Britain to Sell Missiles to India as Modi Finds a New Friend in Keir Starmer After Trump and Putin

In a significant development marking a shift in global defence alignments, the United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has agreed to sell lightweight multirole missiles worth $468 million to India. The deal, signed in Mumbai during Starmer’s first official visit to India, is being hailed as the beginning of a new “strategic friendship” between New Delhi and London — though many political commentators view it more as an act of transactional diplomacy than a genuine partnership.

The agreement involves the supply of lightweight multirole missiles (LMMs) manufactured by Thales in Northern Ireland. The British government emphasized that this £350-million contract would secure 700 jobs at the Thales facility, which currently produces the same weapons for Ukraine. For India, the deal signifies diversification of its arms procurement at a time when it faces increasing pressure to reduce reliance on Russian defence equipment. For Britain, it serves Starmer’s objective of reinvigorating the British economy through defence exports — a goal he has publicly articulated as central to his growth agenda.

Observers note that this is Starmer’s most ambitious foreign policy engagement since assuming office, signalling a subtle but significant recalibration in the UK’s Indo-Pacific approach. Defence analysts such as Dr Manoj Joshi argue, “The deal reflects mutual convenience rather than ideological alignment — Britain wants economic growth, India wants defence diversification.” Indeed, the British Prime Minister’s remarks after his meeting with Modi — focusing on peace in Ukraine, stability in the Indo-Pacific, and the transition away from fossil fuels — hinted at diplomatic tightrope-walking, as India continues to buy discounted Russian oil while professing neutrality on the Ukraine war.

The optics of the meeting were carefully choreographed. Modi, true to his diplomatic style, addressed Starmer as a “friend” on social media, echoing the same word he has used for almost every major world leader — from Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin to Xi Jinping. “It was a delight to welcome my friend, PM Keir Starmer,” Modi wrote on X, celebrating the arrival of the “largest-ever UK business delegation” to India, with over 100 CEOs, chancellors, and entrepreneurs in attendance. This language of personal camaraderie has long been Modi’s diplomatic hallmark, blurring the line between statecraft and showmanship.

However, critics argue that such personality-driven diplomacy often masks deep strategic contradictions. Only a month ago, Modi was seen walking hand in hand with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Tianjin, China — an event marked by visible bonhomie and mutual admiration. The spectacle, widely covered by both domestic and international media, projected Modi as a global power broker capable of maintaining friendships across rival blocs. Yet, as American tariffs tightened and Western scrutiny of India’s Russian oil purchases intensified, Modi’s balancing act appeared increasingly delicate.

With Starmer’s visit, India seems to be reasserting its traditional policy of strategic autonomy — engaging multiple powers simultaneously to maximize national interest. But beneath this apparent pragmatism lies a more complex question: does the constant pursuit of “friendships” risk diluting India’s long-term strategic coherence? As foreign policy scholar C. Raja Mohan has pointed out, “India’s diplomacy today is increasingly personality-centric. While it expands India’s global visibility, it also makes our foreign policy vulnerable to the volatility of individual relationships.”

Britain’s economic motives are equally clear. Starmer has tied his government’s growth vision to strengthening the defence sector, pledging higher spending in line with NATO targets and promoting exports such as the recent $13.5-billion frigate contract with Norway. The India deal fits neatly into his domestic economic narrative — exporting weapons, creating jobs, and reviving Britain’s post-Brexit industrial capacity. The UK also announced progress in another joint project with India involving electric-powered naval engines, worth an initial £250 million, further cementing the bilateral defence cooperation framework.

Yet, the larger geopolitical implications are unmistakable. Britain’s engagement with India serves as a bridge between Western defence suppliers and an India still deeply entangled in Russian arms dependency. Nearly 65% of India’s defence imports over the last two decades have originated from Russia, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) data. Although New Delhi has expanded ties with the US and France in recent years — purchasing Rafale jets, GE engines, and drones — Moscow remains India’s largest supplier of tanks, missiles, and nuclear submarine technology. The UK’s entry into this space is both strategic and symbolic, marking the West’s attempt to further integrate India into its security ecosystem amid rising Indo-Pacific tensions.

Starmer’s subtle reference to “breaking dependence on fossil fuels” during his remarks in Mumbai carried implicit criticism of India’s continued purchase of Russian crude — a reminder that the warmth of friendship does not erase geopolitical divergence. Modi, for his part, reiterated his standard formulation that the Ukraine war should end through “dialogue and diplomacy,” maintaining India’s posture of non-alignment while ensuring access to discounted energy supplies that have helped stabilize domestic inflation.

What makes this new chapter in India-UK relations distinct is the convergence of political necessity and personal diplomacy. For Starmer, strengthening ties with India not only signals Britain’s re-engagement with the Commonwealth sphere but helps project leadership credibility beyond Europe. For Modi, the embrace of a Labour Prime Minister — a sharp contrast to his earlier closeness with Conservative leaders like David Cameron and Boris Johnson — showcases his adaptability and desire to maintain India’s global centrality irrespective of ideological shifts abroad.

But the pattern is unmistakable. Whether it was the “Howdy Modi” spectacle with Trump, the “informal summits” with Xi Jinping, or the warm strolls with Putin, Modi’s brand of diplomacy relies on optics, personal warmth, and social media symbolism. While such gestures yield immediate headlines, they often obscure the reality that India’s national interests — particularly in defence and energy — remain transactional, driven by necessity rather than shared values.

As the missile deal with Britain demonstrates, India’s diplomacy today operates on a pragmatic logic of diversification — befriending everyone but committing to none. It is a strategy that offers flexibility in a fragmented world order but also exposes the limits of personality-based foreign policy when confronted with hard geopolitical realities.

In the final analysis, the friendship between Modi and Starmer may well add another name to the Prime Minister’s long list of “friends,” but its endurance will depend not on handshakes and photo-ops, but on how both nations navigate the competing pressures of economics, energy, and global politics in the months to come.