Problematic from the point of view of the Russian foreign-policy establishment is the place of China. On the one hand, China is an ascendent power it would be useful to have on board. It also gets something like 70% of Russian weapons sold abroad (it and India together get about 90%). Arms sales to China are a big cash cow. On the other hand, many people question the wisdom of arming a neighbor that contests Russian possession of the Russian Far East, esp. since the Russian population of that area is dropping rapidly and the number of Chinese is on the increase (there is a lot of illegal immigration from China to the Far East).
A lot of foreign-policy debate has revolved around the question of whether to turn to China to counteract the influence of the West, or vice-versa. Putin seems to be moving in the direction of option no. 2.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal ------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:49:40 +0530 From: "Ulhas Joglekar" <uvj at vsnl.com> Subject: Re: Primakov doctrine
From: Chris Doss <chrisd at russiajournal.com>
Subject: RE: Primakov doctrine
> > I'm perplexed about something, though. In discussions in Russia, the
third
> proposed member in the Russia-China-X triad is almost always identified as
> India, not Iran of all things.
>
> Anybody out there with some knowledge of Indian foreign policy have any
> comments?
I am not sure what is perplexing about this. India was the closest ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold war. It was China that was in the US camp. India's relations with Russia retains importance even today. I am skeptical about the prospects of the so- called Triad (Russia, China and India), but that's a different matter. What Iran has to offer Russia?
Ulhas