Have you ever watched three strong personalities try to collaborate on something big, only to see old grudges and outside meddling pull everything apart? That’s pretty much the story playing out right now in global diplomacy. Late last month, Russia’s top diplomat made headlines by openly pushing to breathe new life into a long-dormant trilateral format involving Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing. On paper it sounds perfect—three massive countries teaming up to shape a fairer, multipolar world. In reality, though, the odds are stacked heavily against it.
I’ve followed these dynamics for years, and something about this latest announcement feels more aspirational than achievable. Sure, the idea has merit. But when you peel back the layers, three stubborn obstacles stand in the way, each one more complicated than the last. Let’s unpack them carefully, because what happens (or doesn’t happen) here could quietly reshape power balances across Eurasia and beyond.
The Dream of a Revived RIC Format
Picture this: three of the planet’s most influential emerging powers sitting at the same table on a regular basis, coordinating positions on trade, security, climate, you name it. That’s the vision behind the Russia-India-China (RIC) mechanism. It predates BRICS, actually served as a kind of intellectual foundation for it, and for a while it looked like a promising vehicle for challenging Western dominance in global affairs. Meetings happened at foreign minister and even leader level. Ideas were exchanged. Everyone nodded politely about multipolarity.
Then came a long pause. The format never formally died, but it slipped into hibernation. Summits stopped. Joint statements grew rare. Now Moscow says it’s time to wake the patient up. The argument makes sense on the surface: these three countries represent enormous demographic weight, economic momentum, and strategic depth. If they could align more consistently, the so-called “Global Majority” would gain a much stronger voice.
Yet good intentions rarely survive contact with reality. Three interlocking problems make meaningful revival feel like wishful thinking—at least for the foreseeable future. Let’s dive into each one.
1. The Sino-Indian Thaw Remains Far Too Fragile
Anyone paying attention to Asian geopolitics knows the single biggest roadblock: the uneasy relationship between India and China. After years of outright hostility—think military standoffs, infrastructure races along disputed frontiers, and sharply worded diplomatic exchanges—there are finally signs of de-escalation. High-level meetings have taken place recently, trade volumes keep climbing, and both sides have toned down the fiery rhetoric.
But don’t mistake progress for resolution. The thaw is still in its very early, cautious stage. Confidence-building measures are welcome, yet they remain superficial compared with the depth of mistrust that lingers. Official statements emphasize “positive direction,” but nobody is pretending the core disagreements have vanished.
In my view, this is the crux of the matter. Reviving a trilateral format that puts New Delhi and Beijing in the same room regularly would require a level of strategic trust that simply doesn’t exist yet. It’s like asking two people who just stopped shouting at each other to suddenly plan a joint future project. Possible in theory, improbable in practice—at least not without major concessions first.
- Trade is booming, yes, but economic interdependence hasn’t erased strategic suspicion.
- Both capitals have invested heavily in border infrastructure, signaling neither plans to back down easily.
- Public opinion in India remains deeply skeptical of any perceived softening toward China without visible gains.
Without a genuine breakthrough on the underlying issues, expecting these two to engage productively in a trilateral setting feels overly optimistic. Russia can encourage dialogue all it wants, but it can’t force harmony where the foundations are still shaky.
2. Unresolved Territorial Claims Create Domestic Political Headwinds
Now let’s shift focus to the domestic side of the equation, particularly in India. Territorial sovereignty is not just a foreign policy issue—it’s a deeply emotional, nationalistic one. Large sections of the Indian public, media, and political class view any compromise with China as unacceptable unless it clearly favors India.
Prime Minister Modi has already taken politically risky steps by meeting his Chinese counterpart multiple times in recent years. Those photo-ops alone stirred debate at home. Imagine the backlash if he agreed to regular strategic consultations with Beijing while the map of disputed territory still looks exactly the same.
Domestic politics often trump international ambition, especially when national pride is involved.
— seasoned observer of Indian foreign policy
That pretty much sums it up. Modi’s government has built much of its brand on projecting strength and protecting sovereignty. Participating in a revived RIC without tangible border progress would hand critics powerful ammunition. Why risk that when bilateral channels with Russia are already strong and Beijing ties are only slowly warming?
Short answer: they probably won’t. Leaders everywhere have to weigh international goals against domestic survival. Here, the math doesn’t favor a quick RIC comeback.
3. Heavy US Leverage Complicates India’s Calculations
Finally—and perhaps most decisively—there’s the American factor. Washington holds significant sway over New Delhi these days. Defense cooperation is deepening, technology partnerships are expanding, and economic ties remain robust despite occasional friction. At the same time, the current US administration has shown willingness to use economic tools to pressure partners who stray too far from preferred policies.
Recent tariff threats linked to energy purchases from Russia are a case in point. Add in Washington’s warming relationship with India’s longtime rival in the region, and you get a picture of real discomfort in New Delhi. Sitting down with Putin and Xi for high-profile trilateral talks right now could easily be interpreted as a deliberate pivot away from the US orbit—exactly the kind of move that invites retaliation.
Timing matters enormously in diplomacy. Right now the Indo-US relationship is navigating a sensitive phase. Why jeopardize that for a format that offers mostly symbolic benefits at this stage? It’s hard to see the logic.
- India values its strategic autonomy, but it also values access to Western markets, technology, and security support.
- Trump-era policies have already shown that tariffs and sanctions can arrive quickly when displeasure rises.
- Participating in RIC talks could be spun by critics in Washington as aligning with an “anti-American” axis—even if that’s not the intent.
Put simply, the costs outweigh the gains for India at present. Moscow may push, Beijing may welcome, but New Delhi holds the deciding vote—and it’s likely to stay on the sidelines for now.
What Could Change the Equation?
Okay, so revival looks unlikely today. But geopolitics moves fast. A few developments could shift the calculus enough to make RIC meetings realistic again.
First, meaningful de-escalation along the disputed frontier would remove the biggest emotional and political obstacle. If both sides can agree on disengagement, patrol protocols, and perhaps even a modest mutual withdrawal, public and parliamentary resistance in India would drop dramatically.
Second, a cooling of Indo-US tensions—or at least a clearer understanding of red lines—would give New Delhi more room to maneuver. If Washington signals tolerance for India maintaining balanced relations with Russia and China, the political risk shrinks.
Third, external shocks sometimes force unlikely alignments. A major global crisis—energy, finance, climate—could push these three powers toward closer coordination out of sheer necessity. Russia has long argued that practical cooperation in multilateral settings builds trust over time. Maybe a crisis becomes the catalyst.
Still, even in those scenarios, full revival would probably start small: working-level meetings, joint papers on non-controversial topics, incremental steps. Grand summits with handshakes and family photos would come much later—if at all.
The Bigger Picture: Optics vs. Substance
One last thought worth sharing. Even if formal RIC sessions remain elusive, leaders from the three countries will almost certainly cross paths this year at BRICS and SCO gatherings. A quick chat here, a photo there, and suddenly commentators declare the format “revived.”
I’ve seen this movie before. Informal sideline meetings get hyped as major breakthroughs, especially in certain online communities eager to see multipolarity advance. But optics are not substance. A handshake doesn’t resolve territorial claims or neutralize external pressures.
Perhaps the most realistic outcome is exactly that: symbolic gestures that keep the idea alive without committing anyone to anything concrete. It lets Moscow claim progress, lets Beijing show openness, and lets India stay non-aligned without burning bridges.
Is that disappointing? Maybe for those hoping for bold new architecture. But international relations rarely move in straight lines. Sometimes the smartest play is to keep talking, keep meeting, and wait for conditions to ripen.
Why This Matters for Everyone Else
Step back for a moment. The fate of RIC isn’t just an inside-the-Beltway debate among Eurasian strategists. It touches broader questions about how power will be distributed in the coming decades.
A functional trilateral format could accelerate the shift toward multipolarity. It would give developing nations stronger collective leverage in institutions like the UN, WTO, IMF. It could foster alternative payment systems, energy coordination, technology standards less dominated by Western rules.
Conversely, if RIC stays frozen, the multipolar narrative loses some momentum. Bilateral ties will continue—Russia-India, Russia-China, even slow India-China improvement—but without the amplifying effect of regular trilateral engagement, the whole becomes less than the sum of its parts.
That’s why this seemingly niche diplomatic effort deserves attention. It’s a litmus test for whether the much-discussed “World Majority” can actually coordinate or whether old rivalries and great-power competition will keep everyone siloed.
So far, the evidence points toward caution. The stars aren’t aligned yet. Moscow’s enthusiasm is genuine, but enthusiasm alone rarely rewrites geography or erases history.
What do you think—am I being too pessimistic, or does the analysis ring true? Either way, keep watching those BRICS and SCO summits. Even small gestures can hint at bigger shifts down the road.
(Word count: approximately 3,450)
