Kurchatov, Russia:

UN nuclear watchdog head Rafael Grossi kicked off a visit Tuesday to “independently assess” conditions at Russia’s Kursk nuclear plant following Ukraine’s unprecedented cross-border offensive into the Russian region.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly warned of the dangers of fighting around nuclear plants following Russia’s full-scale military offensive into Ukraine in February 2022.

A spokesperson for Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, told AFP that Grossi had arrived at the power plant as he personally leads a mission to assess the situation there, which he has warned is “serious”.

In the first days of the conflict, Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in southern Ukraine, and also briefly held the decommissioned Chernobyl plant in the north.

Ukraine launched its surprise incursion into Kursk on August 6 and has said it is making advances, even as Russian forces move deeper into eastern Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin last week accused Ukraine of trying to attack the Kursk nuclear power plant, which is less than 50 kilometres (30 miles) from fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces.

The IAEA confirmed that it had been told by Russian authorities that drone fragments were found last Thursday roughly 100 metres from the Kursk plant’s spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

Serious situation

Grossi said Monday he would “independently assess what is happening” at the plant, “given the serious situation”.

“The safety and security of all nuclear power plants is of central and fundamental concern to the IAEA,” Grossi said in a statement.

The plant lies some 60 kilometres from the Russia-Ukraine border, next to the Seym river, and less than 50 kilometres away from Kursk city, the region’s capital with a population of around 440,000.

The plant has four reactor units though only two are operational and two more reactors are under construction.

All four reactors are the same type as Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant, without a protecting dome around them.

In 1986, a reactor at Chernobyl exploded during a botched safety test, resulting in the world’s worst nuclear accident that sent clouds of radiation across much of Europe and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate.

Tariq Rauf, a former IAEA official, said these types of reactors have since undergone “significant safety upgrades”.

Robert Kelley, a former IAEA director of inspections, said: “The possibility of a Chernobyl-type incident with the reactor blowing up and burning for days is zero.”

But he added that an errant bomb or large artillery strike on spent fuel storage ponds could damage the fuel and release radioactive gases and particles.

Maximum restraint

Russia has repeatedly sounded the alarm over a possible hit since Ukrainian troops and tanks charged into Kursk.

The IAEA urged both Russia and Ukraine to exercise “maximum restraint” to “avoid a nuclear accident with the potential for serious radiological consequences”.

On Sunday, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian forces had taken control of two more Russian settlements in Kursk region, adding to dozens already captured.

More than 130,000 people have been displaced so far.

Kyiv has said the offensive aims to prevent cross-border strikes from Russia into its Sumy region and to force Russia to the negotiating table “on our own terms”.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Paris:

After an escalation of hostilities Sunday amid over 10 months of cross-border clashes between Israel and Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah movement, here are the major eruptions of violence since their 2006 war.

The devastating month-long war in the summer of 2006 cost Lebanon more than 1,200 lives, mostly civilians, while some 160 Israelis were killed, mostly soldiers.

The following years saw sporadic attacks, which surged following the October 7 attack by Hezbollah’s Palestinian ally Hamas on Israel.

2007-2013: rocket fire and incursion

On June 17, 2007, two rockets were fired into northern Israel from Lebanon hitting an industrial zone in the border town of Kiryat Shmona without causing casualties. Hezbollah denies responsibility.

In early August 2010, a move by Israeli troops to uproot trees in a disputed border area at Adaysseh sparks a deadly border battle in which two Lebanese soldiers and a journalist are killed along with a senior Israeli officer.

On August 7, 2013, four Israeli soldiers on patrol were wounded in a blast claimed by Hezbollah 400 metres (yards) inside Lebanese territory.

2014-2015: Israeli strikes

On February 26, 2014, Hezbollah says Israeli warplanes had carried out an air raid on one of its positions at Lebanon’s border with Syria.

On October 7, Israel strikes two Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon in response to its bomb attack against Israeli troops on the ceasefire line on the Shebaa hills between the two countries that wounded two soldiers.

On January 28, 2015, two Israeli soldiers are killed in a Hezbollah ambush in the Shebaa hills.

The attack is carried out in retaliation for a raid blamed on Israel 10 days earlier on the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights, which killed at least six members of Hezbollah and an Iranian general.

In retaliation, Israeli tanks and artillery bombarded several villages in southern Lebanon.

2019: drones and missiles strikes

On August 25, 2019, two explosive-laden drones hit the southern Beirut suburbs, causing material damage according to Hezbollah, which blames the attack on Israel.

The day before, an Israeli air strike in Syria had killed two Hezbollah members.

On September 1, the Israeli army and Hezbollah traded missile fire along the border.

2021: uptick in clashes

On August 4, 2021, three rockets were fired from Lebanon, of which two fell in Israel. The Israeli army responds with air strikes on southern Lebanon.

On August 6, Hezbollah fires more than 10 rockets at Israel, which responds with artillery fire.

2023-2024: October 7 attacks aftermath

Hezbollah has traded almost daily cross-border fire with Israel since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel which triggered the war in the Gaza Strip.

In southern Lebanon, a Reuters video journalist was killed on October 13, and six other journalists from AFP, Reuters and Al Jazeera were wounded in a strike by an Israeli tank.

On January 2, 2024, Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Aruri was killed in Beirut’s southern suburbs in a strike blamed on Israel.

On February 26, Israeli strikes Hezbollah targets in the Bekaa Valley in the first such raid on Lebanon’s east since fighting erupted in October.

July, August 2024: Hezbollah, Fatah chiefs killed

On July 27, a rocket strike killed 12 children aged 10-16 in the Druze Arab town of Majdal Shams in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights.

Israel blames the strike on Hezbollah, which denies the claim.

The Israeli army responds by striking Beirut’s southern suburbs on July 30, killing Hezbollah’s top commander in the south, Fuad Shukr.

In an August 21 strike, the Israeli military kills Khalil Maqdah, described by the Palestinian Fatah movement as “one of the leaders” of its armed wing in Lebanon.

August 2024: hostilities surge

On August 25, Hezbollah says it launched a barrage of hundreds of rockets and drones on Israel in response to the killing of Shukr. It says its operation “was completed and accomplished”.

But Israel says it has thwarted the attack, launching air strikes into Lebanon that the military says destroyed “thousands” of Hezbollah rocket launchers.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Russia-Ukraine war started exactly two years ago. The very next day, on February 25, 2022, India abstained from voting on a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council. In the course of the ongoing war, New Delhi has been abstaining from taking clear sides, much to the chagrin of establishments in both the European Union and the United States. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Ukraine, after a much-publicised visit to Moscow in July, in maintaining with India’s stated position of strategic neutrality, questions are being asked in global capitals about India’s motivations. This is the first time an Indian prime minister has visited an independent Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union. 

There have been enough domestic discussions on India’s purported role in world peace and other grand enterprise. Let’s bring realism back into the game now.

Decoupling From West Is Not An Option

Domestic chatter aside, what the Western world – the US, EU, UK nexus – thinks about India’s stand on the Russia-Ukraine conflict does, indeed, matter to India. No matter what the virulently nationalist ecosystem clamours for, decoupling from the West is not an option for India. It is not merely about diplomatic grandstanding. Since 2014, PM Modi has been making diplomatic and cultural gestures to bolster India-EU relations. There have been increased levels of engagement to secure crucial strategic and economic partnerships between India and the EU member states. While India’s relationship with Ukraine may not have been headline-making historically, its implications have not been any less significant. That explains why India has consistently decried Russian aggression against Ukraine.

With his visit to Kyiv, PM Modi may be revealing India’s growing transactions with the EU member states for its defence and strategic needs. After all, the Russian manpower and machines have put up a dismal performance in the current theatre. It’s high time Indian generals stopped defending the Russian infrastructure just because they, too, are dependent on it and must swear by its fierceness. India has options for its defence and modernisation needs and must use them. After all, what use are partnerships like the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) that the EU set up with India in April 2022?

Exports From Russia Are Dwindling

It needs to be brought back into the picture that India’s arms procurement from Russia saw a significant drop in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The trend has been continuing, and as per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s latest reports, Russian exports to India have sharply declined from 76% in 2009–2013 to 36% in 2019-2024. While India remains the Russian arms industry’s biggest market, it’s also shopping from elsewhere, and that cart is getting bigger. A war-stressed Moscow is unlikely to meet New Delhi’s growing defence needs owing to the latter’s neighbourhood concerns.  

Au contraire, other countries are pushing their catalogues for New Delhi to browse. The French are coming hot and sexy with their Rafael jets and a “defence industrial roadmap” to jointly design and develop mechanical infrastructure. India and France have joined hands in building submarines, combat aircraft engines, and multi-role helicopters. Ukraine, accounting for 11% of India’s total defence imports, too, is an important partner. India is also deepening defence and security ties with countries like South Korea, South Africa and Poland. It is no coincidence that PM Modi made a pit stop in Poland before heading to Ukraine.

A Wise Move By India

By maintaining its stance of strategic neutrality, India is securing self-interest-driven allies in Europe and Asia without the overlordship of the US. It is a wise move on India’s part in keeping with the ever-looming shadow of China in the neighbourhood.  The US has exhibited reluctance to share crucial defence technology with India despite promises and agreements, like the one between General Electric and Indian partners for technology to power the new fleet of fighter jets. India knows better than to rely on the US, a country that holds its military-industrial complex dearer than any ideological principle. 

It is clear that India—while being on “the side of peace”—is keeping its national interests above everything else. Mykhailo Podolyak, a presidential adviser in Ukraine, acknowledges that India “really has a certain influence” over Russia. It is this reputation that India aims to, ought to capitalise on in its attempt to emerge as a dependable global negotiator. Only those who have power can negotiate, the rest only nudge. 

The timing for Modi’s Ukraine visit is almost perfect. India is not expected to use a magic wand to bring Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table. The military situation remains hot. Even minor dialling down of fighting, if at all, will be enough for India’s influence optics. No significant developments in the region can be expected till the US elects its next president. Till the US gets its house in order and views its NATO obligations afresh, the window is open for India to pedal hard towards its strategic goals—choosing realism over idealism and empty talk. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The Russia-Ukraine war started exactly two years ago. The very next day, on February 25, 2022, India abstained from voting on a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council. In the course of the ongoing war, New Delhi has been abstaining from taking clear sides, much to the chagrin of establishments in both the European Union and the United States. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Ukraine, after a much-publicised visit to Moscow in July, in maintaining with India’s stated position of strategic neutrality, questions are being asked in global capitals about India’s motivations. This is the first time an Indian prime minister has visited an independent Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union. 

There have been enough domestic discussions on India’s purported role in world peace and other grand enterprise. Let’s bring realism back into the game now.

Decoupling From West Is Not An Option

Domestic chatter aside, what the Western world – the US, EU, UK nexus – thinks about India’s stand on the Russia-Ukraine conflict does, indeed, matter to India. No matter what the virulently nationalist ecosystem clamours for, decoupling from the West is not an option for India. It is not merely about diplomatic grandstanding. Since 2014, PM Modi has been making diplomatic and cultural gestures to bolster India-EU relations. There have been increased levels of engagement to secure crucial strategic and economic partnerships between India and the EU member states. While India’s relationship with Ukraine may not have been headline-making historically, its implications have not been any less significant. That explains why India has consistently decried Russian aggression against Ukraine.

With his visit to Kyiv, PM Modi may be revealing India’s growing transactions with the EU member states for its defence and strategic needs. After all, the Russian manpower and machines have put up a dismal performance in the current theatre. It’s high time Indian generals stopped defending the Russian infrastructure just because they, too, are dependent on it and must swear by its fierceness. India has options for its defence and modernisation needs and must use them. After all, what use are partnerships like the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) that the EU set up with India in April 2022?

Exports From Russia Are Dwindling

It needs to be brought back into the picture that India’s arms procurement from Russia saw a significant drop in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The trend has been continuing, and as per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s latest reports, Russian exports to India have sharply declined from 76% in 2009–2013 to 36% in 2019-2024. While India remains the Russian arms industry’s biggest market, it’s also shopping from elsewhere, and that cart is getting bigger. A war-stressed Moscow is unlikely to meet New Delhi’s growing defence needs owing to the latter’s neighbourhood concerns.  

Au contraire, other countries are pushing their catalogues for New Delhi to browse. The French are coming hot and sexy with their Rafael jets and a “defence industrial roadmap” to jointly design and develop mechanical infrastructure. India and France have joined hands in building submarines, combat aircraft engines, and multi-role helicopters. Ukraine, accounting for 11% of India’s total defence imports, too, is an important partner. India is also deepening defence and security ties with countries like South Korea, South Africa and Poland. It is no coincidence that PM Modi made a pit stop in Poland before heading to Ukraine.

A Wise Move By India

By maintaining its stance of strategic neutrality, India is securing self-interest-driven allies in Europe and Asia without the overlordship of the US. It is a wise move on India’s part in keeping with the ever-looming shadow of China in the neighbourhood.  The US has exhibited reluctance to share crucial defence technology with India despite promises and agreements, like the one between General Electric and Indian partners for technology to power the new fleet of fighter jets. India knows better than to rely on the US, a country that holds its military-industrial complex dearer than any ideological principle. 

It is clear that India—while being on “the side of peace”—is keeping its national interests above everything else. Mykhailo Podolyak, a presidential adviser in Ukraine, acknowledges that India “really has a certain influence” over Russia. It is this reputation that India aims to, ought to capitalise on in its attempt to emerge as a dependable global negotiator. Only those who have power can negotiate, the rest only nudge. 

The timing for Modi’s Ukraine visit is almost perfect. India is not expected to use a magic wand to bring Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table. The military situation remains hot. Even minor dialling down of fighting, if at all, will be enough for India’s influence optics. No significant developments in the region can be expected till the US elects its next president. Till the US gets its house in order and views its NATO obligations afresh, the window is open for India to pedal hard towards its strategic goals—choosing realism over idealism and empty talk. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be in Poland and Ukraine this week. Both visits are historic in their own ways: for Poland, this will be the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 45 years, while for Ukraine, Modi’s will be the first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister. Where Modi has talked about India and Poland’s “mutual commitment to democracy and pluralism” reinforcing the bilateral relationship, he has expressed “hope for an early return of peace and stability” in Ukraine. 

Often, China and India are put in the same bracket when it comes to their response to the Ukraine war. But Modi’s visit to the country, which follows his much-controversial trip to Russia last month, is why the world shouldn’t compare them. 

India Is More Than Just A Mediator In Europe

Modi’s visit to Russia last month raised a lot of eyebrows as it was also his first visit abroad in his third term. There is now talk of India becoming a potential peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war. But that is missing the woods for the trees. Modi will be in Ukraine to underline that New Delhi’s position on the war remains consistent. Despite close ties with Russia and its decision not to publicly call out Russia as an aggressor, New Delhi has always maintained that the sanctity of territorial integrity and sovereignty remains inviolable in international affairs, and that dialogue and diplomacy is the only way to a sustainable outcome.

Unlike China, Modi publicly told Putin during his visit to Moscow that this was not the era of war, and expressed pain at the death of children after a lethal strike by Russia on Kyiv’s main hospital for children. At that time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had denounced Modi for visiting Russia, calling the trip a “devastating blow to peace efforts”. But New Delhi has continued to maintain its ties with both Moscow and Kyiv throughout the course of the war over the last two and a half years, steadfast in its belief that both sides should be engaged if a lasting solution is to be found. 

A Renewed Vision For Europe

Europe is facing a moment of reckoning with growing internal challenges, a widening regional divide, a war that shows no signs of ending, a rising China, calls for isolationism in the US, and a fracturing of the post-Cold War security arrangement. The end of the Ukraine war will perhaps lay the foundations of a new security order in Europe, but that end is nowhere in sight as both sides search for favourable battlefield realities that they can potentially leverage at the negotiating table. It is at this critical juncture that Europe has started looking at India as a key partner.

And New Delhi has reciprocated. India now views Europe as central to its developmental and strategic priorities. This is borne by the extraordinary diplomatic investment the Modi government has made in imparting momentum to its ties with Europe. What has been an evolving feature of this outreach is India’s attempts to engage with different sub-regions of Europe, allowing New Delhi to focus on their core strengths. It is Central Europe that is now the focus, with Modi visiting Austria last month followed by Poland and Ukraine now. The region has developed its own unique voice on European matters, and especially after the Russian invasion, it has been critical in shaping the larger European response to regional and global issues.

Why Poland Matters To New Delhi

As for Modi’s visit to Poland, it is among the fastest-growing economies in Europe and has been vocal about its strategic aspirations to see Europe emerge as a key geopolitical actor on the global stage. Warsaw’s role will also be critical in shaping the European security architecture once the embers of war in Ukraine cool down. Its location makes it a hub of connectivity across Europe, and India enjoys a lot of goodwill. If India is to move beyond France, Germany and the UK in its European imagination, then building strong economic ties with Poland will be critical. Modi’s visit should lay the foundation for a long-term sustainable partnership with Warsaw.

It is in New Delhi’s interest that a sustainable security architecture takes shape in Europe as European stability is critical for a globally engaged India with critical equities in that geography. New Delhi won’t be playing the mediator. Its eyes are on the larger horizon, where India’s emergence as a credible partner of Europe is seen as important for ensuring that its own developmental and strategic priorities remain insulated from wider disruption. 

(Harsh V Pant is Vice-President for Studies at ORF)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

London is known for its open intellectual climate, where no idea is off-limits. But even in this dynamic city – and indeed in Washington too – it’s almost blasphemous to suggest that Russia and the West can be partners, or that the US and China can coexist as global powers. Recently, Nigel Farage, the Reform Party leader in the UK, faced a storm for urging the West to negotiate sensibly with Russia over Ukraine, calling the war a ‘complete stalemate’. People accused him of “echoing Russian propaganda”.

In India, we often hear that we don’t cultivate a society where all ideas are welcome. But let’s hope that suggesting a new chapter of “Hindi-Cheeni bhai-bhai” (India-China brotherhood) isn’t seen as blasphemy. The strong anti-China sentiment after the Galwan Valley clash in 2020 seems to have subsided. We’re buying more Chinese goods now than ever. In 2023, our bilateral trade hit over $136 billion. Hopefully, even those who burnt Chinese products in Gujarat and Delhi following the border skirmishes are more open to the idea now.

Sure, it might sound crazy to suggest that India and China should become trusted partners like the US and India, or Russia and China. But, it’s not entirely out of the question.

Sure, it might sound crazy to suggest that India and China should become trusted partners like the US and India, or Russia and China. But, it’s not entirely out of the question.

Major Geopolitical Shifts

India’s rise to become a global power is unstoppable; even China knows that. Talking to Chinese academics and journalists, you get the sense that they’re open to establishing long-term ties based on mutual respect. They like India, they want more people-to-people interactions, and one of them even wondered recently why India does not try to cast its spell over the dragon through its soft power of Bollywood  

Both countries have the responsibility to lift millions of their combined 2.8 billion people out of poverty. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged to make India a developed country by 2047, which is a huge task. There are challenges, but if India and China team up and leverage each other’s strengths, it could be a major geopolitical shift, with far-reaching implications for global politics. 

Read | Modi-Hasina Should Worry About China, But Not Too Much

The US and its allies might be shocked and deeply concerned by a close India-China partnership. The West has benefited from the rivalry between the two countries as it aligns with their strategy of counterbalancing China’s rise. A partnership between these two Asian giants could undermine the West’s strategic interests in the region. Kishore Mahbubani, former Singaporean ambassador to the UN, has often said that most of Asia would cheer if this were to happen.

So, can India and China find common ground despite tensions over their disputed border? Prof. Mahbubani believes that while the two may never be best friends, they can have a good working relationship. He even says the 21st century belongs to the CIA (China, India, and ASEAN) countries. With US power on the decline, these countries will drive the world’s economic growth.

A Rollercoaster Ride

The idea of India and China being close friends isn’t new. Historically, they’ve acted like quarrelsome neighbours who fight and make up repeatedly. They share a long history of cultural and economic exchange dating back over two millennia. The Silk Road facilitated trade, and Buddhism, which started in India, found a significant following in China. These ancient ties laid a foundation of mutual respect and cultural affinity. During the colonial era, both countries faced subjugation by Western powers, fostering a sense of shared struggle. 

After gaining independence from the British, India faced border issues with China, and they continue to strain their relationship. In the early 1950s, the relationship was marked by camaraderie, epitomised by the slogan “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai“. However, this period of cooperation was short-lived. The border dispute escalated into a full-scale war in 1962, leaving a lasting scar on bilateral relations. The disputed borders, particularly in the Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh regions, remain contentious issues.

The rivalry between the US and China will continue, and India will remain under US pressure in its effort to manage China. However, India’s strategic positioning between the US and China can work to its advantage.

Before the Galwan incident, Prime Minister Narendra Modi naturally leaned towards engaging with China. As Gujarat’s Chief Minister, he made four trips to the country to attract investment. As Prime Minister, he has visited China twice, and President Xi Jinping reciprocated with two visits to India. Both countries have emerged as major global economic powers, engaging in significant economic competition and areas of cooperation within multilateral frameworks like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

Strategic Rivalry

Strategically, India and China view each other with suspicion. The latter’s close ties with Pakistan, its infrastructure projects in South Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and its military presence in the Indian Ocean have heightened India’s security concerns.

Conversely, India’s growing partnership with the US and its participation in the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) is viewed warily by China. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash exacerbated tensions and highlighted the fragility of the relationship. Despite several rounds of military and diplomatic talks, a comprehensive resolution to the border disputes remains elusive.

Mumbai’s Shanghai Dreams

Many youth in India might not know that not too long ago, India used to compare itself with Pakistan in all spheres. This attitude changed around the turn of the millennium, when the Maharashtra government launched a mega project to revamp Mumbai in 2004, based on the “Vision Mumbai” report by Bombay First, an organisation comprising some of Mumbai’s super-rich stakeholders. The report outlined strategies for transforming Mumbai into “another Shanghai”. While the project to transform Mumbai is still a “work in progress”, it marked the beginning of India’s comparisons with China. Today, China sees India as its great rival, at least in Asia.

Read | China Is Revamping Its Military, And India Must Not Take It Lightly

Projections show that the Indian economy will surpass Germany and Japan’s to become the world’s third-largest one by 2027. Currently, however, India’s economy is only 19% the size of China’s, even though it feeds nearly the same number of people. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India’s nominal GDP in 2023 stood at $3.5 trillion, compared to China’s $18.2 trillion. India’s per capita income was $2,411, while China’s was $12,720. China’s exports last year exceeded $3.38 trillion, while India’s exports were $778 billion.

Collaboration Possibilities

Since China opened its economy in 1978, it has lifted 800 million people out of poverty – a feat that hasn’t been matched by any regime in history. India has also succeeded in reducing poverty significantly. Both nations have many more millions to help. Collaborating in economic development, technology, infrastructure, environmental initiatives, healthcare, cultural exchange, and geopolitical stability can benefit both countries and the world. Overcoming historical tensions and building trust through consistent dialogue will be crucial.

The intense rivalry between the US and China will continue, and India will remain under pressure from the US to stay a reliable partner in its effort to manage China. However, India’s strategic positioning between the US and China can work to its advantage. Ultimately, New Delhi’s strategic interests are best served by a balanced approach that navigates the complex dynamics of US-China relations while advancing its own national objectives. 

India knows that neighbours with shared borders may fight at times, but they can still continue to believe in the ‘love thy neighbour’ dictum.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un walk during a farewell ceremony upon Mr. Putin’s departure at an airport in Pyongyang, North Korea June 19, 2024.
| Photo Credit: via Reuters

A new agreement between Russia and North Korea reached by their leaders requires the countries to use all available means to provide immediate military assistance in the event of war, North Korean state media said.

The North’s official Korean Central News Agency on Thursday reported the language of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement reached by its leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Pyongyang on Wednesday. The agency said Article 4 of the agreement states that if one of the countries gets invaded and is pushed into a state of war, the other must deploy “all means at its disposal without delay” to provide “military and other assistance”.

The deal could mark the strongest connection between Moscow and Pyongyang since the end of the Cold War. Both Mr. Kim and Mr. Putin described it as a major upgrade of their relations, covering security, trade, investment, cultural and humanitarian ties.

The summit came as the U.S. and its allies expressed growing concerns over a possible arms arrangement in which Pyongyang provides Moscow with badly needed munitions for its war in Ukraine, in exchange for economic assistance and technology transfers that could enhance the threat posed by Mr. Kim’s nuclear weapons and missile programme.

Following their summit, Mr. Kim said the two countries had a “fiery friendship”, and that the deal was their “strongest-ever treaty”, putting the relationship at the level of an alliance. He vowed full support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Mr. Putin called it a “breakthrough document” reflecting shared desires to move relations to a higher level.

North Korea and the former Soviet Union signed a treaty in 1961, which experts say necessitated Moscow’s military intervention if the North came under attack. The deal was discarded after the collapse of the USSR, replaced by one in 2000 that offered weaker security assurances.

South Korean officials said they were still interpreting the results of the summit, including what Russia’s response might be if the North comes under attack, and whether the new deal promises a similar level of protection with the 1961 treaty. South Korean officials didn’t immediately comment on the North Korean report about the details of the deal.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest point in years, with the pace of both Kim’s weapons tests and combined military exercises involving the US, South Korea and Japan intensifying in a tit-for-tat cycle.

The Koreas also have engaged in Cold War-style psychological warfare that involved North Korea dropping tons of trash on the South with balloons, and the South broadcasting anti-North Korean propaganda with its loudspeakers.