Russia’s Neutrality During The Latest Indo-Pak Conflict Was Due To New Policymaking Dynamics
Russia might be reassessing India’s role in Eurasia.
Alexei Zakharov is a respected Russian expert on South Asia who serves as a Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation’s Strategic Studies Programme, which is one of India’s top think tanks. He recently published an insightful piece titled, “Can India rely on Russia to diplomatically isolate Pakistan? It seems unlikely”, which candidly explains Russia’s neutrality during the latest Indo-Pak conflict. In a nutshell, he believes that Russia’s growing ties with Pakistan are the main reason, but there’s actually a bit more to it.
This analysis here from last summer enumerates several others which posit that a pro-BRI policymaking faction now exists in Russia as the friendly rival of the established balancing/pragmatic one. The first believes that the return to a form of Sino-US bi-multipolarity is inevitable and thus wants to accelerate China’s superpower trajectory as revenge against the US for all it’s done since 2022. The second, by contrast, want to avert outsized dependence on China by relying on India as a friendly counterweight.
Russia’s neutrality towards the latest Indo-Pak conflict coupled with the pro-Pakistani (and even sometimes anti-Indian) commentary of top “Non-Russian Pro-Russian” influencers within its global media ecosystem, which could have been corrected with some “gentle nudges” but wasn’t, surprised some observers. After all, it was concluded here after Modi’s trip to Moscow last summer that his visit was a victory for the balancing/pragmatic policymaking faction, yet it was evidently short-lived as seen.
It arguably seems like the pro-BRI faction is back to influencing Russia’s South Asian policy as suggested by the preceding examples, with this perception being lent immense credence by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s speech at the Diplomatic Club on Thursday. He warned that the West wants to pit India against China and strongly alluded to the Quad, in which India participates, as an example of an “openly confrontational” format. All of this implies that Russia might be reassessing India’s role in Eurasia.
Instead of continuing to be seen as a friendly counterweight to China that’ll also help jointly speed up Eurasia’s integration, it might soon be suspected of being a hostile counterweight to China that could also obstruct the aforesaid integration at the US’ behest. The second perception could influence policy if Russia becomes more dependent on China in the event that tensions escalate with the US over Ukraine or if Russia engages in major deal-making with the US and/or China in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Either scenario would likely solidify the pro-BRI policymaking faction’s newly restored influence over their balancing/pragmatic rivals, though Putin himself remains a committed member of the second faction, which is why his planned trip to India later this year could even everything out in that event. If neither of the abovementioned scenarios materializes, then policymaking influence might naturally oscillate back towards the balancing/pragmatic faction with time, or at least after Putin’s planned trip.
Circling back to Zakharov, he’s correct that Russia’s growing ties with Pakistan were responsible for Russia’s neutrality during the latest Indo-Pak conflict, but that’s only due to the newly influential pro-BRI policymaking faction conceptualizing them in a Sino-US bi-multipolarity context. This contrasts with how their balancing/pragmatic rivals conceptualize them as part of Russia’s multi-alignment strategy. India should be aware of these new policymaking dynamics in order to avoid misunderstandings with Russia.
India has a deep understanding with Russia at the strategic level, and does not take childish immature offence at seemingly Pro-China pronouncements by honourable Mr Sergei Lavrov, or say at Russia's neutrality in the recent Indo-Pak standoff. India is capable of dealing with the menace of terrorist threats from Pakistan on its own via diplomatic means and by strengthening of internal security; and does not expect Russia or anyone else to issue loud ostentatious denunciation of Pakistan simply for massaging its ego. Rabble rousing does not make a physical difference to any state of affairs. It is actually an army of You-Tubers and news channels aligned with Western interests and operating in India which voice disapproval at Russia's positions day in and day out on the flimsiest of pretext and try to portray their outbursts as resentment against what they brand as Russian "betrayal of India". Some channels, such as FirstPost of Palki Sharma Upadhyay notoreity, exhibit manifest anti-Russian bias because of personal dislike of Russia on part of their lead anchors; and casual observers are liable to be led astray into mistaking such channels as being close to Indian policy-making circles and reflective of official opinion because of the fact that these channels have an oversized footprint at Raisina Dialogue and such counterparts of the Valdai club in India. In reality, these news channels and influencers do not reflect official Indian perception or policy even remotely, though it is not denied that their incessant propaganda might exert some subconscious influence on minds of politicians and bureaucrats at the individual level. The analogy of Abby Martin, an anti-Russia correspondent-anchor who had held job at RT news for a long time before her biased reporting on the Ukrainian conflict betrayed her real leanings, will help to elucidate things. As for the Observer Research Foundation, even that is not really a "nationalist" or "patriot" think tank, but for much of its existence it has been an Australian influence projector whose motive has been to influence public policy in India to bring it in alignment with larger Atlanticist geostrategic objectives.
India and Russia feature a deep-rooted "connect" on the people to people level, grounded in civilisational alignment and commonality of ambitions at the social and spiritual level. Reading too much into every nuance is not Indian's cup of tea.
We should be cautious of geopolitical experts who write for a living or are beholden to a party.It makes little sense for Russia to align with Pakistan , which played a significant role in damaging Russia's forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I am not exaggerating; Pakistan made every effort to conceal and safeguard OBL; he was finally located by the Americans just a kilometre away from a Pakistani garrison. India, on the other hand, has always relied heavily on Russian logistics, including the highly effective BrahMos missile.
The Indians may already have the latest version, which is even faster. Both Russians and Indians should never forget the moral, psychological, and logistical support that Mr. Breezhnev provided to the Indians in 1971, amidst intense American pressure. This is recent history, and people of my generation dare not forget how the Russians stood by us.
Operation Sindoor was an outstanding success, stunning both the Western media and Western "military experts." No wonder they shy away from commenting on the decimation of 11 Pakistani airbases within minutes. The US needed approximately 40 days of bombing to neutralise the primitive Iraqi air and ground defence system. The Indians did the job in less than 3 days.
I seriously doubt that Mr Putin will ever shift his focus from India to Pakistan in any significant manner; moreover, the Russian ambassador has gone on record that the Russians are prepared to sell their best fighter, the SU 35 E, along with manufacturing technology and a joint production facility.
Trump will certainly not endear himself to the Indian public by making ridiculous statements that Pakistan has "brilliant people" who make "incredible products." Yes, of course, the Pakistanis do… They make deadly terrorists who kill innocent people while invoking the name of God, and we all know they have been heavily financed for decades by the American administrations along with the CIA.I really would not take Zakharov seriously.
Moreover, I am sceptical that Mr. Modi or Mr. Putin read Substack articles by geopolitical "experts" or that they take the scripted opinions of TV anchors anywhere in the world seriously enough to make policy decisions. I would advise Mr. Modi, for whatever it is worth, to exercise caution when dealing with Western experts of any kind.