Putin brings offer of nuclear-tipped arms deal to India
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Russia and India moved yesterday to forge a strategically important arms deal that could drastically alter the nuclear-tipped balance of power in the subcontinent.
As the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, ended a two-day visit to Delhi, both nations also used the occasion to fulminate about the need to contain terror and to issue a joint declaration against a unilateral US strike against Iraq.
But behind the posturing, efforts were under way to advance the multibillion-dollar arms deal, which could include the acquisition by India of at least one Russian-made Akula-11 class nuclear-powered submarine, capable of carrying a payload of nuclear Cruise missiles.
The deal hinges on a Soviet-built aircraft carrier, the 45,000-tonne Admiral Gorshkov, which has laid up in the Arctic port of Severodvinsk since 1988. India, eager to become the region's maritime heavyweight in the face of competition from China, and harbouring "great power" ambitions, wants to add a big aircraft carrier to its fleet.
The Russians have for years been offering to give the Gorshkov to Delhi as a gift, although with many costly strings attached. These include granting Moscow the contract for the ship's re-fit – estimates of the cost of this vary from $700m (£450m) to more than $1bn – and for the supply of about 40 MiG-29K aircraft which, after some extensive engineering adjustments to the vessel, would fly off its deck.
More than two thirds of the equipment in the hands of India's military, the third largest army in the world, is from Russia or the former Soviet Union. The relationship – which analysts expect to lead to another $8bn worth of military sales over the next decade – has continued in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, not least because Moscow is not among those who placed sanctions on India after its 1998 nuclear tests.
Russia has long been talking with Delhi about the lease of several Akula-11 class nuclear submarines, but made them conditional on an agreement over the Gorshkov. India has been eager to acquire the Russian submarines to add to its ageing underwater fleet, in line with its long-standing ambition to have a so-called nuclear "triad" – in other words, the capability to deliver nuclear bombs by air, ground-to-ground missile and from the sea.
Submarines offer a particular advantage, because they can be hidden beneath the waves from prying enemy eyes. One western observer said: "There is no doubt that India would like the nuclear subs to have nuclear-tipped warheads, cruise missiles."
Earlier this week, the head of India's navy, Admiral Madhvendra Singh, refused to confirm or deny reports about the possible submarine lease, which would give India a strategic edge in its nuclear rivalry with Islamabad – and is therefore likely to cause unease in Washington, especially given the hostilities between the two south Asian neighbours and the strident US stance against nuclear proliferation elsewhere.
But Admiral Singh made little secret of India's ambition to base nuclear missiles in the ocean, saying that the most powerful part of the "nuclear triad" should be "at sea, preferably under water". He added: "It doesn't make sense to keep nuclear weapons on land. If you keep them on land, they are going to be targeted."
Many of the aspects of the Gorshkov component of the deal appear to be settled, although not the price tag.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments