

As per present arrangement to start the train and the schedule agreed jointly by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, the running time between Drence-Kapikoy (Istanbul) and Zahedan-Tabraiz (Iran) will be 90 hours each. From Zahedan to Islamabad, the train would take 135.5 hours.

 

Is two state solution the only option for peace in Middle East?

Lately, former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, wrote about how the two-state solution is problematic when you have the Palestinians refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state. He’s not wrong, but he’s also not providing realistic solutions for what that means.

It is becoming evident that there is no alternative to the two-state solution unless you either support an apartheid state, or don’t care about having a Jewish majority state. The only option for the survival of a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is a two-state solution where compromises will have to be made for peace.

Both Israelis and Palestinians are refusing to accept reality when it comes to a long-term solution, and in doing so, they have made it even more complicated and unpleasant to find a lasting agreement that respects the rights to self-determination of both peoples.

Palestinian rejectionism is the core reason for the lack of peace and a long-term solution. It is absolutely true that Palestinians have refused every opportunity for peace, and that public opinion is very much against a compromise that allows the state of Israel to exist side by side in peace with the Palestinians.

Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are cursed at and criticized as ‘collaborators’ with Israel. That being said, it also doesn’t really matter that it is unpopular because there is no alternative.

Palestinians who refuse to accept that the state of Israel is not going anywhere are perpetuating a fantasy that prevents them from moving forward in a healthy and prosperous society, and this will continue as long as public opinion pushes this narrative in schools, television, newspapers, and government.

Perhaps more problematic for the Palestinians than for the Israelis, the longer they wait to actually negotiate in good faith, the less they have to bargain with – a fact even Mahmoud Abbas agreed with when he stated in an interview that the Palestinians were wrong to reject the UN Partition Plan.

On the Israeli side, those who approach the conflict with a zero-compromise attitude about settlements are refusing to acknowledge the reality that Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. The idea that Palestinians should just up and leave to Jordan or any other Arab state is as offensive as it is unrealistic.

Regardless that the land historically belongs to the Jews, and that it is unquestionably part of historical Israel, none of that means that Jews must demand and settle all of it now.

While the Left exaggerates the role of settlements in the conflict, it is important to note that while new settlements (not settlement blocs) are not the obstacle to peace, they are an obstacle.

Palestinians refuse to acknowledge the State of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish (and democratic) state, but using that as an excuse to further develop settlements, or push policies that will make an eventual division more difficult, is paving the path toward conflict and bloodshed on both sides.

Furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the unimaginable damage that annexation (with or without full civil rights to Palestinians) would cause the state of Israel is irresponsible, no matter how far away or unpopular the two-state solution is today.

Opponents of my arguments would rightly point out that when Israel did give up land for peace all it got in return was violence, like in Gaza. Even more relevant, one could argue that if withdrawing to 1967 lines was the key to peace, why was there violence before 1967?

I am not claiming that a two-state solution will bring a warm peace between two peoples. There will still be conflict, likely for a very long time. But the status quo hasn’t brought peace either. Israel has had wave after wave of violence and terrorism, with or without occupation, and by continuing to push policies that make the two-state solution harder to achieve, we are laying the groundwork for worse conflict in the future. Israel can invest in resources that will protect the Jewish and democratic state with less territory instead of taking action to worsen the conflict down the road.

At a certain point, it doesn’t matter who is right or whose fault it was, it matters what can be done about it. Obsessing over Palestinians embracing terrorism and rejecting Israel’s right to exist isn’t going to bring us as Israelis any closer to peace.

The reality is that for Israel and the Palestinians, it is going to take a leader who is willing to commit political suicide to implement a two-state solution, and it is not going to be an easy path. It is, however, going to be even worse if both sides continue in the direction they have been for the past few decades.

No matter how unpopular is the two-state solution, it is still the only chance Israel has for remaining both democratic and Jewish. Israel cannot control what the Palestinians think or that they do not recognize Israel’s legitimacy, but it can take responsibility for its own future and pursue two states. Ultimately, Israel must decide what it wants.

Increases in shipping rates and consumer prices in Asia

According to an IMF Report, as the world economy recovers from the pandemic, inflation is mounting in advance and emerging economies. Pent-up demand fueled by stimulus and pandemic disruptions is helping accelerate inflation, spread around the world through global factors like higher food and energy prices, and soaring shipping costs.

It is believed that Asia’s inflation has been more moderate as compared to other regions, affording central banks room to keep interest rates low and support economic recovery. However, Asia’s tepid price gains may see greater momentum in year 2022. The outlook remains uncertain, and central banks should be ready to tighten policy if inflation pressures and expectations mount.

Several factors explain Asia’s lower inflation. Among Asia’s emerging economies, a delayed recovery has kept core inflation—which strips out volatile food and energy costs—running at half the rate of peers in other regions. The cost of food—which makes up about one third of the consumer price index baskets—grew 1.6% over the past year as against 9.1% in other regions.

This reflects unique factors such as a solid harvest in India, a hog population rebound from a recent swine flu epidemic in China, and contained increases in rice prices. By contrast, lower inflation in Asia’s advanced economies reflects a different set of factors. The region has enjoyed more muted energy inflation than Europe and the United States.

Some Asian countries managed the pandemic in a way that avoided major supply disruptions and the associated pressure on prices. Korea embraced comprehensive contact tracing and testing, for example, while Australia and China contained infections with border closures and localized lockdowns.

Broad inflationary pressures will eventually moderate globally, as supply-demand mismatches ease and stimulus recedes. But in 2022, as the recovery strengthens, the persistent impact of high shipping costs could put an end to the benign inflation Asia has enjoyed in 2021.

One benchmark measure of global shipping costs, the Baltic Dry Index, tripled this year through October. IMF analysis shows such large increases in shipping costs boost inflation for 12 months, which could add about 1.5% points to the pace of Asia’s inflation in the second half of 2022.

Israel expresses readiness to attack Iranian nuclear assets

Israel could successfully strike Iran's nuclear program tomorrow if necessary, said incoming Commander of the Israel Air Force (IAF) Maj-Gen Tomer Bar in a recent interview. 

Bar, who currently commands the Force Design Directorate, will take command of the Air Force in April and could be the officer who will need to command a strike against Iran's nuclear program should ongoing talks in Vienna between Tehran and world powers fail.

"I have to assume it will happen in my time, and my shoulders already understand the weight of the responsibility," Bar told.

When asked if he thinks Israel can successfully destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, Bar stressed that "there is no way that we will operate there, one thousand kilometers from here, and I will return home without being able to say 'I completed the mission.'"

Despite reports about the lack of a budget hindering the IDF's preparations for a possible strike on Iran, the incoming IAF commander said that the situation is "not black and white."

"From the moment I sat here at the head of the Force Design Directorate, and the chief of staff spoke with me, the mission of the 'third circle' (Iran) was there," Bar said.

"We are not starting from zero. We equipped ourselves with F-35s, [do they] not know how to get to the third circle? We procured thousands of Iron Dome interceptors for multi-layer defense."

Concerning the reported US refusal to advance the delivery of two KC-46 tanker refueling aircraft to Israel, Bar said that he was at the meeting when the request was made and that the IDF is currently examining the reason for the refusal.

"The US is more than an acquaintance, and they have a desire to form deep and real cooperation. I do not know the reason for the refusal, but I have not yet exhausted the possibility of getting at least two refuelers in advance."

On the northern front with Lebanon, Bar said he believes that the next war with Hezbollah will break out as soon as Israel strikes Iran.

"I have to assume that he -Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah - will automatically be all in. 30 years he has waited for this order and there is no way that he will not be there and with the highest intensity," Bar said. "We have to be prepared for this."

The outgoing Force Design Directorate head stressed that the Third Lebanon War "cannot be compared" to the first two wars with Lebanon. "This is not raising the volume on the same radio.

The familiarity with Hezbollah, the number of targets, the strength built over the years in matters of intelligence and attack capability, electronic warfare, cyber" make it a whole different scenario. "I can stand by my word."

Bar added that the next war with Lebanon will definitely involve a ground operation, saying that combined with the effectiveness of the IAF "is something else entirely."

"Even Hezbollah... does not know how to imagine our power," he said. "Maybe they will try to bring in Special Forces or shoot at the home front, but we are no longer on this scale. We want a clear victory this time, in a shorter time and with fewer losses."

Meanwhile, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan landed in Israel on Tuesday to hold detailed discussions with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Iran's nuclear program.

The US and Israeli officials will talk about how they see the coming weeks unfolding with Iran during the discussions, a senior Biden administration official told Reuters.

"We will talk about where we see the state of Iran's nuclear program and some of the timelines," the official said. "It will be a good opportunity to sit down face-to-face and talk about the state of the talks and the time frame in which we are working, and to re-emphasize that we don't have much time."

 

Is United States seeking Israel approval for Iran nuclear talks?

A senior official in the administration of the US President Joe Biden disclosed that National Security adviser Jake Sullivan will visit Israel this week for detailed discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on the Vienna talks regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Sullivan will be joined by the National Security Council's Middle East director Brett McGurk among other US officials. They will also meet with Palestinian President Mohammed Abbas in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah to discuss strengthening relations with the Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority ceased contact with the previous US administration saying it was no longer a fair broker in the so-called peace process. Observers have very little hope Biden can achieve anything to bring peace to the conflict. They say the visit to Ramallah is just a stunt.

Experts say the trip is more than likely to be dominated by the Vienna talks where Iran and the P4+1 group of parties are engaged in talks on a possible return to the original format of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015.

Negotiators are reporting slow progress at the talks in Vienna which are aimed at lifting the illegal US sanctions imposed on Iran after the former administration of President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the UN backed agreement.

The Biden administration official speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the US and Israeli officials will talk about how they see the coming weeks unfolding with Iran.

"We will talk about where we see Iran's nuclear program and some of the timelines," the official said. "It will be a good opportunity to sit down face-to-face and talk about the state of the talks, the timeframe in which we are working, and to re-emphasize that we don't have much time."

Many analysts have said that the back and forth flights between Washington and Tel Aviv during the Vienna talks on Iran show the Israeli regime is taking the lead role in America’s position to the Iran Nuclear Deal and Biden is anything but the Commander in Chief here, let alone serving America’s interests.

Afghanistan needs a sustainable government

Pakistan has just played host to the biggest international gathering on Afghanistan in which Iran actively participated and submitted a number of proposals to address the dire situation in neighboring Afghanistan.

On Sunday, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held an extraordinary session on Afghanistan at the request of Saudi Arabia. The meeting of the OIC council of foreign ministers was held in Islamabad, Pakistan with the participation of Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian. 

The session was the latest effort by Pakistan to put the limelight on the dire situation of Afghanistan amid growing international apathy toward the war-torn country. Since the rise of the Taliban a few months ago, Afghanistan has turned into a pariah state with no legitimate and internationally recognized government.

In August, the Taliban overthrew the US-backed government in Kabul and assumed power. But it is yet to be recognized by any country. Since then, some of Afghanistan’s neighbors, including Iran, have tried to help the Afghan people while encouraging the Taliban into forming a broad-based government representing all Afghan ethnoreligious groups. The Taliban has announced a caretaker government that raised alarm bells across the globe for excluding women and ethnic groups. 

The Taliban’s acting foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, was in attendance at the OIC meeting but he was excluded from the family photo of the 17th Extraordinary Session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers given the fact that none of the OIC member states has recognized the Taliban-led government. 

With the Taliban government continuing to be unrecognized, the international community has faced difficulty providing humanitarian aid to the Afghan people who are grappling with economic hardships during a frosty winter. 

Iran and some other countries have sent many planeloads of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. But some countries are concerned about and unwilling to directly provide aid to Kabul. This was addressed during the OIC meeting which pledged to set up a humanitarian trust fund for Afghanistan.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi also pointed to this issue. He said many want to make donations, but they don't want to donate directly, they want a certain mechanism that will comfort them.

Commenting on the OIC-proposed mechanism, Qureshi said that the mechanism has been established, and donations will be made. 

Prime Minister Imran Khan also highlighted the dire situation in Afghanistan. “Unless action is taken immediately, Afghanistan is heading for chaos,” he said, adding, “Any government when it can’t pay its salaries for its public servants, hospitals, doctors, nurses, any government is going to collapse but chaos suits no one, it certainly does not suit the United States.”

Pakistan seems to believe that the non-recognition of the Taliban’s government would further exacerbate the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. But the Taliban also failed to meet the requirements of the international community in regard to the formation of an inclusive government. 

Iran sought to help the Taliban in this regard by presenting a four-point proposal that seems to be devised to pave the way for recognition of the Taliban by the international community. 

In his speech at the OIC meeting, Amir Abdollahian unveiled Iran’s proposal that he said was made in support of the people of Afghanistan.

“First, Muslim states should encourage the ruling establishment in Afghanistan and all parties to form an inclusive government. Second, the people of Afghanistan are in dire need of urgent humanitarian assistance. The formation of a financial fund among the Muslim states seems necessary to realize this objective,” Amir Abdollahian said. 

He added, “Third, it is also necessary to release Afghanistan’s assets. Fourth, undoubtedly, the UN member states and its Secretary General can play a leading role in contributing to the formation of an inclusive government and assisting the people of Afghanistan and prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe.”

The Iranian foreign minister also expressed hope that an inclusive government will soon be formed in Afghanistan with the participation of all Afghan ethnic groups so that its representative will be able to attend the next OIC conference and Afghanistan’s seat won’t be vacant.  

Amir Abdollahian reiterated Iran’s position during a meeting with Imran Khan. He pointed out that the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to cooperate with Afghanistan's neighbors, regional countries and the UN to facilitate the establishment of a broad-based government in Afghanistan by Afghans themselves. Amir Abdollahian also spoke of bilateral issues between Iran and Pakistan, especially the issue of border cooperation.