PM Narendra Modi Purchases Defense Systems from Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) at G20 2015, Antalya, Turkey, Photo Ahmet Bolat - Anadolu Agency

ASIA - Indian Prime Minister Modi addressed the U.S. Congress last Wednesday June 8th, marking his fourth visit to the United States since taking office. The state of India-U.S. relations as described by Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a “pillar of strength in an important region of the world." Prime Minister Modi has also recently met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who emphasized the growing cooperation between India and Russia as he reiterates his support for “developing the privileged strategic partnership between India and Russia.”

India, the world’s largest arms importer, continues to purchase Russian arms in large and growing amounts. While policymakers in the United States stress over India’s recent growing appetite for Russian weapons, Russian officials disapprove of India’s defense deals with the United States and its allies such as Israel.

Historically, India had been a major purchaser of Soviet armaments. After the 1990s, however, India started to turn to the United States for arms imports. In the past 20 years, India has relied largely on the United States to supply it with arms.

This is not to say that the relationship between the two nations’ leadership have always been peachy. In 2005, members of the American Congress banned Prime Minister Modi from obtaining a visa to visit the United States based on his failure to stop the anti-Muslim attacks three years’ prior in the Indian state of Gujarat. Since then, American leaders and Prime Minister Modi have reconciled under President Obama’s administration. The shared interests of the United States and India included and still include maintaining maritime security in the India-Asia Pacific, such as maritime transportation of legal goods, as agreed during Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s visit with Indian Defense Minister Raksha Mantri this year in April. A major drive for cooperation to maintain maritime security has to do specifically with the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, which was called upon to reach a resolution by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) under the “U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region” agreement. As demonstrated in Prime Minister Modi’s meetings with President Obama, Congress, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, both India and the United States intend to cooperate on matters in the India-Asia Pacific.

However, India has also started to seek out Russian bilateral ties in an attempt to change its image as an American subordinate to a more complex player in international politics.

This is great for Russia’s defense exporters. As European nations that were traditionally reliant on Russia for defense are starting to develop their own arms or purchase more Western arms than Russian, the importance of Russia’s arms exports to Asia increases. An estimated 60 percent of all Russian arms exports are to Asia, with 39 percent going specifically to India. Last year in December, India purchased five Russian S-400 supersonic air defense systems, which estimated a cost of roughly 6 billion USD. India shares a great deal of Russia’s goals when it comes to counterterrorism. In past talks, both Modi and Putin were troubled by the security in and bordering around Afghanistan. Both leaders have also expressed support for the termination of terrorist ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan. On the other hand, Russia has also supplied Pakistan with Mi-35 Hind attack helicopters and Klimov RDP93 engines for the JF-17. Despite Prime Minister Modi’s calling Russia “a strong and reliable friend”, it remains to be seen if Russia will continue to provide Pakistan with armaments without requiring it to ban ‘safe havens’ for terrorists.

This is not to say that India has decreased its American defense purchases over the recent years. In 2004, India spent 200 million USD on American arms. In 2014, India spent 2 billion USD and it was during this year that India purchased more from the United States than Russia.

The business to export more weapons to India grows even more competitive with India’s plans to expand its own defense manufacturing and to spend 250 billion USD over the next ten years upgrading its military. Both the United States and Russia have expressed interests to contribute to the development of India’s domestic defense manufacturing. Recently, India has produced the 155mm Dhanush field artillery while it is currently working on the Vibrant-class aircraft carrier.

The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter, with Russia coming in second. The competition to export to India is not exclusively for the reasons of financial gain in the defense industry. Exporting arms leverages cooperation and the cooperation of a nation with a geopolitical advantage such as India will pave way for tactical gains in counter-terrorism and security in the Asia Pacific.

Contributing Journalist: @Helene_Serena
LinkedIn: Helen Huang

Gazprom Pipeline Runs Dry

Michael Ransom, Contributing EditorLast Modified: 08:05 p.m. DST, 21 June 2014

KIEV, Ukraine -- The violent conflict between Russian separatists and Ukrainian militias is slowing down, if only momentarily, due to a ceasefire declared by Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko on Wednesday, 18 June. While bloodshed may be decreasing, Russia has initiated a new economic offensive, shutting off the primary gas pipeline running between the two nations.

According to Russian officials, Ukraine has run up an oil bill totaling more than $4 billion, although Poroshenko's administration denies this figure. The issue at hand is not whether Ukraine owes its northeastern neighbor for unpaid gas, but rather the size of the debt. Ukrainians have been vocal about Russian price-gouging, claiming that exports to Ukraine are sent at a steep premium when compared to other countries. Also, according to Poroshenko the value of Russian oil fluctuates at president Vladimir Putin's convenience.

While Russia closed the tab on 16 June, the move will not immediately impact the Ukrainian markets. Like much of Russian diplomacy, shutting off the pipeline is more a show of power than anything else. For now, the gas reservoirs throughout Ukraine are full and will provide energy for months. Even so, winter months are brutal in Ukraine, and officials will need to act fast to secure reliable gasoline preserves for wintertime.

The feud impacts communities outside of Russia and Ukraine. Gazprom, the corporation responsible for the supply termination, is the largest gas company in Russia and one of the largest international suppliers. European Union nations rely largely on the circulation of Gazprom oil through Ukraine, which is then sold and traded further west into EU countries. The uncertain relationship between Russia and Ukraine, especially in light of the ongoing Ukrainian civil war, leaves EU member nations at the mercy of regional stability.

Sensing the gravity of the situation, EU representatives have tried to middleman a compromise between Ukrainian and Russian executives, to no avail. Gazprom will require Ukraine to pay at least half of the debt before any more oil crosses the border. Ukraine has dismissed the offer, citing the longstanding price inflation and demanding that the costs be set at a rate consistent with the international market.

At the end of the day, both Ukraine and Russia have much to gain by cooperation, and more to lose if the regional friction continues to silence synergy. A good portion of Gazprom revenue comes from Ukrainian consumers and the network of markets throughout the EU. And similarly, Ukrainian winters could prove dangerous without the necessary raw materials.

The stalemate is expected to drag on, as both parties are sure of their facts and figures regarding oil transactions. Russia and Ukraine will both plead their case to international mediators in the coming months, but considering the average length of arbitration and settlement agreement, it will likely come down to the combined efforts of Kiev and Moscow to resolve the dispute and steady the market.

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

Related articles

• Russia's Gazprom cuts gas supply to Ukraine as talks fail (bnn.ca)

• Gazprom says flow of gas to Europe uninterrupted (miamiherald.com)

• Gazprom ready to finance supply of gas to European storage facilities (en.itar-tass.com)

• Gazprom says flow of gas to Europe uninterrupted (news.yahoo.com)

• Russia just cut off Ukraine's natural gas supplies (hotair.com)

US Hypocritical Response to Ukraine Conflict

Michael Ransom, Contributing EditorLast Modified: 08:57 a.m. DST, 13 May 2014

DONETSK, Ukraine -- On Sunday, 11 May, two Ukrainian provinces conducted supposed democratic referendums to determine their international identity. The motions were suspicious at best, as 90% of votes counted in Donetsk favored withdrawal from Ukrainian authority and turnout in Luhansk determined 96 of every 100 voters supported provincial autonomy.

Certainly the numbers appear exaggerated. These reports of airtight consensus must be questioned by the rational world. Dissent is pervasive throughout much of Ukraine. So when voting officials came forward on Monday with claims of unprecedented solidarity, the West responded as would the teacher of the struggling student who scores 105% on a self-graded assessment.

But the conflict in Ukraine covers more ground than the Western press are willing to turn over. A thoughtful discussion of modern Ukraine can not endorse the interim Kiev government wholesale, nor should it condemn all separatists as patent burglars. Both approaches are reductive towards the legacy of corruption and organized injustice in Ukraine.

In spite of Western backing, the previous Ukrainian establishment and the placeholder administration are fraught with human rights violations. And while Vladimir Putin exploited political rifting in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, perhaps the United States should also be concerned that Moscow has obviously made off with a whole chapter from the American playbook on how to seize foreign land.

The history of the United States is a clinic on nabbing territory illegally while simultaneously claiming martyrdom. In 1836, the Battle of the Alamo came to symbolize the American attempt to play martyr, while illegally holding Mexican land by whatever means necessary. In the same year, Texans fought the Mexican military in the Battle of San Jacinto and established Texan sovereignty. The slaughter lasted a matter of minutes and left over 600 dead, all but nine were fallen Mexican soldiers.

During the early 19th century, Americans began occupying Texas legally, but it did not take long for the Anglo residents to begin defying Mexican prohibition of slavery and other important legal codes. Americans continued to flood the region and soon outnumbered ethnic Tejanos 4 to 1. With some exception, the Texan army was American born and armed by the mother country, which in 1845 would welcome Texas into the union.

Unlike the takeover of Texas, Moscow did not inundate eastern Ukraine with Russian militants. They have been living in Ukraine for generations. Pro-Russian rebels represent the fragmentation of the Republic, not the forced entry exercised by American citizens and weaponry throughout its history.

1 2 Next Page »

Published: 13 May 2014 (Page 2 of 2)

Perhaps more egregious than the theft of Texas is the coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii, organized by Americans and flanked by US Marine encroachment on the islands.  Wanting to spare bloodshed, Queen Lili'uokalani surrendered her crown and was placed under arrest. The United States' intent to annex the Kingdom was explicit, and during the in-no-way democratic proceedings, a provisional government took charge until American lawmakers brought Hawaii into the fold.

The Crimean Peninsula at the heart of the Ukraine conflict has a joint identity as a Ukrainian and Russian region. During the Soviet era, Crimea was nominally transferred within Ukraine's demarcation. When the Soviet Union disbanded, Ukraine maintained jurisdiction of the region. The peninsula remains divided in terms of religion, ethnic makeup and political affiliation. If the United States is so concerned with the will of the people, there are several well-documented injustices ongoing within American boundaries that could be addressed immediately.

The United States practices selective attention--joining the United Nations General Assembly to condemn Russian involvement in the Ukrainian arm wrestle, while downplaying the United Nations when they become critical of America's parallel behavior. A recent report by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations shows both the longstanding injustice experienced by indigenous peoples in North America and the irony in the United States searching the globe to point out instances of criminality and misconduct.

The Black Hills of South Dakota are some of the oldest mountains in North America and are considered sacred ground to the Lakota-Sioux people. At first, white settlers were uninterested in the land, until surveyors began trespassing on the terrain in 1849. Through a series of treaties, the land was promised to the Sioux, and later expressly removed from Sioux possession when gold prospectors found valuable deposits in the Hills.

Since then, the Black Hills have been the subject of desecration, as the United States government thought it appropriate to carve out the faces of Anglo oppressors into the mountains that the Sioux people so revere. Mount Rushmore stands as a permanent reminder of white tyranny, and an obvious symbol of the ongoing violation of Sioux religious freedom.

In the ongoing international debate over the Ukraine conflict, the United States has very little legal or moral footing on which to base their criticism of Russia. Each day, the United States affirms the right for an empire to occupy land against international law. While the global community generally recognizes Putin's exploits as unjust, the White House has long modeled similar undertakings. The oligarchies in America and Russia imitate each other more than either would like to admit.

What makes the plight of one people more pressing than another?

Washington's unbalanced attention to the sister concerns does not appear very democratic. For the most part, America cannot change the course of action in Ukraine. But if politicians are so bothered by illegally seized land, there are plenty of instances to address within their own jurisdiction. Start with the Black Hills.

Return to Page 1 »

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

Related articles

• Ukraine crisis: EU expand sanction list to keep pressure on Russia (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Battle in Ukraine Means Everything (newrepublic.com)
• 400 US mercenaries 'deployed on ground' in Ukraine military op (forum.prisonplanet.com)
• Insurgents in Eastern Ukraine Declare Independence (abcnews.go.com)
• Kerry's Hyper-Hypocrisy Hits Escape Velocity (mycatbirdseat.com)

The Terminal Terminus of Snowden

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 16:59 p.m. EDT, 3 July 2013

Olga, Aeroflot Transfer Desk Official, Shremetyevo Airport, Moscow

SHEREMETYEVO AIRPORT, Moscow - Edward Snowden’s flight from the United States with government secrets which he stole from the National Security Agency, now finds himself in the untenable situation of being denied asylum in 21 countries to which he has appealed.

Snowden arrived in Moscow on June 23rd. He flew into Sheremetyevo airport where he petitioned a Russian consular officer to issue asylum requests to countries he identified as potential places for him to hide.

However, shortly after his arrival, Washington revoked his U.S. passport which means he cannot officially cross the airport border into Russian territory.

Snowden’s current situation is reminiscent of the 2004 American comedy-drama titled “The Terminal.” The movie is about “a man who becomes trapped in a New York City airport terminal when he is denied entry into the United States and at the same time cannot return to his native country due to a revolution.

The film is partially inspired by the 17-year-stay of Mehran Karimi Nasseri in the Charles de Gaulle International Airport, Terminal I, Paris, France from 1988 to 2006.”

In the film, the protagonist who is named Viktor Navorski, is played by Tom Hanks. When Navorski “arrives at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, he finds that his passport is suddenly no longer valid due to the outbreak of a civil war in his homeland. As a result, the United States no longer recognizes Krakozhia as a sovereign nation, and he is not permitted to either enter the country or return home.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Snowden has become such an incendiary character that despite the secrets he carries, not one of America’s allies, nor even some of the less than friendly nations seemed inclined to offer asylum to the man who has been internationally branded as a traitor.

He has become, in American parlance, such a ‘hot potato,” that some European nations have imposed restrictions such as denying air space entry to planes feared to be transporting Snowden. According to Carol J. Williams of the L.A. Times, “some states to which Snowden turned for help, like India, Poland and Germany, have said ‘no’ outright.

Austria, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland all require asylum bids to be made in person on national territory – a technical barrier that spares them having to make a decision.

Even Ecuador and Venezuela, where officials earlier suggested Snowden should be treated as a human rights hero, have been pulling back the welcome mat as they ponder the potential costs of crossing U.S. national interests.” (Source: L.A. Times)

Though, Russian President Vladimir Putin initially stated that the Kremlin would offer Snowden asylum, through sophisticated political maneuverings he has allowed himself to appear sympathetic to both Snowden and the White House.

Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov, stated on Monday, 1 July 2013 that Snowden would be welcome to stay in Russia, but only if he refrained from leaking more classified information “aimed at inflicting damage to our American partners.”

Upon this request, Snowden who seems committed to revealing all of the secrets with which he absconded promptly withdrew his request for asylum in Russia. At this juncture, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador have yet to formally answer Snowden’s asylum appeals.

Perhaps because of these countries' leftist leaning governments Snowden surmised that they would be amenable to his overtures for asylum. It would be an even bolder step if he could make his way to a country like Iran, a sworn enemy of the U.S. But, the revocation of his passport has quashed all possibilities except asylum or return.

It remains to be seen what Snowden will do if his remaining asylum requests are denied. Will he stand by his stated convictions and live out the remainder of his life in Sheremetyevo airport? Will he accept Putin’s offer to cease further disclosure of top secret information and petition once again for asylum in Russia?

Or will it end where it all began, arriving on a flight back to the United States to face the music?

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor: @ayannanahmias

• Putin: If Snowden Wants Asylum, He Should Stop Leaking Info (israelnationalnews.com)

• Putin: Snowden Must Stop Leaking Secrets (scooprocket.com)

• Snowden Threatens More Leaks (reuters.com)

• Bolivian President's Plane Rerouted Over Snowden Suspicions (voanews.com)

The Hunt for Edward Snowden

Jessica Tanner, Staff WriterLast Modified: 01:41 a.m. DST, 26 June 2013

MOSCOW, Russia - As the hunt for Edward Snowden continues, it appears that Snowden is the one with the upper hand.

Although, the whereabouts of the computer contractor who revealed confidential information about The National Security Agency’s surveillance programs are still virtually unknown.

Journalists, government officials, and social media users worldwide are desperately trying to pinpoint Snowden’s exact location.

Russia initially expressed outraged at the United States' suggestion that the country had been complicit in Snowden’s travels. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, was quoted as saying, “I want to say, right away, that we have nothing to do with Mr. Snowden, or his movements around the world.”

However, within the last few hours President Vladamir Putin has acknowledged in an official statement that the whereabouts of Snowden are known, and that he will not comply with President Barak Obama's requests to surrender the alleged spy.

Prior to this admission, The White House was demanding that any country that Snowden sought refuge in give him up, so he could face espionage charges in the United States.

Apparently Snowden was set to board a flight from Moscow to Havana, but instead it was packed with journalists, including a CNN team. This same flight took off this past Monday without the 30-year-old American they were all hoping to question.

There is one source named Julian Assange who supposedly knows where Snowden is hiding, but he refuses to reveal the location. All Assange would say is that the former NSA contractor is “in a safe place and his spirits are high.”

Snowden spent several weeks hiding in Hong Kong, China and betrayed the United Sates by leaking classified NSA documents to journalists. He left the Chinese territory Sunday on a flight to Moscow.

Follow Jessica Tanner on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Staff Writer: @JessTanner1991

Related articles

• Putin: 'Nyet' to US request to turn over Snowden (thehimalayantimes.com)
• Edward Snowden scandal: Russia rejects US demands to extradite Snowden (wjla.com)
• Putin: Snowden is at Moscow airport (standard.co.uk)
• White House to Russia: Expel Snowden, Now (israelnationalnews.com)

Kremlin Hammers NGO Activists

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 01:42 AM EDT, 22 July 2012

Tensions between Washington and the Kremlin have escalated over the past eighteen months largely because Russia has aligned with China to defeat the United Nations Security Council’s efforts to institute punitive sanctions against Syria.

The standoff recalls the stance of the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War era which lasted from 1947-1991. During this period the United States, NATO, and other nations joined together in opposition of communist Soviet Union, its allies and satellite states.

Despite the fact that Russia enacted democratic governance in 1993 its election cycles continue to be plagued with accusations of corruption. Now, with the approval of a new law which labels non-governmental organizations receiving financial support from abroad as “foreign agents,” Russia is poised on the precipice of totalitarianism.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved a law which will tighten controls on civil rights groups funded from abroad, the his press office said on Saturday, a step opponents say is part of a campaign to suppress dissent.

The law, which was cleared by the upper house of parliament earlier in July, will force non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaging in “political activity” to register with the Justice Ministry as “foreign agents” and to file a report to officials every quarter. (Source: Forbes)

Opponents of the law believe that President Putin signed the bill with the full knowledge that its real intent is to silence organizations and individuals critical of his leadership. Though the law broadly applies to all NGOs, it specifically targets NGOs engaging in political activities.

Less than a month prior, President Putin signed another 'undemocratic' bill which prohibits people participating in unauthorized demonstrations, and in the case where these demonstrations were organized by an NGO or other organization, huge fines can be levied.

Many Russian NGOs have stated that they will not comply with new law, and according to reports, the Moscow Helsinki Group leader Lyudmila Alexeyeva said her group will turn down foreign funding in an attempt to work around the law.

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor: @ayannanahmias

Related articles

• Despite protests, the Kremlin put a 'foreign agent' label on foreign-funded NGOs. Here's what that means: (shortformblog.com)
• Russia's Parliament Passes Restrictions On NGOs (huffingtonpost.com)
• Russian parliament passes restrictions on NGOs (miamiherald.com)