Price of strategic autonomy: What Russia's reaction to Op Sindoor tells India

Both Washington and Moscow hesitate to 'go all in' for India. Without clear strategic commitments, neither side will offer India the kind of automatic, noncommittal support it might extend to a formal ally — whether in military terms, intelligence sharing, or diplomatic cover in multilateral forums read more
War or conflict is often viewed as the failure of diplomacy. Yet, even during a war, diplomacy remains essential to statecraft. Justifying one's war effort as legitimate, legal, and invariably defensive requires proactive, sustained, wide-ranging diplomatic overtures. War is the ideal time to test the strength of alliances and the resolve of one's adversaries.
During Operation Sindoor, India's diplomatic focus was on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US, European countries and Russia. Saudi Arabia's and the UAE's neutral positions were considered foreign policy successes for the Modi government. In its quintessential didactic habit, the European Union offered unsolicited advice on peace, underscored the fear of nuclear escalation, and was seen as patronising agents. The US initially appeared to throw its weight behind India's counter-terrorist strike well within Pakistan and eventually, in the course of a mysterious later development, positioned itself as a mediator in a cease-fire. What transpired between these two contradictory stands is in the realm of speculation.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The most surprising element in these diplomatic overtures has been the stance of Russia, a longstanding, time-tested ally of India. The Russian response to Operation Sindoor was well-calibrated, formal, and essentially neutral if one goes by its public statement. There has been no public statement so far from the top leadership. Russia appeared to be noncommittal. Russian Foreign Minister's spokesperson Maria Zakharova, in her official statement, urged both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint to prevent further deterioration of the situation in the region. She further said that the two countries should resolve their differences through political and diplomatic means in accordance with the provisions of the Simla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999).
Russia's South Asia Policy
Two imperatives primarily drive Russia's South Asia policy: first, maintain and deepen its 'special and privileged strategic partnership' with India to create a multipolar Asia and a multipolar world. In this, India is the fulcrum of Russia's South Asia policy. Second, the creation of a firewall on the southern border of Central Asia to check the spillover of Islamic fundamentalism, narcotic trafficking, and refugees emanating from the South Asia region, particularly from Afghanistan.
Ensuring regional stability is vital, and Russia cannot afford one more failing state (Pakistan in this case) in South Asia. Russia views Afghanistan as a key node in its regional security. Given Pakistan's entrenched penetration and influence on the sections of the Taliban, Russia is left with no choice but to take Pakistan on board in its Afghan policy.
Since the mid-2010s, Russia has cautiously improved ties with Pakistan, focusing primarily on counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing and military exercises (eg, Druzhba). However, evolving developments in the Af-Pak region question the effectiveness and influence of Pakistan in Afghanistan and its northwest tribal region.
Pakistan is no longer in a position to dictate terms in Afghanistan. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has intensified its campaign against the Pakistani state in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In light of these developments, India appears to have failed to convince that Pakistan is the fountainhead of terrorism, not a solution.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Historically, the global geopolitical setting has dictated Russia's position in South Asia, especially in the India-Pakistan conflict. In 1965, Russia played the mediator role, did not take sides and was instrumental in the Tashkent agreement. In the 1971 war, Moscow sided with India to counter the US-China-Pakistan axis. In the current geopolitical setting, Russia is heavily dependent on China in the wake of its ongoing war with Ukraine. This requires delicate balancing between India and China, and the Russian position on Pahalgam is a balancing act.
Price of Strategic Autonomy
India has pursued its policy of strategic autonomy, formally institutionalised through the Non-Aligned Movement in the 50s and 60s. Though strategic autonomy was not popular then, the term was popularised after the end of the Cold War, used mostly by the European Union vis-à-vis the US. Invoked by President K R Narayanan in 1999, it has been used by both the UPA and NDA leaders to chart an autonomous strategic course that India needs to undertake. Some scholars define it as 'a dependence control strategy aimed at safeguarding its independence in both foreign policy decision-making and protecting strategic assets against American pressure'. This pursuit of strategic autonomy has led India to participate in issue-based alliances actively or groupings, eg, Quad, SCO, BRICS, G-20, etc.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India's recent push for issue-based alliances rather than long-term strategic partnerships comes with its strategic consequences, particularly in today's world of rising geopolitical contestation. Big powers often prefer dependable partners and camp followers — allies who align their interests, adopt similar strategic goals, and show a willingness to coordinate policy.
For example, the United States provides robust security guarantees and diplomatic backing to NATO allies Japan and South Korea precisely because these partners are committed to shared defence and strategic alignment. India's non-aligned stance during the Cold War made Washington hesitant to extend full diplomatic or military support, viewing New Delhi as unpredictable or even sympathetic to the Soviet camp.
Even with the Soviet Union, India's closest partner during the Cold War, the relationship stopped short of alliance. While Moscow supplied arms, diplomatic backing, and economic support, it understood that India would not become a satellite state or subordinate its interests to Soviet bloc priorities. This limited the extent to which Soviet support could translate into unreserved backing, especially when Moscow's own global calculations conflicted with India's.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In the contemporary context, the rise of China further complicates India's position. While India has moved closer to the United States, particularly through frameworks like the Quad, it continues to avoid formal alliances or security pacts. As a result, both Washington and Moscow hesitate to 'go all in' for India. Without clear strategic commitments, neither side will offer India the kind of automatic, noncommittal support it might extend to a formal ally — whether in military terms, intelligence sharing, or diplomatic cover in multilateral forums.
This reveals a broader pattern in international politics: big powers reward alignment, not independence. Countries that position themselves as independent-minded actors often preserve their sovereignty and flexibility but pay the price of standing largely alone when power politics heats up.
In India's case, this means that despite its size, economic weight, and geopolitical importance, it remains diplomatically constrained — drawing on a razzmatazz of transactional relationships with multiple powers, termed as multi-alignment, but lacking the kind of deep, reliable backing that comes with formal alignments.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In conclusion, India's Pahalgam diplomatic experience underscores a hard truth of international relations: strategic autonomy offers freedom but limits the scope of external support. This should drive home a lesson that India has to tread alone and can't rely on Russia or, for that matter, any other power. Strategic autonomy comes with strings attached. As global rivalries sharpen and the international order becomes more contested, India will continue to face the challenge of balancing its cherished independence with the need for dependable partnerships in a world where major powers expect loyalty in exchange for support.
Amitabh Singh teaches at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Ankur is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Indian Express

an hour ago

• New Indian Express

Death of mediation: Statesmen as showmen

Mediation is the message. Whenever a conflict arises, politicians seeking the tag of statesmen rush in and claim credit. When Donald Trump boomed into the headlines in June 2025 claiming to have brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, the only thing louder than his announcement was the silence from New Delhi—until it was shattered by a phone call. Narendra Modi, with the practised precision of a man who has heard it all before, reportedly spent 35 minutes dismantling Trump's fantasy. The prime minister made it clear that the ceasefire was a result of direct military-to-military understanding rooted in the 1972 Simla Agreement. 'India has never accepted third-party mediation, nor will it ever,' Modi declared, according to sources familiar with the call. His disdain was unmistakable. This sharp exchange exposes a deeper crisis—that in a world fractured by wars like Iran-Israel, Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine and India-Pakistan, there is total absence of credible, universally-accepted mediators. This has paralysed diplomacy, leaving violence unchecked. Going back to the 1970s, Henry Kissinger's secret diplomacy with Mao Zedong during the Cold War to check the Soviet Union exemplified the kind of strategic mediation absent in today's conflicts. Unlike today's self-promoting dealmakers, Kissinger operated with Cold War gravitas, using realpolitik to reshape global alliance. It's a stark contrast to the opportunistic mediation attempts plaguing 2025's fractured world order. If Trump fancied himself a reincarnation of Kissinger, Modi responded like a man unwilling to share the stage with a meddler playing diplomat in his own campaign circus. But behind this diplomatic snub lies a more troubling truth: we live in an age without credible mediators. The global landscape of June 2025 is a tinderbox of conflicts, each defying resolution due to the lack of a trusted peacemaker. The era of diplomatic giants like Franklin Roosevelt, who shaped post-World War II peace, or Jimmy Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David Accords, is a distant memory. The world in mid-2025 resembles a geopolitical powder-keg, with Israel and Iran exchanging missiles, Ukraine and Russia locked in a trench war stretching over a decade, Hamas and Israel in a perpetual loop of bloodshed, and India-Pakistan tensions now simmering dangerously post-Sindoor. What's missing isn't just resolution. It's trust. Gone are the days of Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy or handshakes of détente like that between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin.

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Pakistan to nominate Trump for Peace Nobel over 'intervention' with India

US President Donald Trump ISLAMABAD: In a move likely to stir diplomatic discussion across the region, the Shehbaz Sharif-led Pakistan govt announced on Saturday that it will formally recommend US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his diplomatic intervention during the recent India-Pakistan military crisis, reports Omer Farooq Khan. In an official statement shared on X, the Pakistan govt credited Trump's "decisive intervention" and "pivotal leadership" with helping de-escalate a rapidly intensifying standoff between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Islamabad said it responded with a calibrated military action - Operation Bunyanum Marsoos - described as a "measured" and "precise" strike intended to restore deterrence without targeting civilian areas. Pakistan's govt claimed Trump engaged both Islamabad and New Delhi through high-level diplomacy at a moment of heightened regional volatility, securing a ceasefire that averted a wider conflagration. "President Trump demonstrated strategic foresight and statesmanship, preventing a broader conflict that could have had catastrophic consequences for the region," the statement read. The govt also praised Trump for his "sincere" willingness to assist in resolving the Kashmir dispute - an issue Pakistan maintains is central to lasting peace in South Asia. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo India, however, has consistently rejected third-party involvement in Kashmir, reiterating that the issue must be resolved bilaterally under the Simla Agreement. The Pakistani statement expressed hope that Trump's "legacy of pragmatic diplomacy" would continue to play a role in addressing global flashpoints, including the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and rising tensions involving Iran. Trump, who is yet to respond publicly, has previously highlighted his role in managing past India-Pakistan tensions, including in 2019 following the Pulwama-Balakot incident. His earlier offer to mediate on Kashmir was firmly rebuffed by New Delhi. The Nobel Peace Prize nomination process permits formal recommendations from heads of state, national lawmakers, and certain academic and diplomatic figures. The Norwegian Nobel Committee does not comment on individual nominations. If successful, Trump would join a select group of American leaders - US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama - who have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Indian Express

3 hours ago

• Indian Express

Congress names 40 district, city unit chiefs for Gujarat

After a process that lasted more than two months and saw senior Congress leaders visit 26 Lok Sabha constituencies, 182 Assembly segments, and 235 Blocks, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) Saturday appointed 40 chiefs of district and city units for Gujarat under the the 'Sangathan Srijan Abhiyan' — a pilot project intended to empower the district units. The list saw only one woman leader, Sonal Patel, who will head the Ahmedabad City unit. Patel, a former vice president of the Congress Mahila Morcha was the candidate against Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the 2024 LS polls from Gandhinagar constituency. She replaces former mayor and ex-MLA Himmatsinh Patel. 'Ahmedabad city president is a position that carries a lot of weight,' said a Congress leader. At least five of the DCC presidents were repeated — Rutvij Joshi (Vadodara city), Jashpalsinh Padhiyar (Vadodara district), Naushad Solanki (Surendranagar), Pratap Dudhat (Amreli), and Rajendrasinh Rana (Bharuch city). The party said the newly appointed DCC chiefs 'represent Gujarat's social and regional diversity and have been chosen for their grassroots connection, ideological clarity, and organisational ability'. At the AICC Session on April 9-10 in Gujarat, held in the state for the first time in about 60 years, district units were identified as key building blocks to build the Congress back-up. While this is a nationwide project, the Congress launched the pilot from Gujarat, a state where the party has been out of power now for 30 years and which is identified most closely with the BJP's rise post-Modi. The party on April 12 appointed 43 AICC and 183 PCC observers comprising senior leaders, including state in-charges, MPs, MLAs, and former PCC presidents, to oversee the appointments and make recommendations to the party high command. A statement issued on Saturday night by Congress general secretary in-charge (organisation) K C Venugopal said: 'The Abhiyan, launched to revitalise the party structure from booth to district level, focused on transparent, inclusive, and ideology-based leadership selection.' – With inputs from ENS Ahmedabad Asad Rehman is with the national bureau of The Indian Express and covers politics and policy focusing on religious minorities in India. A journalist for over eight years, Rehman moved to this role after covering Uttar Pradesh for five years for The Indian Express. During his time in Uttar Pradesh, he covered politics, crime, health, and human rights among other issues. He did extensive ground reports and covered the protests against the new citizenship law during which many were killed in the state. During the Covid pandemic, he did extensive ground reporting on the migration of workers from the metropolitan cities to villages in Uttar Pradesh. He has also covered some landmark litigations, including the Babri Masjid-Ram temple case and the ongoing Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath temple dispute. Prior to that, he worked on The Indian Express national desk for three years where he was a copy editor. Rehman studied at La Martiniere, Lucknow and then went on to do a bachelor's degree in History from Ramjas College, Delhi University. He also has a Masters degree from the AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. ... Read More