The 2025 SCO Tianjin Summit witnessed the leaders of Russia, India, and China sharing a stage, with their evident camaraderie reviving talk of the long-dormant RIC troika. The optics conveyed a clear message: the Western world no longer holds a monopoly in shaping global power, as multipolarity increasingly takes root. Western leaders quickly recognised the symbolism, voicing concern over the shifting dynamics. Yet, a crucial question persists—was this summit merely about optics, or does it mark the beginning of a new phase in RIC cooperation? While some see it as a preview of deeper strategic alignment, others dismiss it as diplomatic theatre. Regardless, the moment underscored the geopolitical weight of RIC in today’s fractured world order. In this piece we’ll examine the RIC framework’s background, potential, and inherent challenges posing limitations in shaping a collective role for Russia, India, and China in the evolving global balance.
A LOOK BACK: ORIGINS OF THE RIC
The RIC framework was a brainchild of Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov in 1990. He argued for a coalition of Russia, India, and China that could provide a counterweight to America in a post-Cold War era. For Russia, it was a way to reclaim relevance after the Soviet collapse. China saw it as an avenue to counter American influence, while India valued the chance to engage two powerful neighbours without being locked into rigid alliances and preserving its strategic autonomy. Over the next two decades, RIC held periodic meetings at the foreign ministers’ level and occasionally at the leaders’ level. However, the format was overshadowed by larger groupings such as BRICS and the SCO. Furthermore, deep mistrust between India and China—exacerbated by recurring border tensions—ensured that RIC rarely moved beyond polite statements. As a result, while the concept endured, it remained a largely underutilised pillar of Asian diplomacy.
THE TIANJIN CUE: WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The Tianjin Summit rejuvenated the RIC troika. The warmth displayed between Putin, Modi, and Xi was not accidental. Coming at a time when the West is grappling with internal divisions and external pushback, the optics carried a deliberate message: the world is increasingly multipolar, and Western-led alliances no longer dictate the global script. The symbolism was crucial for each nation for their respective reasons. For Russia, it projected its resilience amidst Western sanctions by deepening partnerships in Asia. For China, showcasing unity with India and Russia helps dilute narratives of its isolation amid tensions with the U.S. and its allies. While, for India, it reiterates its strategic autonomy amidst growing trade tensions with the US. India signalled to America that it has options if pushed into a corner. This comes as the US imposed a 50% tariff on India for Russian oil, creating a trust deficit between the two states.
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE OF THE RIC
Despite lacking a formal structure, the RIC grouping carries undeniable strategic weight. Together, Russia, India, and China represent nearly half of the world’s population, vast natural resources, formidable military capabilities, and advanced technological and industrial capacities. Geographically, they dominate Eurasia—one of the most contested strategic spaces—making the troika a counterweight to Western-led frameworks. On several parameters, RIC rivals or even surpasses existing Western blocs, which explains the unease its potential formalisation causes in the West. Were it institutionalised, RIC could directly challenge Western hegemony and create greater space for nations to resist a Western-led order. Even in its current consultative form, however, the grouping contributes to shaping global narratives of multipolarity. Its interactions symbolise a shift toward a world where no single bloc dictates the rules, underlining RIC’s enduring relevance in global geopolitics despite its structural limitations.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
The Tianjin Summit projected unity, but beneath the optics, RIC faces profound challenges. India and China remain locked in border disputes, with hardened public perceptions and fragile dialogue eroding trust. Russia’s growing economic dependence on China tilts the balance away from India’s interests, complicating the trilateral equation. Moreover, India’s democratic model and strategic partnerships with the West contrast sharply with Moscow and Beijing’s authoritarian systems and confrontational stance toward Washington. Divergent worldviews add further strain—India advocates a multipolar order, while China envisions a bipolar one dominated by itself and the United States. Regional ambitions also clash: India’s Indo-Pacific outreach runs counter to China’s expansionist pursuits. Overlapping memberships in other groupings, from BRICS to the Quad, further dilute cohesion. Thus, while RIC commands significant power on paper, deep-seated mistrust, structural imbalances, and strategic divergences render its practical effectiveness uncertain and its future trajectory precarious.
