In 2016, India announced the purchase of 36 Rafale F3 fighters from France at a sky-high price of nearly 7.9 billion euros, a decision that not only attracted international attention, but also opened a series of controversies and speculations. Why is India willing to pay a high ** for these fighters?Why is France willing to accept such a deal?
Perhaps the most striking of all these questions is: when the deal is reached and the fighter jets are delivered, does India really start playing tricks and defaulting on payments of up to 5 billion euros?This is not only a question of morality, but a reflection of the deep-seated dynamics of the international political economy. We can't help but ask, what is the truth behind this?
The Rafale deal between India and France may seem like a simple military purchase on the surface, but in fact it covers many aspects of international politics, economics and military. The size and amount of this deal is enormous. 78.The €7.8 billion investment reflects not only India's determination to strengthen its air force, but also France's important position in the global arms market.
The complexity of the transaction is first and foremost reflected in the **. Although India explained 787.8 billion euros allocated, but there are still doubts about it. Historically, Rafale won a tender from India at a low price, but was rejected by India soon after, and then re-procured at a higher price. This huge fluctuation has raised doubts about the transparency of India's arms procurement decisions.
The execution of the transaction was not all smooth sailing either. Traditionally, large military payments are usually made in installments, but in this case, France** reported that delays in payments began to occur after India had paid around 2.7 billion euros.
Even more remarkably, India has even offered to pay the rest of the payment in Indian rupees. This request is not only rare in the international military, but also reflects a possible tactical shift in India.
Let's look at the international political context behind the deal. During the Russia-Ukraine war, Europe imposed an oil embargo on Russia, and India took the opportunity to buy large quantities of Russian Urals** and send its processed diesel and jet fuel** to European countries, including France. In this case, India's intention to try to use its energy export advantage to Europe to reach a rupee settlement with France is obvious.
However, the issue of foreign exchange and exchange rates in the international** world is extremely complex. While India may want to use its strengths in the energy market to influence payment methods, such an attempt seems too risky. After all, international commodity trading is usually settled in the US dollar or other major currencies, and rupee settlement is impractical in this case.
There may also be some risks associated with India's strategy. Although 36 Rafale fighters have been acquired so far, the operation and maintenance of the fighters requires technical support and spare parts from France**. If India does decide to play tricks on the payment for goods, then it is entirely possible that France will take corresponding measures in terms of technical support and spare parts**, which will be a major blow to the operational capabilities of the Indian Air Force.
From a historical point of view, defaults or deferred payments in the international military** are not uncommon. In the case of U.S. F-16 fighter exports to Pakistan, the U.S. has frozen exports to Pakistan due to political factors, even though the latter has paid a huge amount of money. This incident shows that the financial and political risks in the military should not be underestimated.
Epilogue. To sum up, the Rafale deal between India and France is not just a simple commercial act, but a case of complex international political, economic and military interaction.
India's possible delinquency strategy, while seemingly favorable in the short term, could negatively impact its international reputation and military procurement capabilities in the long term. At the same time, this incident also reflects the complexities and risks of international military **, as well as the wide range of factors that need to be considered by countries involved in these transactions.
On the chessboard of international politics, every decision should not only consider short-term interests, but should comprehensively assess long-term impacts. In this case, both India and France need to be cautious to avoid irreparable consequences.