India’s foreign policy has consistently prioritised independence over alignment, aiming to earn respect for its strategic culture.
At the core of the current deadlock lies a familiar tension: sovereignty versus concessions. The United States, viewing India as a vital counterbalance to China, has sought deeper economic and military ties. However, it has also tried to make that integration dependent, especially in defence technology. India, meanwhile, has shown that while it values partnership, it will not sacrifice its independence for access, prestige, or short-term benefits. Russia’s return to this situation is not accidental; it results from Washington’s reluctance to accept India’s fundamental red lines.
From an Indian perspective, the unfolding situation is less about choosing between Washington and Moscow and more about emphasising a central principle: partnerships are welcome, subordination is not. This nuanced stance reflects India’s strategic autonomy, balancing relations with the US, Russia, and China to maintain sovereignty and leverage diverse partnerships to advance national interests.
The Indo-US Relationship: Promise, Power, and Pressure
Over the past twenty years, India–US relations have experienced a significant change. From distancing during the Cold War to alignment in the Indo-Pacific, the trend has been primarily positive. Defence trade grew quickly, key agreements were signed, and cooperation in space, nuclear energy, and intelligence increased. Shared worries about China, maritime security, and global supply chains fostered real strategic common ground.
However, this convergence has always been limited. The United States views partnerships through a hierarchical lens. Even close allies like Japan and South Korea operate American platforms with restricted access and conditional sovereignty. India, on the other hand, does not see itself as an ally in the traditional sense. It seeks equality, not patronage.
The Trump administration merely revealed tensions that had long been hidden. Tariffs on Indian exports, the withdrawal of GSP benefits, pressure on data localisation, and threats over defence purchases underscored the transactional nature of American policy. Pakistan’s ongoing usefulness to Washington, despite its record on terrorism, further deepened Indian scepticism. From New Delhi’s perspective, leverage was being used not to build trust but to force compliance.
The F-35 Issue: Technology Without Control
The proposed linkage between the India–US trade agreement and the purchase of F-35 fighter jets clarified the issue. Officially, the offer seemed appealing. The F-35 is a highly advanced fifth-generation aircraft with advanced stealth, sensors, and networked capabilities. For Washington, selling it would demonstrate India’s entry into a select strategic group.
But prestige was never India’s primary concern. The real issue was control underneath. The United States refused to share source codes, flight-control algorithms, or weapons-integration frameworks. Customisation needed American approval. Indigenous weapons and sensors faced restrictions. Operational data would be sent back to U.S. systems. This insistence on control underscores India’s firm stance on maintaining strategic independence in technology, thereby ensuring operational sovereignty in defence capabilities.
From an Indian defence planning perspective, this was unacceptable. An aircraft that cannot be independently upgraded or integrated into indigenous command-and-control networks becomes a strategic vulnerability. In a crisis, dependence on foreign permissions can lead to paralysis. The experience of sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests remains firmly ingrained in institutional memory.
Thus, what Washington framed as a symbol of trust was perceived in South Block as a mechanism for long-term dependence; the F-35 offer ceased to be an incentive and became a liability.
Trade Negotiations: Where Economics Intersect with Strategy
The defence impasse quickly spilt over into trade. The ambitious India–US trade deal stalled not just because of tariffs or quotas, but because it became entangled with questions of sovereignty.
American demands impact sensitive sectors. In agriculture and dairy, increased market access threatens millions of Indian farmers operating within a fragile system of price supports and smallholdings. In the pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS-plus provisions risk damaging India’s generic drug sector, a key part of both public health and export revenue. In digital trade, opposition to data localisation conflicts directly with India’s efforts to develop digital sovereignty and safeguard citizens’ data.
For India, these were not negotiable technicalities; they were fundamental issues related to domestic stability and long-term growth. Accepting US terms would have exposed the country to global price shocks, reduced industrial capacity, and diminished policy independence. When combined with defence dependency, the overall offer seemed unequal.
India’s refusal to concede was not obstructionism; it was consistency. The Atmanirbhar Bharat vision is not about isolation but about ensuring that integration does not weaken national capabilities.
Strategic Signalling: India’s Calculated Pause
India’s deliberate decision to pause the trade deal shows its confidence in safeguarding long-term interests and maintaining strategic independence.
Importantly, this stance did not amount to hostility. Cooperation with the US continues across various fields, from the Quad to climate initiatives. However, the episode highlighted a reality that Washington sometimes hesitates to admit: India’s strategic importance lies specifically in its independence. An India that acts under pressure is less credible as a partner, not more.
Russia’s Re-Entry: Control as Currency
Russia entered this diplomatic vacuum with strategic precision. President Vladimir Putin’s visit aligned with the faltering Indo-US negotiations, but Moscow’s approach was fundamentally different from Washington’s.
Russia’s core offering was not just hardware but control. The Su-57E proposal, with significant Indian production, sovereign weaponisation, and freedom to integrate indigenous systems, directly addressed India’s primary concern.
Similarly, the upgrade of the Su-30 MKI fleet under the “Super Sukhoi” programme builds on an existing ecosystem where Indian engineers already have deep familiarity and autonomy.
From an Indian perspective, these offers align with both operational needs and industrial goals. They strengthen air power without limiting future options. They also support domestic manufacturing and skill development rather than replacing existing manufacturing and skills.
Russia’s willingness to accept such terms is not purely altruistic. It reflects Moscow’s strategic pressures amid Western sanctions and its effort to remain relevant in Asia. However, in international politics, aligning interests is more important than motives.
Energy and Trade: Strategic Complementarity
Beyond defence, Russia enhanced its engagement with tangible economic incentives. Discounted oil and LNG supplies provided India with energy security amid global volatility. Expanded access for Indian IT and electronics firms offered diversification opportunities as Western markets tightened. Increased imports of Indian goods addressed trade imbalance concerns.
For India, these steps provided both immediate and long-term benefits. Affordable energy fosters growth and helps control inflation. Diversifying markets lessens reliance on political pressure. Unlike US demands, these offers did not aim to alter India’s domestic policy framework.
Crucially, Moscow did not present its proposals as a simple choice. There was no expectation that India would give up other partnerships. This respect for India’s multi-alignment approach enhanced Russia’s credibility at a critical juncture.
RELOS Pact: Beyond Logistics
The Russian Duma’s approval of the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistic Support (RELOS) pact signified a significant expansion of operational cooperation. Although logistics agreements are often regarded as routine, RELOS has broader implications.
For India, access to Russian bases extends its reach across Eurasia, the Arctic, and parts of the Mediterranean. For Russia, access to Indian facilities enhances its presence in the Indian Ocean. More importantly, the pact enables seamless refuelling, repair, and resupply without bureaucratic delays, thereby enhancing readiness for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and joint exercises.
From an Indian naval and air force perspective, RELOS broadens options without sacrificing autonomy. Unlike alliance-based arrangements, it does not require joint operations or political alignment. It is a practical agreement based on reciprocity.
Balancing Without Bandwagoning
India’s renewed engagement with Russia should not be misunderstood as a shift away from the United States. Instead, it is a demonstration of maintaining balance. New Delhi indicates that if one partner seeks to gain influence through restrictions, the others will find opportunities through cooperation.
This balancing act also acts as leverage. By showing viable alternatives, India enhances its negotiating power with all partners. Strategic autonomy is not passive neutrality; it is active diversification.
At the same time, India recognises the limits of its relationship with Russia. Moscow’s increasing closeness with Beijing presents a structural concern. Sanctions hinder financial transactions. Technology gaps are present in certain areas. However, these risks are balanced by the immediate and tangible benefits of sovereignty and control.
The China Factor: An Unspoken Constant
China underpins all these calculations. India’s security environment is shaped by an unresolved border dispute and a more assertive neighbour. Any defence partnership is ultimately evaluated for its usefulness in this context.
Platforms that cannot be independently modified, upgraded, or deployed without external approvals become liabilities in high-intensity conflict scenarios. Third-party sanctions can disrupt supply chains. From this perspective, Russia’s willingness to localise production and share control is significant.
Conversely, India recognises that maintaining a long-term balance with China requires engagement with the United States and its allies. The challenge is to achieve this without losing decision-making autonomy. This is the core of Indian strategy.
Conclusion: Sovereignty as Strategy
From an Indian perspective, the current moment is not a crisis but a clarification. The stalling of the Indo-US trade and defence package revealed the limits of a partnership that prioritises compliance over convergence. Russia’s renewed engagement highlighted the enduring value of sovereignty in strategic dealings.
India’s message is clear and purposeful. It will collaborate with all major powers. It aims to promote global stability. However, it will not agree to arrangements that limit its ability to make independent decisions, adapt, and defend.
In an era of changing power dynamics, this emphasis on autonomy is not mere ideological nostalgia. It is strategic realism. Sovereignty, rather than alignment, remains India’s most valuable asset.