Vladimir Putin's visit to New Delhi highlighted something the world often forgets: India's relationship with Russia is older, deeper and more structurally rooted than contemporary commentary allows. It has endured for decades.
These ties have shown a consistency rare in international affairs. Over the past twenty-five years, India has widened its diplomatic horizon, expanded engagement with the West and corrected Soviet-era imbalances. But this did not involve abandoning Russia. It involved recalibrating the partnership on more realistic terms.
For all the turbulence in global politics, the Russia relationship remains relevant. It is one of India's most resilient and time-tested partnerships. That matters at a moment when many great-power equations are unsettled. The summit reflected India's enduring strategic logic: diversify partners, balance relationships and maintain working ties with all major power centres, especially those shaping Eurasian security and energy flows.
Russia remains a nuclear power, a major energy exporter and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It wields influence in Central Asia, the Middle East and parts of the Global South. Despite the fallout of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has not become irrelevant. India cannot decouple from a country whose decisions affect its security, its energy pricing and the strategic landscape on its northern frontier.
The Pillars Of India-Russia Ties
Defence cooperation is one of the most visible pillars of the relationship. Much of India's military inventory-especially aircraft, submarines and armoured systems-still depends on Russian maintenance and spare parts. Sanctions and Russia's wartime economy have strained this supply chain, making continuity a practical concern rather than an abstract one. The summit gave India an opportunity to secure assurances and clarify timelines even as it accelerates diversification toward Western and indigenous systems.
Energy was another key driver. The war in Ukraine disrupted global oil markets, causing prices to soar. As Russia redirected exports after losing European markets, India became a major destination. Discounted crude helped stabilise inflation at home. India did not buy Russian oil out of sympathy; it did so out of responsibility to its own people.
India's goals, however, went beyond defence spares and oil flows. New Delhi seeks a more balanced economic relationship. Russian exports to India far exceed Indian exports to Russia, creating structural dependence and payment imbalances that are made worse by sanctions. India wants to expand markets for pharmaceuticals, agricultural products and industrial equipment, and to build financial arrangements that reduce vulnerability to external pressure. The summit made incremental progress in that direction.
The outcomes reflected this realism. The optics were warm, but the deliverables were intentionally modest. Agreements covered labour mobility, maritime cooperation and trade facilitation, while avoiding dramatic announcements in sensitive areas like defence, nuclear energy or large-scale oil deals. The summit was not designed for spectacle.
At their joint appearance, Putin emphasised uninterrupted oil supplies, reassuring India on a core economic concern. Prime Minister Modi described the relationship as a "polestar," steady through shifting geopolitical winds. On Ukraine, he reiterated India's support for peace and willingness to contribute to any credible peace effort. The tone captured the essence of the visit: pragmatic cooperation and steady reassurance, paired with India's clear message that it would engage all sides.
Another dimension lay in technology and industrial collaboration. The economic roadmap hinted at a shift from simple procurement to joint research, development and production-a model already tested in projects like BrahMos. Russia has signalled openness to deeper technology transfers in aviation and advanced materials. Indian pharmaceutical and fertiliser firms are exploring manufacturing inside Russia, taking advantage of local energy prices and some insulation from sanctions. Meanwhile, Russia seeks to build technology ecosystems with India to reduce dependence on Western systems. India will engage where interests align, but always within its own regulatory and security parameters.
The joint statement's emphasis on expanding the use of national currencies and improving interoperability of payment and digital-currency systems pointed in the same direction. This was not an attempt to construct an alternative global financial order. It was a practical step to insulate essential trade from sanctions-driven volatility and collateral damage in broader geopolitical disputes.
Connectivity was given similar weight. India and Russia reaffirmed plans to deepen cooperation on transport corridors - from the International North-South Transport Corridor to the Chennai-Vladivostok maritime link and even the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic. These are not just infrastructure projects. They represent a reimagining of India's access to Eurasia at a time when traditional routes are fragile or contested. India signalled interest in the Russian Far East and the Arctic, regions central to emerging shipping patterns and resource access. The intent: diversify pathways to energy, minerals and markets, and build long-term economic resilience.
Taken together, the summit's message was one of steadiness. It highlighted a partnership anchored in trust and continuity. That framing contrasted with the unpredictability visible in some of India's other major relationships, particularly amid moments when American policy toward India appears shaped by internal turbulence.
The broader backdrop made the choice clearer. Washington was circulating a Ukraine "peace plan" with heavy Russian input, asking Ukraine to surrender more territory than Russia currently holds and to accept limits on its military autonomy. Europe is alarmed, Ukraine is sidelined, and Washington's own institutions are uncertain of the plan's origins. It is a diplomatic fog in which no serious country can take sides lightly.
Navigating A Burning Forest
At the summit, India did not. India listened but reiterated that sustainable peace must rest on sovereignty, territorial integrity and the UN Charter. Agreements crafted over Ukraine's head, whether in Moscow or Washington, are unlikely to be just or lasting.
The summit reinforced another truth: the Global South did not choose this war, yet it bears many of its harshest economic costs. Countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America have absorbed sanctions they did not design and inflation they did not cause. India's stance reflects these realities.
For India, the war underscores that the world is moving toward multipolarity. Old alliances no longer define new alignments. Major powers are increasingly transactional and inward-focused. India cannot anchor its strategic choices to any single capital - not Washington, not Moscow, not Beijing.
This is where Russia's growing dependence on China cannot be ignored. A Russia fully absorbed into China's strategic orbit would narrow India's options in Eurasia. Engaging Moscow is, in part, an effort to slow that drift. It is risk management, not nostalgia.
Seen in this light, the summit was not an indulgence. It was an attempt to navigate a burning forest. The elephant cannot pretend the bear no longer exists because the lion disapproves. Nor can it let the bear wander so deep into the dragon's cave that the terrain shifts entirely.
India's foreign policy rests on three pillars reaffirmed by the visit: safeguard national interests, maintain strategic autonomy and uphold principles without ignoring practical responsibilities. The summit reflected India's long-standing habit: keep channels open, avoid proxy entanglements and manage the consequences of crises it did not create.
The elephant walked carefully because the forest was on fire. It walked with the bear because the bear still shapes the terrain. And it walks in its own direction because that remains the only safe way to navigate an uncertain world.
(Nirupama Rao is a former Foreign Secretary)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
