The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949 as a direct response to the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Built upon the principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO played a pivotal role in maintaining transatlantic security during the second half of the 20th century. However, in the post-Cold War era, NATO’s relevance has been increasingly questioned due to shifting global power dynamics, emerging security threats, and internal divisions among member states. While NATO remains a significant military alliance, its ability to adapt to contemporary security challenges will determine its continued importance in the evolving world order.
The Cold War’s End and the Loss of a Defined Adversary. NATO was created primarily to counter the Soviet Union and its communist bloc. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the alliance lost its primary adversary, creating uncertainty about its purpose. The following decades saw NATO struggling to redefine its role as the global security landscape shifted away from Cold War-style confrontations. While NATO expanded its membership and engaged in various global missions, critics argue that the absence of a direct military threat comparable to the Soviet Union has undermined its necessity.
Reduced Military Engagements and Shifting Priorities. In the post-Cold War era, NATO took on out-of-area missions, notably in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, demonstrating its role in global security. However, its military engagements have become more restrained in recent years. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and the reluctance of many European nations to involve themselves in conflicts beyond their immediate borders signal a decreasing appetite for large-scale NATO-led interventions. This shift has raised questions about NATO’s continued role as an active military force or whether it is becoming more of a political and diplomatic entity.
Evolving Threats: Cyber Warfare, Terrorism, and Hybrid Conflicts. Modern security threats have evolved beyond conventional military conflicts. Cyber warfare, terrorism, pandemics, and economic crises increasingly define global security concerns. NATO has attempted to adapt by enhancing its cyber defence capabilities and counter-terrorism strategies. However, critics argue that these new threats often require diplomatic, economic, and technological responses rather than purely military solutions, making other organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) more relevant in addressing such challenges.
Multipolarity and the Shift toward Asia. The global power structure is transitioning from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar system in which China, Russia, and other regional actors exert significant influence. This shift challenges NATO’s traditional dominance. The rise of China and its increasing military modernisation, alongside new security alliances like AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia), suggest that the Indo-Pacific region is becoming a greater priority for NATO’s key member, the United States (Brookings Institution, 2024). As a result, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus risks diminishing in importance, particularly as Washington recalibrates its strategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific.
Divergent Security Interests among NATO Members. NATO members increasingly have divergent security concerns. While Eastern European countries prioritise the threat from Russia, Western European nations emphasise diplomatic solutions and strategic autonomy. Meanwhile, Turkey pursues its regional agenda in the Middle East, often clashing with broader NATO objectives. These competing interests create friction within the alliance and raise doubts about its long-term cohesion.
Burden-Sharing and Defence Spending Disputes. One of NATO’s most persistent internal challenges is burden-sharing. The 2014 NATO Summit set a target for member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, yet as of 2023, only 11 out of 31 members met this goal (The Economist, 2024). The United States, which contributes disproportionately to NATO’s military budget, has repeatedly criticised its European allies for failing to uphold their financial commitments. These disparities fuel tensions and questions about NATO’s sustainability if burden-sharing remains unbalanced.
NATO’s Provocative Expansion. Since 1999, NATO has added 14 former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states to its membership, exacerbating tensions with Russia. Critics argue that NATO’s eastward expansion has contributed to geopolitical conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. Russia perceives NATO’s enlargement as a direct security threat, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine can, in part, be seen as Moscow’s pushback against NATO’s growing footprint in Eastern Europe. While NATO insists on its open-door policy, some analysts caution that continued expansion risks further escalating tensions with Russia without necessarily increasing European security.
The Rise of Alternative Security Frameworks. As NATO grapples with internal divisions, other international alliances emerge as alternative security structures. Organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) present non-Western frameworks for economic and security cooperation. The European Union (EU) has also pursued greater military autonomy through initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), signalling a potential shift away from US-led security arrangements. If Europe continues to develop independent defence capabilities, NATO’s role as the continent’s primary security guarantor could diminish.
NATO’s Strength: Adaptation and Collective Defence. Despite these challenges, NATO remains the world’s most powerful military alliance, providing collective security and deterrence. Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all and remains a core pillar of transatlantic security. NATO has also adapted to modern threats by creating rapid response forces, strengthening its cyber defence strategies, and increasing cooperation in hybrid warfare tactics. These adaptations ensure that NATO remains relevant in key areas, even as its global dominance faces competition.
NATO’s Future in an Evolving Global Order. NATO’s relevance in the modern world order is contested. On one hand, the alliance remains a critical security framework for Western democracies, deterring aggression and maintaining transatlantic cohesion. On the other hand, shifting geopolitical priorities, internal divisions, and the rise of alternative security alliances present significant challenges to its continued dominance.
Conclusion. Ultimately, NATO’s future will depend on its ability to adapt to new security threats and navigate internal fractures while remaining a key player in global stability. Whether NATO will evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century or gradually cede influence to emerging security frameworks remains one of the most pressing questions in contemporary international relations.
Please Enhance the content further with value addition.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Andersen, L. R. (2021). The challenges of NATO burden-sharing. Global Affairs, 7(2), 185-202.
BBC News. (2023). NATO expansion: What it means for global security. Retrieved from [URL]
Brookings Institution. (2024). NATO and the rise of China: A strategic outlook.
Chatham House. (2021). The future of NATO: Adapting to a multipolar world.
European Parliament. (2022). The EU and NATO: Cooperation and challenges.
NATO. (2023). Cyber security and hybrid warfare initiatives.
Walt, S. M. (2022). NATO’s role in a changing global order. Foreign Affairs, 101(3), 45–58.
My Article was published in the News Analytics Journal of Mar 25.
Psychological warfare (psywar) aims to influence perceptions, morale, and decision-making, often targeting adversaries and domestic populations. In the context of the Russia- Ukraine conflict, Russia’s psywar likely seeks to demoralise Ukrainians, fracture their resistance, sow distrust in their leadership, and bolster domestic support within Russia for the war effort. An evaluation of Russia’s psychological warfare (psywar) in Ukraine would need an assessment of its objectives, tactics, and measurable impacts based on available evidence and recent developments. This paper argues that while Russia’s psychological warfare has succeeded in shaping domestic narratives and straining Western unity, it has failed to break Ukrainian resistance or achieve a decisive strategic victory.
Historical Perspective of Russian Psychological Warfare
Russian psychological warfare (psywar) has a rich and intricate history, deeply ingrained in the nation’s strategic culture. From the Tsarist era to modern hybrid warfare, Russia has consistently employed psychological operations to manipulate perception, control narratives, and weaken adversaries. The roots of Russian psywar can be traced back to the early 20th century when the Bolsheviks effectively used propaganda to consolidate power during and after the Russian Revolution. Lenin and Trotsky understood that controlling information was just as crucial as military victories, leading to the institutionalisation of propaganda through organisations like Agitprop, which shaped Soviet political messaging.
During the early Soviet period, psywar techniques were used not only to suppress internal dissent but also to influence communist movements worldwide. The concept of “reflexive control,” developed in Soviet military thought, became a key element of Russian psywar, aiming to manipulate opponents into making decisions that ultimately benefit Russian interests. By the time of World War II, Soviet psychological operations had evolved into large-scale deception campaigns, including the use of maskirovka (military deception) to mislead Nazi Germany. Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union refined these methods, launching extensive “Active Measures” under the KGB to manage information and exploit societal divisions in Western nations.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, revived and modernised its psychological warfare strategies, adapting them to the digital age. The contemporary Russian approach to psywar, often called “information confrontation”, integrates cyber operations, media manipulation, and social engineering to achieve strategic objectives.
Russian Psywar during the Ukraine War
Russian psychological warfare in the context of the Ukraine war has been a multifaceted effort aimed at shaping perceptions both domestically and internationally. The multi-layered strategy integrates military, political, and information operations to shape perceptions, demoralise opponents, and influence global narratives. Psychological warfare has played a central role in Russia’s strategy throughout the Ukraine war, aiming to weaken Ukrainian resistance, shape international perceptions, and manipulate domestic narratives. Russia has employed a mix of cyber operations, information management campaigns, battlefield deception, and psychological intimidation to erode Ukrainian morale and divide Western support.
One of the key elements of Russia’s psychological warfare has been its use of information management. Russian state media and social media bots have employed online platforms with narratives that neo-Nazis run Ukraine to accusations that NATO is using Ukraine as a puppet to attack Russia. These narratives justify the war to the Russian population, confuse Ukrainian citizens, and create divisions within Western democracies by amplifying anti-war and isolationist sentiments. Russian narratives have also sought to exploit war fatigue in Western nations, emphasising that financial and military support for Ukraine is futile, expensive, or escalatory.
One prominent example of Russia’s psychological warfare tactics is the ‘Doppelganger’ campaign initiated in 2022 by the Russian IT firm Social Design Agency (SDA). This operation aimed to undermine support for Ukraine by manipulating public opinion in countries like Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The campaign involved creating news articles that presented a pro-Russian perspective on the conflict and deploying AI-powered bot networks to disseminate these narratives on social media platforms. These bots were programmed to engage with users, spreading Russian narratives and pro-Russian sentiments. The ‘Doppelganger’ campaign demonstrates how Russia uses digital platforms and AI to shape international perceptions and influence public opinion in its favour.
Cyber warfare has also been a critical psychological tool. Russian cyber groups have often launched cyber attacks on Ukrainian government institutions, banks, and critical infrastructure. Beyond disabling systems, these attacks serve a psychological function, creating uncertainty, fear, and the impression that Ukraine’s leadership cannot protect its citizens. Russian cyber efforts extend beyond Ukraine, targeting Western institutions with cyber sabotage to weaken overall support for Kyiv.
All-Out or Restricted Psywar.
While Russia is undeniably engaged in psywar, it may not be pushing it to its fullest potential. A maximalist Russian psywar would have included massive global disinformation by flooding international media and social platforms with tailored narratives to isolate Ukraine diplomatically and erode Western support. It would have shut down Ukraine’s communication networks entirely (e.g., via cyber and electronic warfare) to prevent resistance messaging and sow chaos. Russia would have infiltrated Ukrainian society with agents or digital campaigns to fracture trust in leadership and incite internal dissent. Russia employed these tactics, but not at an all-out scale or intensity.
Russia isn’t indulging in a full-fledged war not because it’s unwilling but because strategy, resources, and context constrain it. The war’s hybrid nature means that psywar is a key component, but it’s subordinated to military and economic priorities rather than unleashed as a standalone juggernaut. Russia seems content with a steady, if not maximal, psychological pressure adequate to grind Ukraine down but not bold enough to gamble on total dominance.
Strategic Restraint or Compulsion. A no-holds-barred psywar could provoke stronger NATO responses, like direct intervention or crippling sanctions beyond the current scope. Putin appears to calibrate efforts to avoid provoking direct NATO intervention strategically (e.g., nuclear rhetoric is loud but not yet acted upon). Escalating psywar abroad might require diverting resources from domestic propaganda, which keeps Putin’s regime intact. A complete external focus could weaken the internal control. A full-fledged psywar demands significant investment in cyberinfrastructure, media saturation, and personnel. Putin may believe conventional military gains suffice to force Ukraine into submission, reducing the need for an all-out psychological blitz.
Success or Failure
Despite relentless Russian strikes, Ukrainian resolve appears mixed. Reports from Kyiv indicate fatigue among civilians and soldiers, with some expressing doubts about a negotiated peace due to distrust in Russia. However, Ukraine’s counteroffensives and continued drone strikes on Russian territory demonstrate resilience and a refusal to capitulate. This suggests Russia has not fully broken Ukrainian will, though exhaustion is a growing factor after three years of war. It has partially succeeded in weakening civilian morale and straining resources but hasn’t achieved a decisive psychological collapse.
Russian psywar has aimed to undermine trust in President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government. While Ukraine faces internal challenges, such as ammunition shortages and delayed Western aid, there’s no clear evidence of widespread distrust or collapse in governance. The psychological toll on Ukrainians is undeniable. Studies from 2023-2024 highlight high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression exacerbated by displacement and infrastructure attacks. Yet, it hasn’t translated into mass surrender or acceptance of Russian dominance.
Impact on Putin’s Image
While the Western narrative often portrays Putin as weakened by the war in Ukraine, Russia’s psychological warfare has succeeded mainly in projecting him as an even stronger leader, both domestically and among some international audiences.
Russia has effectively presented the Ukraine war as a fight for national survival against the West, rallying both elites and the public behind Putin. The Russian narrative frames the war not as an invasion of Ukraine but as a defensive struggle against NATO and Western aggression. This narrative positions Putin as the leader defending Russian sovereignty and traditions against Western imperialism, liberalism, and decadence. State media constantly refers to the war as the “Great Patriotic War 2.0,” drawing parallels with WWII to reinforce the idea of national struggle. The Kremlin has portrayed Putin as the last stronghold against Western cultural and moral decay. Messaging around traditional values, national pride, and resistance to globalisation strengthens his appeal among conservative Russians and foreign audiences in the Global South. The War has allowed Putin to eliminate political threats, tighten control over society, and silence opposition, reinforcing his image as an unchallenged ruler.
Western leaders expected economic collapse from sanctions, but Russia’s economic resilience has strengthened Putin’s image as a leader who can outmanoeuvre Western pressure. Despite unprecedented Western sanctions, Russia avoided a total economic collapse. Trade was rerouted through China, India, Turkey, and the Middle East, showing Putin’s ability to adapt and counter Western strategies. State propaganda framed sanctions as proof of Russia’s global importance. Putin positioned himself as the leader who could make Russia self-sufficient, reducing its reliance on the West.
Influence on Europe.
Russia’s psychological warfare has significantly influenced Europe’s collective response to the war in Ukraine, exploiting political, economic, and social vulnerabilities to create divisions and slow decision-making. While the European Union (EU) has managed to maintain a generally pro-Ukraine stance, Russian psy ops have repeatedly tested and weakened European cohesion on military aid, sanctions, and strategic policy.
Exploiting Political Divisions in Europe. Russia has effectively deepened political polarisation within and among European nations by amplifying opposing narratives across the political spectrum. Right-wing nationalist movements have been targeted with anti-Ukraine rhetoric, portraying the war as an unnecessary financial burden. Simultaneously, left-wing anti-interventionist factions have been influenced to frame NATO and Western military aid as imperialist warmongering. Additionally, Russian information campaigns have sown doubts about Ukraine’s governance, corruption, and war prospects, eroding the moral justification for sustained European support. For example, pro-Russian political factions in Hungary, Slovakia, and parts of Germany have advocated for diplomatic negotiations with Russia over continued military aid to Ukraine. This has complicated EU-wide decision-making, as unanimous support is often required for major foreign policy measures. Far-right and populist parties in Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy have leveraged Russian-aligned narratives to challenge the EU consensus. Hungary’s Orbán, for instance, has stalled EU sanction packages (e.g., the 13th package in late 2024) by citing “peace” over confrontation, aligning with Kremlin talking points and fracturing policy cohesion.
Weakening European Resolve on Military Aid. Russia has employed psychological pressure to deter European military assistance to Ukraine. Moscow frequently warns that Western arms supplies could escalate the conflict into a direct NATO-Russia war. President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats have had a chilling effect, particularly in Germany, where concerns over escalation delayed the provision of Leopard 2 tanks and later raised hesitations about supplying long-range Taurus missiles. Public opinion has also been a battleground for Russian influence. Moscow-backed media and social media campaigns have exaggerated the economic hardships caused by military aid, fuelling war fatigue. In Germany and France, protests calling for peace talks have been driven by narratives echoing Russian disinformation. In countries like France, polls from early 2025 show that 66% support EU aid to Ukraine, but 78% oppose troop deployment unless it is part of a peace deal. In Germany, scepticism about prolonged support grows amid economic pressures, with some voters echoing Russian claims of “war fatigue” amplified online. These divisions weaken the political will for a unified, robust response.
Economic Warfare and the Energy Weapon. Russia’s historical leverage over Europe’s energy supply has been a key psychological tool. The 2022 energy crisis, exacerbated by Russia’s gas cutoffs, heightened European economic fears. Russian psywar further exaggerated the risks of economic collapse, intensifying divisions within the EU. Under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary has been a prominent example of how Russian energy influence can weaken EU unity. Orbán has repeatedly blocked or diluted Russian oil and gas sanctions, citing economic concerns. Additionally, Russia has cultivated business relationships in Germany, Italy, and Hungary to lobby against stronger sanctions, delaying EU consensus on measures such as price caps on Russian energy exports.
Encouraging Fractures in NATO and the EU. Russia has sought to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States by portraying Washington as manipulating the war for its strategic benefit. This narrative has traction among European leaders who advocate for greater strategic autonomy. French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, has suggested that Europe develop a more independent security framework rather than relying solely on NATO. Russian psyops have also exacerbated differences between Eastern and Western Europe. Poland and the Baltic states have been staunch supporters of Ukraine, pushing for aggressive military aid and sanctions. In contrast, France, Germany, and Italy have sometimes been more hesitant, leading to internal EU friction. Russia amplifies these divisions to slow collective decision-making, delaying much-needed aid to Ukraine.
Conclusion
Russia’s psychological warfare in Ukraine has proven to be a sophisticated and adaptive strategy that not only targets Ukraine’s internal stability but also seeks to fracture the unity of its Western allies. By deploying a combination of information management, cyber-attacks, and strategic political manoeuvres, Russia has managed to unsettle a coherent European response by amplifying divisions, fostering hesitation, and exploiting vulnerabilities. It hasn’t derailed EU support for Ukraine but has slowed and fragmented it.
Russia’s psywar has reinforced Putin’s strongman image by shaping domestic narratives, exploiting Western vulnerabilities, and asserting global influence. While it hasn’t overturned the Western perspective entirely, it has created a parallel reality where Putin’s strength is maintained and enhanced, particularly among Russian and non-Western audiences. Whether this perception holds as the war evolves remains uncertain, but for now, Russia’s psywar has undeniably kept Putin’s strongman myth alive and potent.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Thomas, Timothy. 2021. “Russian Military Thought: Concepts of Psychological Operations.” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 34 (1): 1-24.
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. 2022. “Russia’s Grand Strategy in the Information Space.” Riga: NATO StratCom COE.
RAND Corporation. 2021. “Russian Information Warfare: The Role of Narrative and Propaganda.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
European Council on Foreign Relations. 2022. “The Kremlin’s Playbook: Russia’s Information Operations in Europe.”
Carnegie Europe. 2022. “Why Europe is Struggling to Counter Russian Information Warfare.” Brussels: Carnegie Europe.
European Union External Action Service (EEAS). 2023. “Russia’s Disinformation Ecosystem and its Impact on Europe.”
Chatham House. 2023. “Putin’s Strongman Image and the Role of Propaganda.” London: Chatham House.
The Atlantic Council. 2023. “The Resilience of Putin’s Popularity Amid Western Sanctions.” Washington, D.C.: The Atlantic Council.
The Wilson Center. 2022. “How Putin Weaponises Weakness Perception.” Washington, D.C.: The Wilson Center.
Harding, Luke. 2023. Invasion: Russia’s Bloody War and Ukraine’s Fight for Survival. London: Guardian Faber.
Kofman, Michael, and Rob Lee. 2024. “Assessing Ukraine’s Strategy Amidst Western Uncertainty.” War on the Rocks, February 10, 2024.
The Guardian. 2024. “EU Divided Over Continued Support for Ukraine.” March 2024.
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Reports on Russian Information Warfare. Accessed March 2024.
Brookings Institution. 2023. “The West’s Cognitive Dissonance on Russia: A Strategic Weakness.” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
My Article was Published in the Chanakya Diaries, Issue 2, Spring 2025.
The world of military aviation has witnessed a significant leap in technological advancements, particularly in developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft (5GFA). These next-generation fighter jets are equipped with stealth technology, advanced avionics, and superior weaponry, allowing them to operate in highly contested airspaces. As global military technologies advance, so does the need for air forces to adopt cutting-edge systems capable of responding to emerging threats. Acquisition of such advanced technologies is crucial for maintaining air superiority and securing national interests. However, India’s path to acquiring fifth-generation fighters has been filled with challenges, forcing the country into a quandary about securing these crucial assets for its Air Force. This article delves into India’s dilemma regarding 5th-gen fighter jets, exploring the complexities of the decision-making process, the challenges posed by current defence procurements, and the country’s broader defence and geopolitical considerations.
Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft
Fifth-generation fighter aircraft represent the pinnacle of modern military aviation, incorporating cutting-edge stealth, advanced avionics, superior manoeuvrability, and network-centric warfare capabilities. These aircraft are designed to achieve air superiority while minimising detection through radar-evading features such as internal weapons bays, composite materials, and aerodynamic shaping. Notable examples include the U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, China’s J-20, and Russia’s Su-57. Unlike previous generations, fifth-generation fighters rely on sensor fusion, artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making, and high-capacity data links to dominate the battle-space. Their integrated avionics provide pilots with unparalleled situational awareness, allowing seamless coordination with other forces and unmanned systems. High-thrust engines with supercruise capability enable sustained supersonic speeds without afterburners, enhancing operational range and fuel efficiency. Furthermore, their electronic warfare and cyber capabilities allow them to disrupt enemy communications and radar systems. While these aircraft offer unmatched lethality and survivability, their complexity and cost present production, maintenance, and procurement challenges. Nations investing in fifth-generation fighters seek battlefield dominance and strategic deterrence, as control of the skies remains a decisive factor in modern warfare. As military technology advances, these fighters continue to evolve, shaping the future of aerial combat.
IAF Challenges and Necessities
Prevailing Challenges. India is a major regional player, and due to its unique geographical location and geo-political environment, it faces a collusive threat (from its two nuclear-powered unfriendly neighbours) with significant chances of military conflict. This unique position dictates that the country be able to deter her hostile neighbours from any military misadventure singly or collusively. Besides land borders being the main reason for the dispute, the security of the IOR region would also be a major security necessity. IAF would be required to offer options to meet India’s domestic and regional security requirements.
Air Threat. For a considerable time, the IAF enjoyed an edge in modern combat aircraft over its rivals – the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). This situation is changing with the PLAAF transformation, China’s investment in aerospace research and development, and aircraft manufacturing. China has inducted its two home-grown stealth fighters (J-20 and J-31) in large numbers and has already flown sixth-generation prototypes. Pakistan continues to be in collusion with China. PAF has inducted Chinese J-10 and JF-17 aircraft and has desired to induct Chinese fifth-generation aircraft.
Urgent Necessity. The Indian Air Force’s current strength is significantly below its sanctioned level. Its indigenous development of fourth—and fifth-generation aircraft faces technological hurdles and time delays. In the face of prevailing challenges, India cannot afford to lag in its military capability. The impending air threat from China and Pakistan has made the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters an urgent and necessary priority to enhance the IAF’s deterrence value.
Acquisition Efforts
Collaborative Effort. India’s journey toward acquiring fifth-generation fighter aircraft began with an ambitious collaboration with Russia. In 2007, India partnered with Russia to co-develop the Su-57, also known as the T-50 or PAK-FA. This project was expected to yield a fifth-generation fighter with advanced stealth capabilities and cutting-edge avionics, making it a crucial addition to India’s fleet. While India’s collaboration with Russia began with great optimism, several issues soon emerged related to cost overruns, development delays, and technological shortcomings, leading to re-evaluating the program. 2018, after years of joint research and development, India decided to pull out of the Su-57 program, marking a pivotal moment in its fifth-generation fighter aspirations. The decision left India searching for alternative solutions.
MRFA Acquisition. The history of India’s Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) acquisition effort is marked by ambitious plans and evolving defence strategies to modernise the IAF’s fighter fleet. The origins of the MRFA initiative can be traced back to the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender issued in 2007, which sought to acquire 126 fighter jets to replace the ageing MiG-21 fleet. After extensive evaluations and trials, the Dassault Rafale emerged as the preferred choice in 2012; however, contractual disagreements and cost escalations led to the eventual scrapping of the deal in 2015. In its place, the Indian government opted for a government-to-government deal to procure 36 Rafale jets in 2016 to meet urgent operational needs. The failure of the MMRCA tender to materialise in its original form highlighted the complexities involved in large-scale defence procurements, including cost considerations, technology transfer requirements, and offset agreements. In response to these challenges, the IAF redefined its requirements and reinitiated the procurement process under the MRFA program in 2019. The renewed effort sought to leverage lessons learned from the previous tender while emphasising indigenisation and the development of India’s defence manufacturing capabilities under the ‘Make in India’ initiative. Unlike its predecessor, the MRFA acquisition focuses more on domestic production, requiring foreign vendors to collaborate with Indian defence firms to establish local assembly lines and facilitate technology transfers.
Overview of the MRFA Acquisition Program. The MRFA acquisition program is a critical initiative by the Indian Air Force to acquire 114 advanced multi-role fighter jets to enhance its operational capabilities and replace its ageing fleet of legacy aircraft. Under MRFA, the IAF aims to procure state-of-the-art fighters that can undertake various combat roles, including air superiority, ground attack, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare, ensuring dominance in modern warfare scenarios. The MRFA acquisition process is structured under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, emphasising indigenous production and technology transfer to boost the domestic defence industry. The IAF issued a global Request for Information (RFI) in 2019, inviting proposals from major aircraft manufacturers worldwide. The procurement is expected under the Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which involves collaboration between foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Indian defence firms. This collaboration required establishing production lines within the country and transferring critical technologies, reducing import dependency and promoting self-reliance in the defence sector. One of the essential requirements outlined by the IAF in the MRFA tender is the transfer of technology (ToT), which will allow Indian defence companies to gain technical expertise in aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and future upgrades. The current situation stresses the inclusion of fifth-generation aircraft in the acquisition plans.
Domestic Solution: AMCA. India has pursued an indigenous solution to its 5th-gen fighter needs through the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The AMCA is being developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) under the Indian Ministry of Defence. It is intended to be a 5th-gen fighter with advanced stealth technology, super-cruise capabilities, and cutting-edge avionics. While the AMCA represents a step toward self-reliance and is seen as a critical component of India’s long-term military strategy, several challenges are associated with its development. The development of the AMCA has faced numerous delays. Initially slated for entry into service by the mid-2020s, it is now expected to enter service closer to the late 2030s. The project also faces significant technological challenges in developing a fighter of this sophistication. While progress is being made, achieving the same level of performance and stealth as the F-35 or Su-57 remains a formidable task.
Choices and Possibilities. Both the U.S. and Russia are aggressively pitching their fifth-generation aircraft. Besides outright purchase, India may explore collaboration and joint development programs or technology transfers (Stealth, Aero-engines and advanced avionics) that accelerate AMCA’s timeline. Limited acquisitions of F-35s or Su-57s focusing on training and operational familiarity while ensuring that AMCA remains the primary focus are also possible options.
The Foreign Procurement Dilemma
Given the delays and challenges of Indigenous development, India has to explore foreign procurement options for fifth-generation fighter jets. The United States, with its F-35 Lightning II and the Russian SU-57, has emerged as a potential source of these advanced aircraft. However, several geopolitical, diplomatic, and technical barriers complicate purchasing these aircraft.
U.S. Signals: F-35 Lightning II. The U.S. has been subtly signalling a potential offer of the F-35 to India. The aircraft first appeared in the Indian skies in the previous aero India 2023. Although Washington has not officially proposed a deal, diplomatic engagements and increasing defence cooperation between the two nations suggest that such a move could be on the horizon. Some analysts believe the U.S. could propose the F-35 as a deterrent against China, leveraging India’s growing security concerns to break its traditional reluctance toward American fighter jets. The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, represents the epitome of 5th-gen fighter capabilities. It is a highly advanced stealth fighter, but its suitability for the Indian Air Force (IAF) is debatable due to operational, geopolitical, and logistical factors. While the F-35 offers cutting-edge stealth, sensor fusion, and electronic warfare capabilities, making it a formidable asset against threats, its integration into India’s diverse fleet (Su-30MKI, Rafale, Tejas) would be complex and costly. The aircraft’s high maintenance burden, reliance on U.S. software and spare parts support, and logistical challenges in high-altitude operations raise concerns. Additionally, India’s deep defence ties with Russia and its commitment to strategic autonomy could complicate an F-35 deal. The U.S. has been selective about F-35 exports, prioritising NATO allies and key Pacific partners, making approval for India uncertain. With unit costs exceeding $80 million and long-term sustainment expenses, the F-35 may not be the most cost-effective option compared to expanding Rafale squadrons or accelerating the indigenous AMCA program.
Russia’s Pitch: The Su-57 Felon. Russia is presenting the Su-57 Felon as a possible solution for India’s air power needs. The offer is sugar quoted with an offer to reduce price, Integration of hypersonic weapons, ToT and easy payment options. The Su-57, initially designated the PAK FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation), began development in the early 2000s under the Russian Ministry of Defence. The aircraft was conceived as a multirole stealth fighter capable of air superiority and ground attack missions. Given India’s deep-rooted defence ties with Russia and its existing fleet of Su-30MKI fighters, Moscow sees this as a natural extension of its strategic partnership. However, India has been cautious about procuring the Su-57 due to previous setbacks in the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project. While the Su-57 has promising features, the program has faced several challenges that have slowed its development and deployment. The aircraft has faced delays related to engine development and avionics integration. Moreover, there have been questions about the production rate and the number of aircraft that will be built in the coming years. The Russian Air Force has been slow to field the aircraft, and it remains unclear how many Su-57s will ultimately be deployed, particularly as Russia faces significant budgetary constraints and competing priorities.
Comparative Analysis. The Su-57’s development and operational capabilities are often compared to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, representing American stealth technology’s pinnacle. While the Su-57 has similar features, such as stealth and advanced avionics, it lags in some performance areas. For example, the F-22 is generally considered superior regarding stealth and overall aerodynamics, while the F-35 is unrivalled in sensor fusion and multirole capabilities. However, the Su-57 holds unique advantages that could make it a formidable platform in specific scenarios. Its super manoeuvrability and advanced sensor capabilities make it highly suited for air-to-air combat and could give it an edge over Western fighters in certain situations. Moreover, its weapons capacity and the potential future integration of hypersonic weapons give it a longer-range and more potent offensive capability than current Western fighters.
Indigenous Effort.
Push for Indigenous Development: The AMCA Program. India’s exit from the Su-57 program signalled a renewed focus on indigenous development. Under pressure to modernise and enhance its capabilities, India pushed to develop its fifth-generation fighter. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program was born out of this necessity. The AMCA was conceived as India’s first fully indigenous fifth-generation fighter. The project envisions incorporating stealth, advanced avionics, supercruise and multi-role capabilities. While the AMCA represents a significant leap forward for India’s indigenous defence capabilities, its development has not been without challenges. The program has faced technological hurdles, financial constraints, and inordinate delays. The prototype of the AMCA is expected to take flight in the late 2020s, with full-scale production not anticipated until the early 2040s. The AMCA is crucial to India’s long-term defence strategy. Its delayed timeline and high costs mean the country must consider alternatives soon to fill the capability gap.
Effect on the AMCA Development. India’s procurement of foreign fifth-generation fighter aircraft could positively or negatively affect the development of its Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program. On the one hand, it could gain valuable insights into the design and technology of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft, including stealth capabilities, advanced avionics, and engine performance. This could accelerate the learning curve for Indian engineers and help improve AMCA’s design. On the other hand, foreign procurement could divert attention and resources from the AMCA project, as both programs require significant investment and focus. This could delay AMCA’s development as funding and manpower may be reallocated. While foreign procurement might provide a short-term solution, procuring it would reinforce India’s dependency on foreign technology, which contradicts the AMCA’s goal of achieving greater self-reliance in defence technology. It might also delay the domestic innovation necessary to produce the AMCA independently.
Procurement Considerations: A Tight Rope Walk.
India’s pursuit of fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) is a complex balancing act, requiring careful evaluation of strategic, operational, and geopolitical factors. Despite the aggressive pitches from Russia and the U.S., India remains steadfast in its commitment to self-reliance. The country has several valid concerns about acquiring stealth fighters from external sources. The procurement decision must balance national security imperatives with long-term self-reliance goals.
Financial Constraints. While the need for advanced fighter aircraft is pressing, India’s defence budget remains constrained. The costs of acquiring 5th-gen fighters—whether through foreign procurement or domestic development—are substantial.
Strategic Autonomy. India has historically maintained strategic autonomy in defence procurement. Outright procurement of fifth-generation fighters would increase dependency on foreign suppliers for maintenance, spares, and software updates. However, developing an indigenous FGFA is time-intensive and costly, necessitating interim solutions such as collaborations or selective acquisitions. Balancing these factors ensures India can act independently in future conflicts without external constraints.
Operational Sovereignty. Fifth-generation fighters rely heavily on integrated software, sensor fusion, and artificial intelligence, requiring continuous updates and security oversight. Procuring an FGFA from the U.S. or Russia may come with software black boxes, limiting India’s ability to modify or customise the aircraft to suit its operational needs. In contrast, an indigenous program like the AMCA would ensure complete control over mission configurations, electronic warfare systems, and weapons integration. India risks operational constraints without complete control in scenarios where its strategic interests diverge from supplier nations.
Transfer of Technology (ToT). India has consistently demanded significant technology transfer as part of its defence procurements. One of the most crucial considerations in FGFA procurement is access to critical technologies such as stealth coatings, advanced radar systems, and aero engines. Nations that export fifth-generation fighters typically impose strict restrictions on technology transfers to protect proprietary designs and maintain their competitive edge. India must negotiate deals that ensure meaningful technology absorption, aiding AMCA’s long-term development.
Interoperability Issues. India operates a diverse fleet comprising Russian, French, Israeli, and indigenous aircraft, leading to interoperability challenges. Integrating an FGFA with existing platforms is critical, especially for network-centric warfare. American platforms, such as the F-35, rely on proprietary Link 16 data-sharing protocols, which may not be compatible with India’s indigenous combat management systems. On the other hand, Russian fighters align with existing IAF infrastructure but lack the networking capabilities of Western aircraft. Any FGFA procurement must ensure seamless integration with India’s Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) while avoiding security vulnerabilities tied to foreign command structures.
Reliance and Reliability Concerns. Fifth-generation fighters require a robust supply chain for spare parts, software updates, and maintenance. India’s experience with Russian platforms, such as the Su-30MKI, has shown that supply bottlenecks can impact fleet availability. Similarly, reliance on the U.S. for F-35 components could expose India to geopolitical leverage, where supply disruptions may occur due to policy shifts. An indigenous FGFA would mitigate these risks. However, India must bridge the gap in manufacturing critical components, such as high-thrust jet engines and low-observable coatings, to ensure long-term sustainability.
Geopolitical Pressures. India’s FGFA decision is deeply entangled in global power dynamics. Acquiring an American fighter would enhance ties with QUAD allies (U.S., Japan, Australia) but could strain India’s strategic partnership with Russia. Conversely, a Russian FGFA might provoke U.S. sanctions under CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), complicating India’s defence cooperation with Western nations. Thus, any procurement choice must navigate these external influences without compromising national security.
Way Ahead
India’s quest for fifth-generation fighter aircraft is emblematic of the broader challenges emerging powers face in the 21st century. While the country has made significant strides in developing Indigenous defence capabilities, the path to acquiring fifth-generation fighters remains fraught with challenges. The choices India makes in the coming years will shape its defence posture and air superiority in the decades ahead. While the AMCA holds promise for India’s long-term goals, the immediate need for advanced fighter aircraft means that foreign options, including the F-35 or SU-57, will likely remain in play despite the geopolitical and financial challenges they present.
India’s success in this endeavour will depend on its ability to integrate technology, manage its defence budget, and forge strategic partnerships that advance its security interests in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Given the complexity of fifth-generation fighter procurement, India must focus on accelerating the AMCA program while exploring selective technology partnerships. A dedicated task force with a top-down approach could ensure timely execution. Increased funding, private sector involvement, and strategic technology acquisitions could further bolster the program.
India must balance Indigenous development with the need for foreign procurement while navigating a complex geopolitical landscape. While India will likely continue seeking a combination of foreign procurements and domestic development, the path forward will require careful navigation of technological and strategic challenges. Ultimately, India’s ability to field a fleet of 5th-gen fighters will depend on its ability to balance these competing demands while securing the necessary resources and partnerships to maintain its regional and global standing.
Conclusion
The stealth fighter war is not just about aircraft but about India’s position in the global defence landscape. The choices made in the coming years will define India’s air power for decades. While Aero India 2025 will serve as a grand stage for the U.S. and Russia to showcase their best fighters, India must navigate this battle carefully. Whether it chooses a limited acquisition, a joint development initiative, or a complete rejection of external options, one thing is clear: India’s future in stealth aviation will be determined by its ability to balance strategic autonomy with practical air power needs.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Dyer, G. (2017). India’s Role in Global Security: An Assessment of Its Military and Strategic Options. Oxford University Press. Covers India’s military strategies and defence procurement policies, giving context to its fifth-generation fighter aircraft decisions.
Tiwari, R. (2020). India’s Aviation Power: The Development of India’s Military Aviation. Routledge. This book focuses on India’s aviation capabilities, history, and future trajectory, including the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
Sarma, B. (2021). Fifth-Generation Aircraft and the Changing Nature of Air Combat: A Global Perspective. Springer. This book analyses the technologies and capabilities defining fifth-generation aircraft and how different countries adopt them.
Pant, H. V. (2018). India’s Strategic Culture and Military Modernisation: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Routledge. Offers insight into India’s military modernisation strategies and how they affect decisions about future aircraft acquisitions.
Bansal, S. (2022). “Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft: The India Dilemma”, Strategic Affairs Journal, 14(3), pp. 245-268. This article addresses India’s balancing act between domestic capabilities, foreign partnerships, and defence priorities regarding fifth-generation fighters.
Chaudhury, S. (2020). “India’s Ambitious Fighter Program and the Quest for the AMCA”, The Military Review, 102(4), pp. 60-75. A detailed analysis of India’s AMCA project and the prospects of its success in the context of competing international options.
Indian Ministry of Defence (2021). India’s Future Aircraft Procurement Strategy: A Vision for the Next Decade. Government of India. Government-published paper detailing India’s strategic requirements and procurement strategy, including pursuing fifth-generation fighters.
RAND Corporation (2021). “Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft: A Global Overview”. RAND Corporation. A comprehensive analysis of the global fifth-generation fighter market, including India’s potential partners and competitors.
IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly (2019). “The Future of Combat Aircraft: A Comparative Study”, 56(8), pp. 32-45. This report compares the capabilities of fifth-generation fighters, focusing on the Su-57, F-35, and AMCA, with a section on India’s defence procurement options.
Shukla, A. (2021). “India’s Fighter Jet Dilemma: Will AMCA Be the Answer?” Livefist Defence. https://www.livefistdefence.com. A detailed exploration of the AMCA program and India’s obstacles in developing its fifth-generation aircraft.
