India’s High-Wire Diplomacy: Putin’s Visit and the Limits of Strategic Autonomy

By Sanjeev Oak

Amid tightening US sanctions pressure and a volatile global trade climate, India’s quiet but strategic green signal for a key defence deal sets the stage for Vladimir Putin’s high-stakes visit. New Delhi now navigates a sharper geopolitical balancing act—asserting autonomy while recalibrating great-power equations.

When a great power arrives at another’s doorstep bearing arms, energy and reassurances, the true test is seldom in the ceremonial exchange of smiles. It is in the arithmetic of interests — the tradeoffs, the vulnerabilities exposed, the hedges written into policy documents. A summit that combines defence, energy, trade architecture and long-term strategic cooperation is therefore never just bilateral theatre. It is a mirror of wider geopolitical currents, and a measure of how far a middle power can preserve its independence in an age of binary choices.

“Strategic autonomy is not a slogan; it is the practice of choosing under pressure.”
— A foreign policy strategist

This visit, occurring at a moment when global politics is sharply polarised and sanctions are a central instrument of statecraft, forces New Delhi to reckon with both the practical plumbing of its security and the optics of its alignments. The calculus is deceptively simple on paper: secure defence supplies, stabilise energy imports, protect trade from third-party pressures, and endeavour to broaden the economic relationship. In practice, each of these goals pulls in different directions — operational, technological, financial, and diplomatic.

Dependence, Diversification and the Price of Continuity

India’s armed forces have long been structured around a substantial inventory of platforms and systems of one origin. That institutional familiarity — common parts, trained maintenance networks, doctrine shaped around legacy capabilities — is a form of strategic inertia. When suppliers falter, or when global supply chains realign because of conflict or sanctions, the inertia becomes a liability.

At the summit table, the obvious driver will be ensuring continuity: timely deliveries, spare parts, maintenance contracts, and predictable pipelines for upgrades. But continuity can no longer mean unalloyed dependence. New Delhi has, over recent years, sought to hedge by diversifying suppliers, boosting domestic production and seeking technology transfers. The crucial question is whether repeated procurement from a single large partner can be reconciled with an agenda of indigenisation and supplier diversification.

The way forward is threefold. First, pragmatic short-term hedging: secure contractual assurances, stockpile critical spares and codify maintenance guarantees. Second, medium-term structural change: insist on robust technology transfer, joint production lines, license-manufacture with meaningful value addition in India. Third, a clear timetable for capability migration where feasible — i.e., moving from foreign dependence to co-production and then to indigenous design where strategic and economical thresholds are met.

This is not merely industrial policy. It is force modernisation through a layered supply strategy: imports for immediate capability, joint ventures for sustainment, and domestic R&D for future resilience.

“You cannot buy strategic assurance; you must build it.”
— Defence industry executive

Energy and Trade: Securing Supplies Without Trading Away Leverage

Energy, particularly hydrocarbons, sits at the intersection of commerce and geopolitics. Discounted supplies from a single large exporter can be manna to hungry refineries and treasuries — until external pressure or price shocks reveal fragility. Any effort to stabilise supplies must therefore be matched by diversification: increased ties with alternative suppliers, accelerated investments in renewables and storage, and strategic petroleum reserves calibrated to political risk.

Equally important is the evolution of the payments and logistics architecture that underpins bilateral trade. If sanctions or coercive measures are a constant in the external environment, then the two sides will naturally explore alternative settlement mechanisms, local currency arrangements and barter-like arrangements for select commodities. Those stopgaps may work as ad hoc solutions; they do not remove systemic risk. India’s longer-term interest lies in building trade that is resilient because it is diversified — across products, across partners, and across financial rails.

A second lever is to rebalance the bilateral trade profile. For decades, the relationship has been skewed in favour of one side because of heavy imports of energy and defence hardware. The serious policy challenge is to create a pipeline of Indian exports that can compete in that partner’s market: engineering services, pharmaceuticals, agro-products, IT and select capital goods. Trade rebalancing is less glamorous than signing arms deals but it is far more durable as a foundation of strategic ties.

The Diplomatic Arithmetic: Autonomy, Alignment and the Cost of Credibility

Foreign policy frequently appears to be the art of saying no without alienating friends. Strategic autonomy, as India practices it, has always relied on a mix of diplomacy, partnerships and hedging. The present moment tests whether autonomy can survive when the pressure to choose intensifies.

There are three diplomatic risks to manage. The first is reputational: too visible a tilt toward one partner can erode trust with other strategic friends. The second is transactional: if defence or energy deals are perceived as attempts to circumvent broader global norms, they invite countermeasures. The third is operational: armed forces cannot afford uncertainty in supply lines and maintenance — the strategic credibility of deterrence rests on confidence, not rhetoric.

An effective diplomatic posture requires transparent articulation of national interest: that choices are driven by need, not ideology; that cooperation with any partner is conditional on mutual benefit; and that India’s core commitments — democratic ethos, economic openness and rule-based engagement — remain intact. The ability to communicate this nuance convincingly will determine how much diplomatic cost New Delhi can absorb.

“Diplomacy is not transactional bookkeeping; it is the currency of credibility.”
— Former diplomat

Technology Transfer: The Fine Print Matters

Talk of technology transfer is appealing; the reality is often protracted, partial and politically fraught. Technology transfer is not a single document; it is a sequence: sharing blueprints, enabling licensed production, staff training, transfer of manufacturing jigs and then the hard step — intellectual property and know-how that allow local innovation and modification.

India must insist on granular, enforceable commitments: timelines, quality benchmarks, local value-addition targets and robust dispute-resolution mechanisms. Equally important is the domestic ecosystem — supplier capabilities, standards enforcement, workforce skills and procurement discipline. Without matching domestic reforms, even generous transfer promises risk becoming symbolic gestures.

Scenarios and Strategic Outcomes

To think clearly about outcomes, it helps to frame three plausible scenarios and their implications.

1. Managed Continuity
   In this scenario, both sides agree to operational guarantees: timely deliveries, structured payments and pilot joint ventures. Technology transfer is partial and phased. India preserves immediate capabilities without dramatic diplomatic fallout. Over time, modest increases in Indian production are achieved. This is the least disruptive path but delivers only incremental gains in autonomy.

2. Grand Bargain
   Here, the partnership deepens: substantive technology transfer, ambitious joint production and new trade arrangements. India secures longer-term energy and defence stability. The diplomatic cost is higher; relations with other partners require active repair through reciprocal gestures. This outcome changes the strategic landscape but raises questions about exposure to future political shocks.

3. Frayed Dependence
   Sanctions, logistical complications or political shifts create supply disruptions. India faces capability gaps, forcing a faster pivot to alternate suppliers and domestic acceleration — with short-term pain and inflationary pressures. This is the worst outcome: it underscores the risks of maintaining concentrated dependencies without contingency planning.

Policy choices should be made with an eye to avoiding the third scenario while seeking the advantages of the first and managing the risks of the second. That requires an integrated approach: hard procurement safeguards, accelerated indigenisation, trade rebalancing and active diplomacy.

Domestic Policy Imperatives: Building the Cushion

To make strategic autonomy operational, domestic levers must be pulled with urgency.

• Industrial readiness: Strengthen the defence manufacturing ecosystem — suppliers, testing facilities, quality assurance and financing instruments that reduce lead times and ensure production parity with international standards.

• Financial architecture: Modernise payment systems to permit resilient settlement channels, while remaining compliant with international norms. Parallel arrangements must be tested, not merely theorised.

• Skill and R&D investment: Long-term transfer of technology requires a parallel investment in higher education, specialised apprenticeships, and research institutions that can absorb and iterate on foreign know-how.

• Trade diplomacy: A focused campaign to expand exports into the partner market — leveraging services, pharmaceuticals, engineering — can reduce trade asymmetry and create mutual interdependence that is not narrowly weighted.

“Industrial policy without industrial capability is theatre. Capability is built by sustained investment and managerial discipline.”
— Industry analyst

The Limits of Realpolitik and the Strength of Institutions

Great power politics is often described as a ledger of interests. Yet the more enduring asset for a middle power is institutional resilience: predictable rule-making, transparent procurement, accountable diplomacy and resilient markets. Those institutions cushion shocks and convert partnerships into predictable relationships rather than personalised arrangements vulnerable to political vicissitudes.

India’s task is hence not merely transactional: it is to reconceive partnerships as instruments that serve a wider strategic grammar — one that prioritises capability, diversification and long-term economic transformation.

Tactical Gains, Strategic Prudence

The summit will yield declarations, frameworks and perhaps pilot projects. It will also produce signals — to friends, rivals and domestic constituencies. The prudent course is to harvest tactical gains where they secure immediate needs, while investing the political capital required to convert short-term transactions into durable capabilities.

Strategic autonomy survives in practice when a nation builds redundancy into its defence supply chains, diversification into its energy portfolio, and credibility into its diplomacy. The present moment offers New Delhi both opportunity and risk. To navigate it successfully will require a disciplined conversion of lofty rhetoric into hard institutional reforms — and the patience to build capabilities that outlast headlines.

“In geopolitics, the brave are not those who choose one side; they are those who build options.”
— Strategic thinker