While Pakistan has skilfully steered a friendly course between all the key antagonists*, India has on the other hand nailed their colours to the mast of the Zionists, the US, and now the UAE - making their potential as a mediator untenable.
I would therefore interpret Lavrov's comment as a casual diplomatic aside, made for no better reason than it was in a BRICS forum, and India happens to be the current BRICS chair.
I truly don't believe that it was for diplomatic sake that he shared this proposal since it was totally unprompted and the he elaborated on it after a brief digression by suggesting that it become the long-term mediator between Iran and the Gulf Kingdoms.
You're welcome to feel however you'd like about India, but the fact is that Russia doesn't share your and other Alt-Media members' beliefs that India's ties with Israel, the US, and the UAE are bad, let alone that they make it untrustworthy.
After all, if it really had even a semblance of such concerns, then it wouldn't have allowed India to station up to 3,000 troops, 5 warships, and 10 warplanes on its territory per last year's reciprocal military logistics pact nor continue selling it state-of-the-art military tech.
For now, Russia can trust India only because of Indian self-interest. Sole support at the UN SC, reliance on military spare parts, and access to cheap energy are good enough reasons for a relative lack of backstabbing.
But why would Iran trust an India that has gone to bed with Israel? Just because of a warming relationship with Russia? When the fight is existential, and adversaries are more than happy to assassinate in the middle of negotiations, how can Russian - Indian relationship be of relevance?
The fundamental problem is that Modi’s interests are not Indian interests. He has long weaponised religion and amplified Muslim and Chinese security threats to win votes at his country's expense. In contrast, China has settled 12 out of 14 neighbour land disputes - the other exception is Bhutan - since WW2, helping them to focus on national cohesion and development. Consequently, as far as eyes can see, India will remain poor, weak, and ripe for Western manipulation.
Well, Mr Korybko, it is not only that Mody shouted the Zionist/Chabad war cry in their Knesset, thus demonstrating his support for their genocide in Palestine as well as the upcoming one against Iran. His and Jaishankar’s role in the U.S. sinking of the Iranian frigate that was—unarmed—returning from a parade in India to Iran at the time of the U.S. aggression’s outbreak (with more than 150 sailors murdered in cold blood), surely must dampen Iran’s trust in India. Should have eliminated it in fact, were there some atoms of it left. Don’t you think so?
They actually didn't play any role in that incident, the claims of which were fake news as logically proven by Iran continuing to play nice with India, and nobody serious really thinks that it wouldn't have called out such betrayal if it actually happened.
Here, don't take my word for it, but read what the Iranian Ambassador to India himself said after the incident about allowing the safe passage of Indian ships through Hormuz:
You or anyone else can spin the kookiest, most convoluted conspiracy theory for why he'd say that if India supposedly really set Iran up, but I'm not the ultra-fringe audience that you'd be targeting so please don't even try it, thanks.
Again, you can think whatever you want, but if you still believe that India played a role in that incident, then you're the victim of a recent Alt-Media psy-op and should reconsider everything that you ever heard or read from the people who persuaded you to believe that literal lie.
I do think there is a reason for Lavrov's statement, but his words do not represent the official long-term policy. (1) The Anti-China faction in Russia prefers India over Pakistan, as they consider Pakistan being too close to the US and China. (2) Pakistan has a military alliance with KSA although Pakistan remains on good terms with Iran. India is an important customer of Gulf resources and a non-Muslim country. Therefore, India might be more neutral in preference and more eager to push for peace.
However, I also think this position is far from a strong or final policy decision because (1) pro-China faction seems to be more dominant in Russia. I suspect the pro-China faction would prefer Pakistan over India as the mediator. (2) Not only is Lavrov too old for front-line diplomatic duty and may have been delegated to semi-retirement status (see Andrew's comments above), but also Putin has to consider if he is to retire or stay on another term. I think Putin would choose to retire as well. If so, it is better to let next-generation leaders have more say in pinning down the real policy. Lavrov, given his status and experience, can play a decoy role very well. At least, it is not an issue if Lavrov drifts off orbit once in a while.
on the contrary, mediation made by great powers lack the conditionalities and restrictions imposed by superpowers. it's true, sometimes the involved parties need to do some steps themselves, but the reward is huge.
Iran borders Russia ,they both share the Caspian sea. Indis is also a friend of Russia,s but is not as critical. as Iran. Russia needs yo tend to Irans situations before India,s Russia helps India in other ways. IRAN FIRST. India second
Iran refused two time a defensive alliance proposed by Poutine himself. Even after the 12 days war.
The worst enemy of Arabia is Iran? I'm not sure of that. China worked very hard to brought closer both together. And it succeeded. One of the purposes of the current Gulf war was to force Saoudis to allow the use of its territory to make it break links with Iran.
After Modi's pornographic show in Israel, pornographic movie with Israel's ally, lowlife Emiratis and abject condamnation of Iran, it's would be very doubtful that Iran accept intermediation of India.
Why Lavrov say that? Russian humour? Another proof that it's time he retire?
I feel differently about India as you know, but regarding Lavrov, I do believe that he'll retire once the SMO ends and that he's only still in his post for the sake of optics. He's been sidelined by Dmitriev vis-a-vis talks with the US so now he just pretty much does standard protocol events.
I think Rybakov might replace him when he retires, and frankly, I think it would restore some of the professionalism that I believe the MFA has lost under Lavrov-Zakharova ("Lavzakh") given their regularly sarcastic comments and the like. I understand the appeal to some, but I also think that it degrades the integrity of the proud institution that they represent.
By contrast, Rybakov is much more professional and doesn't (as far as I'm aware) deign to mudslinging matches, including on social media. He seems to rightly consider himself above that and I feel that Russia should never have abandoned the higher ground through Lavzakh's antics. I respect his role and give him credit for his job, but I don't like his style anymore.
While Pakistan has skilfully steered a friendly course between all the key antagonists*, India has on the other hand nailed their colours to the mast of the Zionists, the US, and now the UAE - making their potential as a mediator untenable.
I would therefore interpret Lavrov's comment as a casual diplomatic aside, made for no better reason than it was in a BRICS forum, and India happens to be the current BRICS chair.
* except Israel, whom they condemn
I truly don't believe that it was for diplomatic sake that he shared this proposal since it was totally unprompted and the he elaborated on it after a brief digression by suggesting that it become the long-term mediator between Iran and the Gulf Kingdoms.
You're welcome to feel however you'd like about India, but the fact is that Russia doesn't share your and other Alt-Media members' beliefs that India's ties with Israel, the US, and the UAE are bad, let alone that they make it untrustworthy.
After all, if it really had even a semblance of such concerns, then it wouldn't have allowed India to station up to 3,000 troops, 5 warships, and 10 warplanes on its territory per last year's reciprocal military logistics pact nor continue selling it state-of-the-art military tech.
For now, Russia can trust India only because of Indian self-interest. Sole support at the UN SC, reliance on military spare parts, and access to cheap energy are good enough reasons for a relative lack of backstabbing.
But why would Iran trust an India that has gone to bed with Israel? Just because of a warming relationship with Russia? When the fight is existential, and adversaries are more than happy to assassinate in the middle of negotiations, how can Russian - Indian relationship be of relevance?
The fundamental problem is that Modi’s interests are not Indian interests. He has long weaponised religion and amplified Muslim and Chinese security threats to win votes at his country's expense. In contrast, China has settled 12 out of 14 neighbour land disputes - the other exception is Bhutan - since WW2, helping them to focus on national cohesion and development. Consequently, as far as eyes can see, India will remain poor, weak, and ripe for Western manipulation.
Well, Mr Korybko, it is not only that Mody shouted the Zionist/Chabad war cry in their Knesset, thus demonstrating his support for their genocide in Palestine as well as the upcoming one against Iran. His and Jaishankar’s role in the U.S. sinking of the Iranian frigate that was—unarmed—returning from a parade in India to Iran at the time of the U.S. aggression’s outbreak (with more than 150 sailors murdered in cold blood), surely must dampen Iran’s trust in India. Should have eliminated it in fact, were there some atoms of it left. Don’t you think so?
They actually didn't play any role in that incident, the claims of which were fake news as logically proven by Iran continuing to play nice with India, and nobody serious really thinks that it wouldn't have called out such betrayal if it actually happened.
Here, don't take my word for it, but read what the Iranian Ambassador to India himself said after the incident about allowing the safe passage of Indian ships through Hormuz:
https://www.rt.com/india/634861-iranian-envoy-india-oil-hormuz/
You or anyone else can spin the kookiest, most convoluted conspiracy theory for why he'd say that if India supposedly really set Iran up, but I'm not the ultra-fringe audience that you'd be targeting so please don't even try it, thanks.
And the cherry on the cake:
"India did all to help: Iran envoy ends debate on sinking of IRIS Dena"
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/really-helped-iran-envoy-acknowledge-indian-assistance-on-inis-dena-2881960-2026-03-14
Again, you can think whatever you want, but if you still believe that India played a role in that incident, then you're the victim of a recent Alt-Media psy-op and should reconsider everything that you ever heard or read from the people who persuaded you to believe that literal lie.
I do think there is a reason for Lavrov's statement, but his words do not represent the official long-term policy. (1) The Anti-China faction in Russia prefers India over Pakistan, as they consider Pakistan being too close to the US and China. (2) Pakistan has a military alliance with KSA although Pakistan remains on good terms with Iran. India is an important customer of Gulf resources and a non-Muslim country. Therefore, India might be more neutral in preference and more eager to push for peace.
However, I also think this position is far from a strong or final policy decision because (1) pro-China faction seems to be more dominant in Russia. I suspect the pro-China faction would prefer Pakistan over India as the mediator. (2) Not only is Lavrov too old for front-line diplomatic duty and may have been delegated to semi-retirement status (see Andrew's comments above), but also Putin has to consider if he is to retire or stay on another term. I think Putin would choose to retire as well. If so, it is better to let next-generation leaders have more say in pinning down the real policy. Lavrov, given his status and experience, can play a decoy role very well. At least, it is not an issue if Lavrov drifts off orbit once in a while.
There are more muslims in India than in Pakistan. But I agree with you.
It is difficult if not impossible to ask a “snake” to negotiate peace because the very essence of the snake is poisonous, you know who the snake is!
Not a snake, an eel.
Very true! But what is stopping India??
It would seem to me that the Hindu-centric nature of Modi’s government would make it a non-starter for the role of negotiator between Muslim states…
India,in its present stage of development,does not carry the heft necessary to commit adversaries to a decent dialogue.
on the contrary, mediation made by great powers lack the conditionalities and restrictions imposed by superpowers. it's true, sometimes the involved parties need to do some steps themselves, but the reward is huge.
Iran borders Russia ,they both share the Caspian sea. Indis is also a friend of Russia,s but is not as critical. as Iran. Russia needs yo tend to Irans situations before India,s Russia helps India in other ways. IRAN FIRST. India second
Iran trust Russia?
I'm not sure of that.
Iran refused two time a defensive alliance proposed by Poutine himself. Even after the 12 days war.
The worst enemy of Arabia is Iran? I'm not sure of that. China worked very hard to brought closer both together. And it succeeded. One of the purposes of the current Gulf war was to force Saoudis to allow the use of its territory to make it break links with Iran.
After Modi's pornographic show in Israel, pornographic movie with Israel's ally, lowlife Emiratis and abject condamnation of Iran, it's would be very doubtful that Iran accept intermediation of India.
Why Lavrov say that? Russian humour? Another proof that it's time he retire?
I feel differently about India as you know, but regarding Lavrov, I do believe that he'll retire once the SMO ends and that he's only still in his post for the sake of optics. He's been sidelined by Dmitriev vis-a-vis talks with the US so now he just pretty much does standard protocol events.
I think Rybakov might replace him when he retires, and frankly, I think it would restore some of the professionalism that I believe the MFA has lost under Lavrov-Zakharova ("Lavzakh") given their regularly sarcastic comments and the like. I understand the appeal to some, but I also think that it degrades the integrity of the proud institution that they represent.
By contrast, Rybakov is much more professional and doesn't (as far as I'm aware) deign to mudslinging matches, including on social media. He seems to rightly consider himself above that and I feel that Russia should never have abandoned the higher ground through Lavzakh's antics. I respect his role and give him credit for his job, but I don't like his style anymore.
I strongly object to the way you insult pornography.
Apologies 😂
lol
"After Modi's pornographic show in Israel"
Is there any media that exists out there?
Are you living in a cave?
You can see this porn show everywhere on MSM when Modi went to Israel, just before the war.