top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Ageing Wings

The crash of an Indian Air Force Antonov AN-32 during landing at Jorhat in Assam, which claimed the lives of five air force personnel, is a sombre reminder of the risks routinely borne by India’s servicemen and women. It also raises difficult questions about ageing military platforms that remain in service long after their intended prime.


The Antonov AN-32 has been one of the unsung workhorses of the Indian Air Force. Since its induction in the 1980s, the Soviet-designed twin-engine turboprop has carried troops and equipment across some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth. From the icy heights of Ladakh to the dense forests of the Northeast, the aircraft has performed missions indispensable to India’s defence preparedness. During the Kargil conflict and subsequent military mobilisations, it proved its worth countless times.


And yet, the Jorhat accident is the third major AN-32 crash in the past decade. In 2016, an aircraft disappeared over the Bay of Bengal, taking with it 29 personnel. In 2019, another AN-32 crashed in Arunachal Pradesh, killing 13. Together with Saturday's tragedy, these accidents have exacted a heavy human toll. Even if the aircraft enjoys a reputation as one of the more reliable platforms in the Air Force’s inventory, repeated crashes inevitably raise questions about fleet age, maintenance practices and technological obsolescence.


Military aviation is inherently hazardous. It would be simplistic and unfair to attribute every accident solely to the age of an aircraft. But there is a broader issue that cannot be ignored. India’s armed forces continue to rely on several platforms designed during the Cold War. The AN-32 fleet was acquired in 1984. Though upgrades have been undertaken, including avionics modernisation and engine overhauls, the aircraft remains fundamentally a product of another era. Modernisation programmes have themselves been hindered by geopolitical disruptions, notably the deterioration of relations between Russia and Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea. The result has been a patchwork approach to sustaining an ageing fleet.


This challenge extends beyond a single aircraft type. Across the world, military forces face the dilemma of balancing operational readiness against the enormous costs of replacing legacy platforms. India, with its vast security commitments and finite defence budget, is no exception. Yet every crash underscores the hidden costs of postponing difficult procurement decisions.


Defence capability is not measured solely by fighter jets and warships showcased during national celebrations. It rests equally on logistics, maintenance infrastructure and safety culture. A military can project power only if it can reliably move people and equipment where they are needed.


For now, the immediate priority is a thorough and transparent investigation. If systemic shortcomings are identified, they must be addressed without bureaucratic delay. The AN-32 has served India faithfully for four decades. But faithful service is not a reason to avoid hard questions. It is a reason to ask them.

Comments

bottom of page