India, Russia sign billions in weapons deals, call US- Iran sanctions 'counter-productive' - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01309/24TH_PM-PUTIN_1309052f.jpg[/IMG] [I]Manmohan Singh and Vladimir Putin[/I] During the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India, the two sides signed a number of contracts that leave no doubt that the relationship between Russia and India are "particularly strategic" in their nature. India has always appreciated the fact that the Soviet government used to recognize the independence of the country even before its official announcement. In addition, it is difficult to forget the help that Leonid Brezhnev provided to Indira Gandhi during the war against Pakistan. The USSR sent echelons of trains loaded with weapons and food, whereas the ships of the Pacific Fleet went to the Bay of Bengal to oppose the forces of the U.S. Seventh Fleet. India, in contrast to many other "friends" would never forget this help. Nowadays, it is Indian administration that describes its relations with Russia as "very privileged and strategic." "We deeply appreciate the strong friendship with Russia and the support that Russia gives India," said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the meeting with the Russian president. "The deepening of friendship and cooperation with India is a priority of our foreign policy. And we have every reason to say that they are truly unique and privileged in nature," Putin said. Putin wrote an article prior to his visit to India. Published in the Indian newspaper Hindu, the article focuses on the partnership within the scope of the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - an allusion to India's membership at the SCO. "Our consultations at international forums, such as the UN Security Council and BRICS, have deepened during the year," Prime Minister of India said. The two sides exchanged views on major international political issues. In advance of the planned 2014 withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, Russia and India agreed to cooperate closely in the fight against extremism and drug trafficking in the war-torn country. The leaders called upon all sides to end the conflict on the Syrian issue and take part in a dialogue to resolve the conflict by peaceful political means, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2043 (the peace plan of six points of the former special envoy of the UN/Arab League on Syria, Kofi Annan). Moscow and New Delhi called the sanctions of the West against Iran "counterproductive." The countries also said they favor a discussion of a comprehensive agreement on economic cooperation between India and the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, Russia & India Report said. As a result of Putin's visit to India, the two sides signed the contracts, which left no doubt that Russia would remain India's major partner. Both the leader of the ruling coalition, Sonia Gandhi, and opposition share this point of view. The two countries will strive to double the turnover, which in 2012 reached $10 billion. India will build pharmaceutical plants in Russia, whereas Russia will build new nuclear power plants in India. "The negotiations on the construction of the third and fourth blocks of NPP Kudankulam have reached good progress," said Manmohan Singh. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on cooperation in the GLONASS navigation system between JSC Navigation Information Systems (NIS GLONASS) and Indian companies Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). The document provides for the use of solutions of NIS GLONASS and the infrastructure of BSNL and MTNL for providing services in India through geopositioning and telematics using satellite GLONASS and GPS technologies. The unprecedented level of military and technical cooperation between the countries proves the strategic partnership between Russia and India. Its essence and real content is much more positive than the assessments from Western experts, who pay attention to Russia's recent losses in tenders to French Rafale fighter jets, U.S. Apache and Chinook helicopters. However, a victory in these tenders does not guarantee actual contracts. Price, performance and political risks can be too high to handle. Russia found its firm place under the Indian sun through sales with the transfer of technologies and joint development and production of weapons. Russian companies take into account weather, financial conditions and the specific characteristics of the military personnel of India. Western companies can not offer all that yet. It goes about the joint production of BrahMos supersonic missiles, multi-purpose fighters Su-30 MKI, the joint development of multi-purpose transport aircraft and fifth generation "stealth" aircraft. As for the stealth aircraft, Russia and India signed a contract on research and experimental development (R & D Agreement) worth 5.5 billion dollars of investment for each party. India's Ministry of Defense announced that the first batch of new fighters is scheduled for 2022. Each aircraft will cost about a hundred million dollars; India's total cost on this huge project will make up $35 billion, says India Times. New contracts were signed to supply 71 Mi-17V5 choppers to India in the amount of $1.3 billion and component kits for the assembly of 42 Su-30MKI fighters worth $1.6 billion. Russia also assured that there would be "technical problems" resolved with Vikramaditya aircraft carrier ($ 2.3 billion), which will be ready on time in November 2013, and with nuclear submarine INS Chakra (K-152 Nerpa), which India rented for ten years for one billion dollars.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/25-12-2012/123302-russia_putin-0/"]source[/URL]

World War III: Russia-India versus China-America, calling it! [sp]JOKING[/sp]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38981326]World War III: Russia-India versus China-America, calling it! [sp]JOKING[/sp][/QUOTE] Sounds like an interesting fiction novel to me.

Why would China work with America tho?

India and Russia are bros man, if anything, it saved the Ruskies a bunch of money since Nuclear subs are costly to maintain.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38981326]World War III: Russia-India versus China-America, calling it! [sp]JOKING[/sp][/QUOTE] That would be so confusing from a political scenario I can't even begin to think of the basic implications on international relationships (poor Japan)

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;38981771]Why would China work with America tho?[/QUOTE] Explain why China and America wouldn't first. Because lately they have conduct military exercises together.

[QUOTE=Aide;38982848]Explain why China and America wouldn't first. Because lately they have conduct military exercises together.[/QUOTE] They conduct very limited operations together rarely, such as counter-terrorism operations and things like that. They hate eachother and have opposite interests, many many disputes with eachother and are against eachothers views. [editline]26th December 2012[/editline] Even Russia has more military operations with the US on a more in-depth basis.

China and American need each other economically to survive.

[QUOTE=Aide;38982971]China and American need each other economically to survive.[/QUOTE] No they don't. They could survive just fine, China's private factories would lose customers and US would have to pay a little bit more for cheaply manufactured goods such as electronics. Opposing national interests doesn't mean two countries can't trade. All it would mean to break trade would be to lose cheap goods which other countries would gladly make up for this and maybe it would mean more domestically produced goods.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38983016]No they don't. They could survive just fine, China's private factories would lose customers and US would have to pay a little bit more for cheaply manufactured goods such as electronics. Opposing national interests doesn't mean two countries can't trade. All it would mean to break trade would be to lose cheap goods which other countries would gladly make up for this and maybe it would mean more domestically produced goods.[/QUOTE] You make it sound like the loss of cheap manufacturing would be a minor annoyance to the US and loss of customers the same to China. It would be a bit more than that.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38983016]No they don't. They could survive just fine, China's private factories would lose customers and US would have to pay a little bit more for cheaply manufactured goods such as electronics. Opposing national interests doesn't mean two countries can't trade. All it would mean to break trade would be to lose cheap goods which other countries would gladly make up for this and maybe it would mean more domestically produced goods.[/QUOTE] That's uhh, a really idealistic view.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38983124]You make it sound like the loss of cheap manufacturing would be a minor annoyance to the US and loss of customers the same to China. It would be a bit more than that.[/QUOTE] You realize the rest of the world is also a big market for Chinese goods. There are other places to sources these goods anyway. Yeah, economic loses but they would survive without them. I don't see how I'm wrong? [editline]26th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Depardieu;38983132]That's uhh, a really idealistic view.[/QUOTE] Did you want me to have a pessimistic view? What is your viewpoint?

[QUOTE=laserguided;38983161] Did you want me to have a pessimistic view? What is your viewpoint?[/QUOTE] I don't particularly care what views you hold, but seeing ideals makes me cringe. My viewpoints simple, you're correct in that the rest of the world would pick up the slack and start producing these lost goods, as any time there's a demand for something it will be met by someone looking to make some cash. However, I highly doubt you would "gladly" forgo a high paying job, sacrifice a standard of living your nation has known for the past 50 somewhat years and take up a low wage, hourly rate job on an assembly line piecing together TVs. Also keep in mind that currently when something says "Made in America", it only has to be assembled in America. If we stop receiving the cheap components from Asia and need to create them on our own, the price of "Made in America" will be much higher.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38983161]Did you want me to have a pessimistic view? What is your viewpoint?[/QUOTE] No, i'd prefer a realistic view.

[QUOTE=elowin;38983390]No, i'd prefer a realistic view.[/QUOTE] Realistic view isn't exactly realistic if you disagree or its never happened and never predicted to happen. [editline]26th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Depardieu;38983354]I don't particularly care what views you hold, but seeing ideals makes me cringe. My viewpoints simple, you're correct in that the rest of the world would pick up the slack and start producing these lost goods, as any time there's a demand for something it will be met by someone looking to make some cash. However, I highly doubt you would "gladly" forgo a high paying job, sacrifice a standard of living your nation has known for the past 50 somewhat years and take up a low wage, hourly rate job on an assembly line piecing together TVs. Also keep in mind that currently when something says "Made in America", it only has to be assembled in America. If we stop receiving the cheap components from Asia and need to create them on our own, the price of "Made in America" will be much higher.[/QUOTE] The whole of Asia isn't China. Cost of living would go up and there would need to be a large effort to find alternate sources. Where there is demand there is usually someone willing to produce. There are alot of people who would be willing to be paid TV factory wages in the world that aren't in China, which is kind of sad but true. [editline]26th December 2012[/editline] Plus, factory automation is reducing production costs. Maybe we will be at a point where all that is needed is Q/A.

I can see America and China teaming up, It would be like watching two tsundere anime characters go at it but they couldn't survive without eachother. China is only making so much money off of their system because we are such a consuming nations, nobody buys more shit then us! Now imagine if they went against us, ya maybe Russia and India could start being more chinese goods but even that they only could buy a fraction of what the U.S. could. They would have to then rebuild their economy which isn't cheap at all. They would also need to socially reform from communism into consumerism which could cost the government their power. Then India and Russia would have to become producers to supply china and then they would find themselves in the same predicament that we are in right now. And this is Before we even talk about who would win the war. Meanwhile if they were to side with US they would be able to keep their current eceonomy and reap the spoils of war (land) in the region. Also the US would be able to buy a half a century off of China and be able to effectively restart the economy.

[QUOTE=redshift2234;38983697]I can see America and China teaming up, It would be like watching two tsundere anime characters go at it but they couldn't survive without eachother. China is only making so much money off of their system because we are such a consuming nations, nobody buys more shit then us! Now imagine if they went against us, ya maybe Russia and India could start being more chinese goods but even that they only could buy a fraction of what the U.S. could. They would have to then rebuild their economy which isn't cheap at all. [B]They would also need to socially reform from communism into consumerism [/B]which could cost the government their power. Then India and Russia would have to become producers to supply china and then they would find themselves in the same predicament that we are in right now. And this is Before we even talk about who would win the war. Meanwhile if they were to side with US they would be able to keep their current eceonomy and reap the spoils of war (land) in the region. Also the US would be able to buy a half a century off of China and be able to effectively restart the economy.[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you're serious or not.

China isn't communist. Right now they are reforming everything because its closer to a plutocracy than anything else.

[QUOTE=Aide;38982971]China and American need each other economically to survive.[/QUOTE] both are overrated. just because everyone has a cheese burger or iphone doesn't mean they have a heart.

[QUOTE=Aide;38982848]Explain why China and America wouldn't first. Because lately they have conduct military exercises together.[/QUOTE] I think China had military exercises with most NATO countries

[QUOTE=Aide;38982848]Explain why China and America wouldn't first. Because lately they have conduct military exercises together.[/QUOTE] china doesn't like the US, because the US tries to undermine its interests, to quote that old phrase that has been said by several politicians over the years, "We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we only have permanent interests", if the US stopped trying to undermine china, they might ally with the US, but as long as US supports japan, they'll likely be on lukewarm relations at best. also china is part of the BRICS, with brazil, russia, india and south africa, it makes no sense for them to go against india, even if they're not in the best of terms.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;38985518]china doesn't like the US, because the US tries to undermine its interests, to quote that old phrase that has been said by several politicians over the years, "We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we only have permanent interests", if the US stopped trying to undermine china, they might ally with the US, but as long as US supports japan, they'll likely be on lukewarm relations at best. also china is part of the BRICS, with brazil, russia, india and south africa, it makes no sense for them to go against india, even if they're not in the best of terms.[/QUOTE] Actually China and India are at odds over territory disputes on their borders. So it's more likely than you may think.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;38985518]china doesn't like the US, because the US tries to undermine its interests, to quote that old phrase that has been said by several politicians over the years, "We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we only have permanent interests", if the US stopped trying to undermine china, they might ally with the US, but as long as US supports japan, they'll likely be on lukewarm relations at best. also china is part of the BRICS, with brazil, russia, india and south africa, it makes no sense for them to go against india, even if they're not in the best of terms.[/QUOTE] China and Russia have been at odds with each other for decades since the Sino-Soviet Split. China and India haven't gotten along well either, especially with India getting cozy with Russia. It's not a matter of America and China liking each other, it's always been "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I did not mean for this thread to get that derailed like that :v:

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;38987469]Actually China and India are at odds over territory disputes on their borders. So it's more likely than you may think.[/QUOTE] i did said they are at odds, but they're still economical allies, and money trumps everything, plus china is at odds with pretty much every country at south asia due to sea territorial claims, its not like it is anything new. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38987533]China and Russia have been at odds with each other for decades since the Sino-Soviet Split. China and India haven't gotten along well either, especially with India getting cozy with Russia. It's not a matter of America and China liking each other, it's always been "enemy of my enemy is my friend". I did not mean for this thread to get that derailed like that :v:[/QUOTE] is it really a derail? we are talking about potential ramifications of the news at hand(if rather too much into fantasy/tom clancy territory lol)

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;38987540] is it really a derail? we are talking about potential ramifications of the news at hand(if rather too much into fantasy/tom clancy territory lol)[/QUOTE] Arms deals happen all the time, to be honest. There's really nothing to worry about here.

That would make an interesting story to be honest. I sense the next World in Conflict game(Not really I know it doesn't work. Let me have my fun and dream for a sequel)

[QUOTE=Swilly;38987667]That would make an interesting story to be honest. I sense the next World in Conflict game(Not really I know it doesn't work. Let me have my fun and dream for a sequel)[/QUOTE] World in Conflict was a great game. It was a RTS with actual story and unique gameplay.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38987714]World in Conflict was a great game. It was a RTS with actual story and unique gameplay.[/QUOTE] too bad they never made a sequel, they could make one showing the war at europe in greater detail, which according to the story was still raging.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;38987743]too bad they never made a sequel, they could make one showing the war at europe in greater detail, which according to the story was still raging.[/QUOTE] And at India/Pakistan/China borders.