A few days ago a small news item about India and Russia was issued that made some anti-Russian/pro-Indian scribes very happy:
India’s Maddening Russia Policy Isn’t as Bad as Washington Thinks – Foreign Policy, Dec 9
India upholds the rules-based, Western-led international order—but in its own way.
Modi is also skipping an annual summit with Putin, reportedly over the latter’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
That claim sounded strange to me. The author of the FP piece is Derek Grossman "a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corp., an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California, and a former daily intelligence briefer to the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs."
Hmm. The link he gives goes to a Bloomberg piece:
Modi to Skip Annual Putin Summit Over Ukraine Nuke Threats
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi won’t be holding an annual in-person summit with Vladimir Putin after the Russian president threatened to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The relationship between India and Russia remains strong but trumpeting the friendship at this point may not be beneficial for Modi, said a senior official with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue.
Putin had never threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine or anywhere:
Note that Putin does not mention Russia's nuclear weapons. He instead empathizes that Russia has new 'different' weapons that are 'more modern' than those of the 'West'. He means hypersonic missiles which can avoid 'western' air defenses and hit decision centers in Brussels, London and Washington even without nuclear warheads.
…
All the war mongering talk and reports about Russia's alleged threat of nuclear weapon use in Ukraine is totally unfounded. That 'western' media suddenly engage in it shows that it is part of a well directed propaganda campaign.
It is an invention of U.S. propaganda. It is unlikely that the Indian government has fallen for it. So who then made Bloomberg replay that nonsense?
Note that while the Bloomberg report was written by its correspondent in India the nationality of its sources is not given. There are in fact two distinct sources: "people with knowledge of the matter" and "a senior official with knowledge of the matter". The 'nuclear' issue seems to have come from the first 'people' source while the 'official' second source only gives a general picture of Modi's potential motivation.
In an updated version of the piece, which kept the lede unchanged, Russian officials rejected the whole story:
“It won’t be this year,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of prospects for a Putin-Modi summit, the state-run Tass news service reported later Friday.
India’s decision was clear at a regional summit held in September in Uzbekistan, when Modi urged Putin to seek peace in Ukraine, said a Russian official familiar with the preparations, who asked not to be identified to discuss matters that aren’t public.
There had already been an Indian Russian summit at the side of the Uzbekistan meeting and no further summit was necessary.
In a Reuters piece an Indian source also rejected the claim:
No Modi-Putin summit this year after they met in September- Indian govt source
The government source, who declined to be named citing the sensitivity of the matter, said the decision not to hold a summit was taken much earlier and that the nuclear angle was not a factor.
Modi and Putin met on the sidelines of a regional security bloc summit in Uzbekistan in September and have spoken on the phone a number of times this year, including on the subject of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The Indian Economic Times also debunked the Bloomberg claim:
India-Russia annual summit could not occur due to scheduling issues
The annual India Russia Summit could not happen this year due to scheduling issues, according to highly placed sources who dismissed reports of summit being postponed due to threat of nuclear war in Ukraine.
Sources dismissed Western media reports that Russian President's “nuclear threat” had any role to play in India-Russia Summit not happening in December.
The decision that the summit will not take place due to scheduling issues was taken months ago, sources said.
Relations between India and Russia are lively and excellent:
ET has learnt senior Russian functionaries could visit India in near future to discuss contours of the partnership. Last December the Russian President had travelled to India for the annual summit.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin had spoken several times over phone this year and the two met in Samarkand in September to give push to strategic partnership.
At the September meeting considerable time was devoted to Russian fertiliser exports to India to meet demands of local farmers.
Modi and Putin also discussed energy ties (oil & gas) besides coal, coking & other investments in each other’s country. The two leaders had also discussed predictability of supply of key commodities to India.
Later in November Foreign Minister S Jaishankar travelled to Moscow with a intra Ministerial delegation to push economic partnership. Earlier the NSA had travelled to Moscow with a intra Ministerial delegation to push economic partnership. Earlier the NSA had travelled to Moscow.
India had withstood Western huge to take sides in the Ukraine conflict and Russia is now India’s biggest oil supplier. Bilateral trade has jumped manifold this year.
The original Bloomberg claim is thereby completely debunked. But the piece is still up and without any correction. The "people with knowledge of the matter" it cited to inject the nuke stuff were likely either from the U.S. or Britain.
Neither the Indian nor the Russian side had planned for another summit this year. They have excellent relations and the nuke stuff was just outright nonsense.
That RAND experts, who write strategic plans for the Pentagon, fall for such obvious propaganda is dangerous.