Even though Trump is considered a horrible, loud-mouthed, and irascible man, people are still surprised when he acts as everyone expects. Francis Fukuyama said that, “All realist theories start from the assumption that insecurity is a universal and permanent feature of the international order, due to its abidingly anarchic nature.” And what country could be more anarchic than the USA, despite it being the oldest democracy, and who could be more anarchic than Donald Trump?
Trump is not new to the world order, nor are the policies of the USA. So how is it that for decades the U.S. adopted a belligerent policy of supporting every conceivable enemy of India starting with the certified rogue state Pakistan, yet no POTUS was as heavily criticized by Indians—even those who don’t typically comment on international or even national relations?
If Trump is likened to a raging bull, then Mr. Modi has dealt with him using the age-old wisdom of avoiding an angry bull rather than confronting it head-on and wasting his energy. Instead, he focused elsewhere and forked a new road.
The Art of Realpolitik
One of the precepts of realism, or realpolitik, is that friends and enemies should be chosen primarily on the basis of their power rather than on ideology or the internal character of the regime. This is what the U.S. has done since World War II by taking the side of Pakistan instead of India or other sovereign states over rogue ones. In a similar vein, Narendra Modi has done the same.
Machiavelli’s ardent disciple, Kissinger, would have been very happy to see what India has done by aligning with China and Russia, since he suffered a similar fate when Indira Gandhi defied his political acumen, derived from being the advisor to the world’s most powerful nation and went ahead and liberated East Bengal.
During the Cold War’s peak, Henry Kissinger argued that Soviet communist power was a permanent international reality that couldn’t be ignored or fundamentally changed. He believed the U.S. had to accept accommodation over confrontation. In a similar vein, Mr. Modi appears to be following this same advice in his dealings with both Russia and China.
The Rise of RIC
Although the RIC as a strategic grouping was conceived by the Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov in 1998. The group was founded on the basis of “ending its subservient foreign policy guided by the US,” and “renewing old ties with India and fostering the newly discovered friendship with China.” It never was more relevant and important as it is now.
While India has been a friend to Russia for a long time, beginning with Nehru’s policy of non-alignment when China as a threat was not even on the horizon, China has become so powerful in the last couple of decades that it is hard to ignore. India has had its confrontations with the Chinese and came out unscathed, but further trials and errors seem futile.
Therefore, it was a thoughtful gesture on Modi’s part to try not to wish away or reform China, but to accommodate it. A great opportunity for this was provided on a platter by Trump. In the absence of Trump’s tariffs and other diplomatic blunders, it would have been very hard for Modi to approach China the way he has managed to do now.
Hence it was not a surprising to see a wave of apprehension and pointed criticism has swept through the United States in response to the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China. The optics of the gathering, particularly the perceived camaraderie between the leaders of Russia, India, and China (RIC), has fueled a narrative of shifting global allegiances and a growing challenge to American influence on the world stage.
ALSO READ: India’s Strategic Dance between RIC and the Japan Pact
The sentiment emanating from the US is one of palpable concern, with President Donald Trump lamenting that America has “lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China.” This sentiment has been echoed by administration officials and media commentators, who view the summit as a deliberate move to create a united front against the West.
Washington’s Concerns about the SCO
The Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral grouping, which has long been viewed by some as a potential counterweight to US unilateralism, has also come under renewed scrutiny. While the forum has been in existence for decades, the current geopolitical climate, marked by tensions between the US and both Russia and China, has given its meetings within the SCO framework a heightened significance.
From the American perspective, the strengthening of the RIC relationship is seen as a concerning development that could further erode US influence in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
A primary driver of this unease is India’s continued economic ties with Russia, particularly its purchase of Russian oil. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been vocal in his criticism, labeling India, China, and Russia as “bad actors” and accusing them of “fueling the Russian war machine.” He dismissed the SCO summit as “largely performative,” yet the visuals of close interactions between the leaders of these three nations have evidently struck a nerve in Washington.
ALSO READ: Charlie Kirk assassination proves why India must get tough with influencers glorifying violent revolutions
U.S. media has largely framed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a counterweight to Western institutions like NATO, emphasizing its potential to challenge U.S. influence in Asia. While conservative outlets like Fox News portray the SCO more confrontationally as part of a “red axis” with China and Russia, their hosts, such as Sean Hannity, have called the RIC a “communist cabal” in 2024 monologues. In contrast, left-leaning outlets like The New York Times depict it as a tool for Russia and China to build an anti-Western bloc.
Business-oriented coverage in The Wall Street Journal stresses economic aspects, such as the SCO’s promotion of Belt and Road alternatives to Western investment. For instance, a 2024 article detailed how U.S. tariffs on China have indirectly boosted SCO trade pacts but warned of risks from its alignment with sanctioned entities. The Washington Post emphasizes India’s role as a swing power, with a 2024 analysis warning that RIC summits could deepen U.S.-India frictions over Russia’s arms sales.
India and the World
In India, criticism of Modi is largely based on his and Trump’s claim of friendship, with many not realizing that such a relationship doesn’t stop a leader from prioritizing his own country’s interests. This aspect isn’t completely missed by Trump, who recently reiterated his friendship with Modi, a gesture Modi reciprocated with great flair.
Given how Trump often goes back on his promises and jumps to new issues—swamping the media with something new to talk about while avoiding questions about previous commitments—it’s possible that this tariff impasse may slide away without any major blunders or lasting impact.
Eventually, the friction over the SCO and RIC groupings is less about a dramatic break in alliances and more about the uncomfortable reality of multipolarity. India’s actions under Modi are not a sign of abandoning the West, but a pragmatic embrace of realism that is forced on India. By navigating a complex web of relationships with Russia, China, and the U.S., India is prioritizing its national interest and asserting its strategic autonomy in an era where power is no longer concentrated in a single bloc.
The U.S. media’s alarmist framing since the Left and the Right both dislike Modi for no plausible reasons, while reflecting genuine anxiety in Washington, fails to grasp this fundamental shift. As the global order continues to evolve, the true test for Washington will be whether it can adapt to a world where key partners, like India, refuse to be simple allies and instead operate as independent power centers.
