India-Russia relationship continued despite the changing global order and third-party agenda. Despite the historical, cultural, and military significance, India shifted away from Russia, as is evident in its renewed focus on producing indigenous weapons and strengthening trade with the United States.
India-Russia bilateral relations and external pressures
A fundamental bilateral issue is the inability of the Russia-India partnership to remain unsusceptible to external influence or short-term geopolitical factors. The relationship faces significant pressure from "unilateral sanctions" and economic protectionism favoured by Western powers, mainly the US. For example, in 2025, the US imposed tariffs of 25 to 50 per cent on Indian goods, explicitly linked to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. These external measures have created misconceptions and a sense of risk within the Indian business and banking communities, which acts as a deterrent to deepening economic engagement with Russia.
Russia’s and India's traditional partnership must also navigate a landscape of changing regional priorities. During recent years, Russia has intensified its engagement with Pakistan in the areas of security and counter-terrorism, such as supplying MI-35 attack helicopters. Russia-China relations have also reached historically high levels of trust and cooperation, with bilateral trade exceeding USD 100 billion. While this may appear problematic to India, as Russia no longer appears to be its primary Asian partner.
Amb Raghavan on India-Russia relations
Ambassador Raghavan describes the India-Russia bond as a "special and privileged strategic partnership" that is fundamentally "immune to any short-term factors." He notes that both countries have explicitly declared that their bilateral relations are not "susceptible to outside influence.” He also recognizes that in a highly interconnected global economy, it is "very difficult to be insulated from the impact of economic sanctions" and that external pressures, particularly from the US, create a continuous challenge for Indian policymakers to balance. He argues that India has historically succeeded in acting independently, often surprising others by the extent of its strategic autonomy.
He also identifies a significant disconnect between the strategic visions of national leaders and the private sector's risk-averse behavior. He emphasizes that the Indian business and banking communities frequently harbor “misconceptions about the application of Western sanctions against Russia." To deepen economic engagement, he argues that these actors must look past "unflattering media images" and recognize that many Western companies themselves find ways to maintain Russian ties, suggesting that Indian businesses suffer from a "mutual ignorance of opportunities.”
Regarding the changing regional dynamics, Raghavan acknowledges the "intensification of Russia’s contacts with Pakistan" in areas of security and counter-terrorism. Earlier, in his capacity as Ambassador, he stated that while India believes Russia is sensitive to Indian security concerns, New Delhi would not like to see a "potential adversary armed with defence equipment that could impact on our security." He stresses that India-Russia defense ties possess a level of intensity and trust that is not extended to others.
He acknowledges that Russia-China relations have reached their "highest level in history," however, he rejected the idea that Russia is willing to become a junior partner. He writes that Russia intends to be an "active, independent player" rather than an "adjunct to Chinese ambitions." He frames the "Greater Eurasia" concept as a strategic move to place China within a "web of ties, institutions and balances" specifically designed to "prevent it from exercising hegemony". For India, he suggests that ensuring Russia remains an independent Pacific power is essential to maintaining a multi-polar security architecture.
Amb Raghavan and India-Russia Relations: A Critique
Amb Raghavan places heavy emphasis on the "personal chemistry" of leaders as evidence of a vibrant relationship, which may overlook the fact that many economic initiatives, such as trade settlements in national currencies, have been "promised many times in the past" without being successfully exploited.
He claims the relationship is immune to "outside influence," yet his warnings about "sanction phobia" in Indian banks suggest that Western "outside influence" is actually the primary factor limiting the growth of the relationship.
