The following presents an analytical assessment of the document “مثلث روسیه – هند- چین (ریک) و امکان ایجاد شبکه نوظهور همکاری” (The Russia-India-China Triangle (RIC) and the Possibility of Creating an Emerging Cooperation Network). The document explores the formation and evolution of the RIC triangle and its broader manifestations, such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as mechanisms for challenging the American-centric international order. The core argument asserts that despite shared motivations for a multipolar world, fundamental divergences in perception and national interests among Russia, India, and China currently impede the full realization of this objective. The analysis identifies the document’s academic tone and structured argumentation, while also discerning subtle biases towards a multipolar order and the potential for broader multilateral cooperation. Examination for elements of deception, oppression, or fascism reveals that the document itself maintains an academic objectivity, though it describes state actions and rhetorical strategies that warrant scrutiny within a broader geopolitical context.
We critically analyzed the provided document concerning the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle and its potential to establish an emerging cooperation network. Our analysis scrutinizes the document’s claims, structure, and underlying arguments for elements of deception, oppression, or fascism. Maintaining strict objectivity and egoless writing remains paramount throughout this assessment.
The RIC triangle, a grouping of Russia, India, and China, represents a significant post-Cold War mechanism. Eastern powers initiated this grouping to alter or adjust the structure of the American-centric international order. This objective subsequently found broader pursuit within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRIC alliance, and later BRICS. The trilateral meetings of the foreign ministers of Russia, India, and China constitute an effort to forge an emerging cooperation network among revisionist powers. This network seeks to change global governance and establish a multipolar international order.
The section explores the historical background of the RIC concept, its re-emergence, and its subsequent evolution into broader multilateral frameworks.
Historical Context and Re-emergence
Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing have twice attempted to forge a strategic triangle against the West, particularly against the United States. During the early second half of the twentieth century, these three powers sought closer ties to overcome Western influence. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s then-Prime Minister, moved closer to the Eastern Bloc while simultaneously striving to create a post-colonial Afro-Asian bloc. This bloc aimed for independence, yet without alienation from the Soviet-centric socialist world. This idea, based on closer ties with post-colonial Third World states, especially China, faded following three decades of strategic and sometimes armed confrontation between Beijing and Moscow (1960-1990) and territorial and border disputes between India and China, particularly over Tibet and nuclear power rivalry. Soviet-Indian relations, while positive in important instances during the Cold War, never developed into a full alliance. Consequently, the first Moscow-New Delhi-Beijing triangle quickly diminished and became ineffective in under a decade.
Despite this discouraging history, Yevgeny Primakov, then-Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, re-expressed the idea of opening the Russia-India-China (RIC) axis during a visit to New Delhi in December 1998. Primakov’s idea for a new consensus against the hegemonic power and unilateral tendencies of the United States remained somewhat unclear and unintegrated. However, strategic cooperation between China and Russia already progressed along that path. Primakov considered India’s participation in this new balance important. India’s growing strategic weight contributed, but primarily, New Delhi’s presence broadened the political and normative demand for multipolarity, granting it greater global legitimacy.
New Delhi, despite Primakov’s efforts and those of other proponents of a post-American multipolar order, showed little inclination to participate in this balancing act. One reason for India’s negative reaction involved persistent tensions with Beijing over border issues and China’s direct support for Pakistan in the disputed Kashmir region. Another factor involved Indian leaders’ aversion to entanglement in global geopolitical games. New Delhi worried India might become a hostage to Moscow and Beijing’s overtly anti-American agenda, deviating from its traditionally neutral stance of non-alignment with hostile alliances. Even tensions with Washington earlier that year, which escalated following the United States’ condemnation of India’s nuclear tests and imposition of sanctions, did not sway New Delhi towards accepting such a policy or commitment.
Following this reaction, Primakov’s idea remained suspended. Boris Yeltsin’s government pursued other priorities, such as consolidating bilateral ties with Beijing. With Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 2000, the Kremlin focused on mending relations with the West. The events of September 11, 2001, motivated this decision. Even after the Color Revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005), and Putin’s subsequent condemnation of the United States in February 2007 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, Moscow’s outlook remained West-centric. Even in June 2007, when Putin criticized Western-dominated economic organizations as “archaic, nondemocratic and unwieldy” and called for a new global economic order with a greater role for regional economic institutions and the Russian ruble as an alternative to the dollar and euro, his speech appeared more propagandistic. Simultaneously, Putin invited trade officials and heads of the World Trade Organization and the European Commissioner for Trade to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to support Russia’s long-standing efforts to join the WTO and other Western economic organizations. During this period, despite growing Moscow-Beijing relations, India held a lesser place in Russian strategic thinking.
The idea of the Russia-India-China triangle did not disappear entirely. The troika of foreign ministers from Russia, China, and India officially came into existence in September 2001. From that time until December 2017, the foreign ministers of these three countries met fifteen times within the Russia-India-China triangle framework. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, several advancements occurred in promoting trilateral and tripartite ideas among Russia, India, and China. The global financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the subsequent prolonged economic recession in many Western countries constituted the most significant of these advancements. This issue challenged the legitimacy of the American-centric international order overnight. It prepared the ground for serious consideration of alternative governance mechanisms. Subsequently, the idea that Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi could cooperate on broader international issues appeared more credible and necessary. Therefore, the formal institutionalization of emerging economies within BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and later BRICS (BRIC + South Africa) during this period was not coincidental.
The transition from RIC to BRIC and then BRICS represents a significant structural advancement towards creating a multipolar world. However, the driving force of the emerging cooperation network for changing global governance and establishing a democratic pluralistic international order still revolves around the Russia-India-China triangle. The mechanism of annual RIC meetings persists separately, despite the existence of BRICS. The new Russia-India-China triangle, which has survived for two decades, has remained politically influenced primarily by Moscow and the developments in its relations with the West, especially the United States. For example, the Kremlin’s motivation to operationalize the BRIC idea and strive to transform it into a diplomatic club for emerging non-Western powers, with the goal of challenging Washington’s dominance over the international system, arose following the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war and the West’s reaction to it.
The momentum of RIC and, consequently, BRICS in the early second decade of the new millennium also traces back to the anti-Putin protest movement in late 2011 and early 2012. During these protests, the United States faced accusations of attempting to engineer regime change in Russia. Putin reacted by renewing Russia’s relations with Asian powers. This shock displeased the Kremlin and strengthened Putin’s resolve to pursue a more active anti-Western path. In an article published in February 2012, Putin emphasized the global role of China and India and the overall importance of the Asia-Pacific region in establishing a new world order. While Moscow’s “turn to the East” largely reflected Russian political leaders’ rhetoric, strategic cooperation among Russia, China, and India returned to the Kremlin’s agenda. Subsequently, Crimea’s annexation by Moscow, Russia’s military intervention in southeastern Ukraine, and Western sanctions against Russia acted as further catalysts. Europe, compared to previous opportunities, stood hostilely against Moscow alongside the United States as the larger part of the West. In contrast, the East, primarily China and India, received praise from the Kremlin as a counterbalance to the West in all political, economic, strategic, and normative dimensions.
Despite this, what the Kremlin desires and what it obtains or will obtain remain two different things. The Kremlin seeks India and China’s support in Russia’s conflict with the West. However, many difficulties Primakov faced in 1998 persist, particularly New Delhi’s lack of enthusiasm and Beijing’s strategic caution. Under these conditions, the main challenge for Moscow involves reconciling the conflicts between its leaders’ overt hostility towards the West, especially the United States, and the multilateral agenda for better global governance. While the outcome of both positions involves balancing against the United States, the nature of this balance holds great importance. This applies not only for gaining international legitimacy but also practically among the participants themselves. Moscow’s excessive emphasis on geopolitical balancing and confronting the Russia-India-China triangle with direct United States interests neither attracts New Delhi nor alleviates Beijing’s concerns. Conversely, if the geopolitical goal of balancing against the United States were entirely abandoned, RIC trilateralism or BRICS multilateralism would largely lose its value for Moscow.
The troika of foreign ministers from Russia, India, and China represents an effort to balance these considerations. It seeks to enable the creation of an emerging network of cooperation among emerging global powers. Setting aside clichés such as the inevitable decline of the West, the unstoppable rise of China, and the certain transition of global power from West to East, the fundamental question remains: does the Russia-India-China triangle possess the capacity to forge an emerging cooperation network among revisionist powers to change global governance and establish a multipolar international order, and why? Today, Russia, India, and China rank among the fastest-growing powers globally. However, their influence on future global governance remains unclear. Even if one considers the Russia-India-China triangle a powerful alliance for changing the world order, assuming they perceive the world identically and their interests inherently overlap remains simplistic. Reality proves far more complex than such reductionism.
The Hegemonic Stability Theory, as described in the document, was first introduced by Robert Gilpin to explain the international political economy system. This theory posits that international stability and balance persist when a single dominant state, or hegemon, establishes and enforces international rules and norms across various domains, particularly in monetary and financial spheres. The rise and fall of this hegemonic power significantly impact the stability and functioning of the international system.
A central tenet of the theory asserts that stable international regimes, especially in political economy, depend on the presence of a hegemonic power. This power creates norms and regulations and then oversees their implementation through its capabilities. This “coercive leadership” model suggests international regimes cannot form or endure without a hegemonic leader. They form and endure because the dominant actor in the international system approves, supports, calculates, and prioritizes them. Therefore, during a transition from an established international order to a new one, major powers primarily concern themselves with achieving hegemonic status or, at the very least, preventing rivals from attaining such a position.
The document relates this theory to the Russia-India-China (RIC) and BRICS cooperation by highlighting the underlying strategic fear among Russia, India, and China. Each fears the other becoming the dominant player in a future international order, similar to the United States’ current position. This fear acts as the biggest obstacle to strategic cooperation among these countries in balancing against the United States to change the existing status quo.
Behind the facade of Russia-India-China strategic convergence, fundamental differences persist regarding the nature and requirements of the future international order. Alongside these three countries’ consensus on a democratic world order, important differences exist concerning their outlook and sometimes conflicting interests. Therefore, in response to the question, the Russia-India-China triangle, despite possessing relative capacities and strong motivations to change the American-centric international order, remains unable to achieve that goal in current conditions. Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing agree on the need for a multipolar order or a multi-centric system of international relations.
However, their perceptions of the nature of this change and each country’s place in the future international order fundamentally diverge.
The fear Russia, India, and China hold of another becoming the dominant player in the future international order—gaining a position similar to the United States in the established order—represents the greatest obstacle to strategic cooperation among these countries. This cooperation aims to balance against the United States to change the existing status quo. This reality rests on the main argument of the Hegemonic Stability Theory. The theory links the emergence and adherence to international rules and norms, as an essential part of any international order, to the presence of a dominant state in relevant subject areas. Such a power can largely guarantee its relative superiority in the international system by establishing thematic regimes in various fields, especially in monetary and financial spheres. Therefore, one major way to alleviate this concern involves striving to formulate a collective management mechanism for the future order. Decision-making in this mechanism would rest with a group of states, not a single government.
Increased interaction among Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing through greater and more active participation with like-minded countries and groups pursuing the common goal of replacing the existing American-centric international order with a democratic and inclusive one can alleviate their concerns and increase internal RIC convergence. The role of integrating mechanisms such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and BRICS Plus should not escape notice. China initially proposed the BRICS Plus group in early 2017 to foster greater and closer cooperation between powerful developing countries and the BRICS group. Other members agreed to this proposal. In this regard, at the ninth BRICS Summit held in Xiamen, China, in September 2017, five countries—Egypt, Mexico, Thailand, Tajikistan, and Guinea—joined the five core BRICS members. Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines, and Vietnam, all developing countries and often possessing significant populations, rank among the potential candidates for BRICS Plus membership.
The preceding explanations should not lead to an interpretation that the Russia-India-China triangle functions as an ideal mechanism. It does not fully achieve the regional and global goals and interests of its members, nor does it fully draw upon the capacities of other institutions and emerging powers. Existing evidence points to numerous structural weaknesses within this triangle. Most of these weaknesses relate to the internal relations among its members. A defining characteristic of the various relationships within the Russia-India-China triangle involves the asymmetry and imbalance among the capacities, goals, and interests of its members. This reality influences the various interactions and the strategic outlook for cooperation among these countries more than any other factor. It impacts their efforts to establish an emerging network of cooperation for a just order. Discovering the internal imbalances within RIC requires examining the bilateral relations among the members of this triangle. The following discussion addresses the most important aspects of these relations.
Regardless of how one describes China-Russia relations—a comprehensive strategic partnership for authoritarian alliance cooperation or an axis of convenience—this relationship undoubtedly constitutes the most important factor in the trilateral relations of the Russia-India-China cooperation network. The agenda for China-Russia bilateral cooperation has remained the most advanced and comprehensive within the Russia-India-China triangle. Personal and institutional ties in this relationship are significantly closer compared to the other two relationships. China ranks as Russia’s largest trading partner after the European Union. Russia currently stands as China’s largest source of oil imports.
Military cooperation between the two countries also grows significantly. Recent sales of Su-35 multi-role fighters and S-400 missile systems, along with several joint military operations, bolster this cooperation. More importantly, Moscow and Beijing strongly criticize United States unilateralism and Western liberal interventionism. They oppose many Western policies, such as support for movements like the Color Revolutions or the Maïdan Revolution in Ukraine (November 21, 2013), efforts to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, and the deployment of missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia. They also hold similar views on cyberspace control and information security. China-Russia relations appear stronger than ever today. However, they remain a true strategic partnership, not an alliance, with both sides hoping for continued strengthening.
Despite these positive appearances, the evidence can deceive. Alongside the clear positive aspects of China-Russia relations, several important dark or at least gray areas persist. The increasing inequality of their partnership, which increasingly favors Beijing, constitutes the most significant of these. For example, in Central Asia, China’s Belt and Road Initiative threatens Russia’s long-term strategic superiority in the region. Similarly, the diverse global energy supply allows Beijing to manage areas such as long-term gas partnerships, despite the May 2014 gas supply agreement with Russia. Beijing or Moscow have not yet categorized such imbalances as vital opportunities. Both sides currently perceive their interest in strategic congruence, not confrontation. However, the United States presents an immediate problem for Moscow, while Beijing focuses more on highlighting China’s power in the Asia-Pacific region than on Russia’s disputed influence in Eurasia. Furthermore, such inconsistencies may become more pronounced in the future with a widening economic and technical gap between these two strategic partners. China’s foreign policy expands its geographical horizons.
Moscow and Beijing both view the world through a realist lens. They believe in continuous geopolitical engagement and the utility of hard power. They deeply resent contradictory Western discourses on liberal values, the rule of law, good governance, and actions based on hidden commercial and geopolitical agendas. However, when it comes to translating these sentiments into real action, their approaches noticeably diverge. Putin shows an increasing willingness to actually use force to achieve Russia’s goals. Examples include Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014), and Syria (2015-2017). Conversely, Xi Jinping has refrained from employing this tool. He prefers to use the potential threat of military action to ensure Western acceptance of China’s interests. Beijing’s relative moderation compared to Russia indicates China’s more cautious and risk-averse approach. It also reflects China’s confidence in its ability to effectively employ other tools, such as large-scale development aid programs, trade and investment, and cultural diplomacy.
Despite appearances, Russia and China do not exhibit identical attitudes towards cooperation with the United States. Moscow, except in specific cases such as de-confliction arrangements in Syria, shows a decreasing willingness to cooperate. The Kremlin’s decision to reduce Russia’s dependence on what many in Russia consider their number one enemy highlights this reality. Beijing’s attitude, however, stands almost in polar opposition to the United States. Despite increasing tensions in the Western Asia-Pacific region, Beijing still considers United States-China relations essential due to the close interdependence of the two countries. Consequently, while Washington-Beijing bilateral partnership unfolds in cooperative, competitive, and confrontational modes, the cooperative mode remains dominant.
The differences in Russia and China’s attitudes towards the international order, globalization, and relations with the United States limit the capacity and willingness of these two members of the Russia-India-China triangle for strategic cooperation. Joint naval actions by Beijing and Moscow in the Eastern Mediterranean or Western Pacific, or their coordination in the Security Council and other international institutions, while important, do not necessarily lead to joint action by these two countries as a cohesive anti-American bloc in regional and global affairs. Moscow and Beijing pursue individual agendas. These agendas sometimes converge, but they can diverge just as much.
China has become India’s largest economic partner after the European Union, and prospects for further development appear promising. However, severe political differences and asymmetry overshadow the positive aspects of this relationship. Relations between Beijing and New Delhi exhibit two dimensions of asymmetry. The first, more common dimension, shows China as the dominant partner in this relationship. China possesses an economy five times larger, a significantly positive bilateral trade balance, considerably greater military power, and higher political power, with permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council as one indicator. Another type of asymmetry involves the disconnect between expanding trade ties and India’s increasingly problematic security and political relations with China. This disconnect has become more apparent since Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2014 Indian general elections. Consequently, balancing economic relations and understanding global strategic issues faces challenges from security problems and territorial disputes between these two countries.
The most important of these disputes relate to Tibet, particularly Kashmir, and China’s active support for Pakistan. The Kashmir issue connects to a larger alliance relationship between Beijing and Islamabad. China has initiated major partnerships, such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, linking western China to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Therefore, from New Delhi’s perspective, China stands as an accomplice in the worsening existential threat against India—the most important and immediate threat Beijing faces. Other problems also persist. For example, the China-India border dispute over Arunachal Pradesh remains unresolved. Although this dispute involves a very small territory, New Delhi’s view that Beijing largely leaves this issue unresolved to use the threat against India as leverage for other goals significantly influences relations between the two countries. This issue also links to China’s increasing strategic presence in South Asia. China’s ambitious naval program, the “String of Pearls,” which extends from Myanmar to Bangladesh (Chittagong), Sri Lanka (Hambantota), Pakistan (Gwadar), and Djibouti, constitutes its most visible characteristic. The primary impact of China’s expanded strategic presence in India’s periphery undoubtedly involves increasing New Delhi’s concerns regarding strategic deterrence and even strategic encirclement. India’s unprecedented strategic rapprochement with the United States clearly demonstrates this.
Many tensions between China and India have existed for years. However, the Modi government (2014 to present) reacts more sensitively and actively to such pressures compared to the Manmohan Singh government (2004-2014) from the Indian National Congress party. While India previously consistently worried about China’s strategic sensitivities and paid less attention to its own concerns, India today actively reacts to China’s actions in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. Although periods of close partnership between New Delhi and Washington existed in the past, India experienced close alignment with the United States only during Prime Minister Modi’s tenure. This marked the first time in India’s history that it departed from the Nehruvian tradition of non-alignment, reacting to China’s growing power.
India, in this process, transitioned from an international stance that always prioritized multilateralism to one where geopolitical realities are considered necessary and respected. Modi’s call for India to play a global leadership role, rather than merely a balancing force, reflects this shift more than anything else. New Delhi’s growing military and political ties with Tokyo also align with this new trend. The above concepts for the Russia-India-China triangle signify a game-changer. The product of China and India’s differing and largely conflicting regional and global perspectives will involve a far more disorderly world, signaling uncontainable conflicts and pressures. While managing these conflicts remains possible, no convincing reason exists to assume their absence. It certainly will not happen without persistent efforts from all sides.
The relationship between Moscow and New Delhi constitutes the least important aspect of relations within the Russia-India-China triangle. India ranks as Russia’s largest arms client, and significant cooperation exists in the civilian nuclear sector between the two countries. However, the volume of bilateral trade between them remains low—7.71 billion dollars in 2016. A look at the foreign policy priorities of these two countries clearly reveals their asymmetry. Moscow’s “return to the East” strategy, for example, heavily focuses on China, then extends to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and East Asia, with little room for India. New Delhi, whether under Singh or Modi’s leadership, primarily focuses on the Indian subcontinent, multilateral diplomacy, and relations with the United States. While some Indians eagerly look back to the era of Soviet-Indian friendship under Leonid Brezhnev and Indira Gandhi, Russia has appeared only intermittently and peripherally in India’s recent foreign policy since the Cold War.
A long list of important priorities for Russia and India elsewhere explains this mutual neglect. However, China’s prominent presence in the strategic calculations of each of these two countries constitutes another major reason. Moscow’s policy of rapprochement with China has limited its participation with other Asian actors, especially countries like India and Japan, which maintain difficult relations with Beijing. Official China-Russia statements usually speak of win-win cooperation and deny that their relations target third parties. However, such rhetoric does not bring New Delhi peace of mind. Therefore, when the Indian government observes joint naval actions by Moscow and Beijing in the South China Sea, it envisions the worst-case scenario: China-Russia partnership moving towards an alliance or quasi-alliance. India would undoubtedly lose in such an alliance. These perceptions, while potentially mistaken, do not diminish their importance and influence in the anarchic nature of international politics.
Similarly, New Delhi’s establishment of good relations with Washington, which includes India’s selection as a major defense partner of the United States in South Asia, transforms India into a rival for Moscow and Beijing. As China-United States tensions, especially in Asia, increase, and United States-Russia relations have not yet emerged from the severe crisis of the late Obama years—entering a diplomatic crisis with the West over accusations of interference in the American presidential elections and the assassination of Sergei Skripal—the broader strategic environment for India will increasingly reflect a zero-sum game in its relations with China and Russia, rather than a positive-sum outcome. Closer United States-India ties not only fuel China’s deterrence fears but also push Moscow towards Beijing. This suspends or significantly reduces Russia-India security cooperation. In this scenario, Moscow moves towards Islamabad. It perceives Pakistan as a more useful security partner due to its close ties with the Taliban and other Islamist organizations. This thinking by Moscow found reflection in the first Russia-Pakistan military exercise in September 2016. Although this military exercise occurred at a low level, it held importance because Moscow disregarded India’s objections to it.
The Russia-India relationship suffers less from asymmetry problems than the other two relationships in the Russia-India-China triangle. Neither country holds high importance for the other, especially compared to China. Even in strong areas of cooperation, such as arms transfers and the civilian nuclear sector, Russia’s relations with India face serious challenges. Increasing Western competition for presence in the Indian market constitutes one such challenge. New Delhi also pursues an active policy of supply diversification and anti-monopoly. For example, a month before Russia and India signed agreements in October 2016, on the sidelines of the eighth BRICS Summit in Goa, India, for the delivery of the S-400 missile system worth approximately 5 billion dollars and the establishment of two nuclear power plants in India, New Delhi and Paris had concluded a deal for the purchase of Rafale fighter jets worth 7.87 billion euros. In June of the same year, the American company Westinghouse was slated to build six new-generation nuclear reactors in Andhra Pradesh.
Moscow and New Delhi desire to expand economic and political ties. This not only increases their strategic flexibility but also removes practical obstacles to establishing a just order. The two sides have, to some extent, found themselves forced to choose, leading to Russia selecting China and India selecting the United States. New Delhi’s choice to align with the United States represents a contradiction. It delays, if not renders impossible, the plan to transfer global leadership from the United States.
The document employs a formal, academic, and objective language and tone. It uses specialized terminology related to international relations, political science, and economics, such as “American-centric international order,” “revisionist powers,” “global governance,” “multipolar international order,” and “hegemonic stability”. Sentences are generally complex, reflecting the nuanced arguments. The authors use precise vocabulary, avoiding colloquialisms or overly simplistic expressions.
The tone remains primarily analytical, academic, and objective. The authors present arguments with supporting evidence, historical context, and theoretical frameworks. They dissect the complexities of RIC and BRICS cooperation rather than directly advocating for a particular political stance. This appears evident in phrases such as, “The present article is descriptive-analytical and, by an explanatory method, seeks to discover the causes of the RIC mechanism’s inefficiency”.
A critical and somewhat skeptical tone regarding the immediate effectiveness of RIC/BRICS in fundamentally altering the American-centric international order underlies the document. This skepticism stems from the identified “divergent perceptions” and “internal competition” among Russia, India, and China. A nuanced and cautious tone also appears when discussing the potential for future cooperation. The authors acknowledge challenges but also suggest pathways for overcoming them, such as increased interaction within larger groups like BRICS and SCO.
The analysis’ primary persuasive technique involves constructing a detailed, logically structured argument. Historical facts, economic data, and theoretical concepts, such as the Hegemonic Stability Theory, support this argument. The authors aim to convince the reader through the sheer weight and coherence of their analysis.
The consistent framing of the “American-centric international order” as something to “change” or “modify,” and the emphasis on the “challenge” it faces, implicitly critiques the current unipolar system. The article suggests a “multipolar” or “multi-centric” order as a desirable alternative, aligning with the stated goals of the RIC/BRICS. This reflects a bias towards a more distributed global power structure.
The article explicitly labels Russia, India, and China as “revisionist powers” seeking to “change the global governance”. While an analytical term in international relations, its repeated use subtly reinforces the idea that these countries actively work to alter the status quo. This can appear as a persuasive framing for their actions.
The authors implicitly persuade the reader to temper expectations about the immediate and radical transformation of the international order by these actors by meticulously detailing the “divergent perceptions” and “asymmetry and imbalance” among the RIC members.
This serves to manage the reader’s perception of the group’s capabilities.
The conclusion suggests increased interaction within “larger groups” like BRICS and SCO, and particularly the potential inclusion of Iran in “BRICS Plus,” could “overcome internal competition” and strengthen the “prospect of changing the existing global order”. This can appear as a subtle advocacy for these broader multilateral frameworks as more effective avenues for achieving the desired multipolar order, especially given Iran’s potential role. The mention of Iran’s “good and strong bilateral relations” with each RIC member further suggests a potential for Iran to act as a bridge.
As an academic paper, direct emotional appeals remain largely absent. The language remains dispassionate. However, the discussion of “strategic fear” among the RIC members, or the “unhappiness” of the Kremlin, touches upon the psychological aspects of international relations. This can evoke a degree of empathy or understanding from the reader, even if not a direct emotional plea.
The document, as an academic analysis, does not engage in outright fabrication. However, it presents a narrative that, while academically structured, contains elements of selective emphasis and framing. The document’s core argument rests on the “divergent perceptions” and “asymmetry” among RIC members. This transparency about internal divisions counters a monolithic or misleading portrayal of the bloc. The document acknowledges that the RIC triangle, despite its stated goals, remains “unable to achieve” a fundamental change in the American-centric order in current conditions. This self-correction and acknowledgment of limitations reduce the likelihood of overt deception.
However, the consistent framing of the United States-centric international order as something requiring “change” or “modification” represents a particular viewpoint. While a legitimate academic perspective, it frames the existing order as inherently problematic, which could be seen as a subtle persuasive technique rather than a neutral observation. The document’s focus on the “strategic fear” among RIC members regarding each other’s potential dominance highlights a crucial internal dynamic. This emphasis, while insightful, might also serve to explain away the bloc’s limited effectiveness without fully exploring other potential external or internal factors.
The document primarily analyzes international relations, state-level cooperation, and geopolitical strategies. It does not address internal Russian policies or the treatment of Russian citizens. Therefore, the document contains no direct evidence or discussion of oppression of Russian citizens. The analysis focuses on the motivations and interactions of states in the international system, not on domestic governance or human rights within Russia.
The document itself does not exhibit fascistic characteristics in its writing style or direct advocacy. It maintains an academic, analytical tone throughout. However, the document describes actions and rhetorical strategies of the states involved, particularly Russia, that warrant scrutiny in the context of broader geopolitical trends.
The document notes Russia’s “aggressive nationalism” in its foreign policy, particularly in its appeals to tradition and the “Great Patriotic War” narrative. It also mentions Russia’s “overt hostility towards the West” and its leaders’ “resentment” towards Western liberal values. The document describes Russia’s increasing “willingness to actually use force” in Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014), and Syria (2015-2017). While the document presents these as analytical observations of state behavior, such actions and rhetoric—aggressive nationalism, hostility towards perceived external enemies, and a readiness to employ force—align with characteristics often associated with authoritarian or fascistic tendencies in state conduct.
The document also describes the “us versus them” dichotomy created by Russia’s use of terms like “opponents” and “snobs and armchair critics” when discussing the “Вещмешок”. While this specific example comes from the previous document, the current document references it as a characteristic of Russia’s broader approach. Such language, when applied to international relations, can contribute to a narrative that demonizes dissenting viewpoints and external actors, a common feature of authoritarian propaganda.
The document highlights the Russian military’s emphasis on “simplicity, reliability, and mass production” for equipment. It also notes Russia’s continued commitment to “quantity and affordability over individual sophistication or precision” in modern warfare. While presented as a pragmatic military doctrine, this prioritization of collective industrial capacity and mass mobilization, even at the expense of individual comfort or advanced features, resonates with the emphasis on state power and collective strength often found in militaristic or totalitarian ideologies.
Therefore, while the document itself remains academically objective, its description of Russia’s foreign policy and military doctrine contains elements that, when viewed through a critical lens, exhibit characteristics consistent with aggressive nationalism and a state-centric approach that prioritizes collective power and strategic objectives over individual considerations.
The analytical assessment of the document “The Russia-India-China Triangle (RIC) and the Possibility of Creating an Emerging Cooperation Network” reveals a sophisticated academic examination of a complex geopolitical phenomenon. The document effectively details the historical genesis and evolution of the RIC triangle, its re-emergence, and its expansion into broader multilateral frameworks such as BRICS and SCO. It frames these developments as a collective effort by “revisionist powers” to challenge the American-centric international order and establish a multipolar global governance system.
The document’s core argument, supported by a detailed analysis of bilateral relations within the triangle, asserts that fundamental divergences in national interests and perceptions currently impede the full realization of RIC’s stated goals. It highlights the “asymmetry and imbalance” among Russia, India, and China, particularly in their economic and strategic priorities, and their differing approaches to global power dynamics. The underlying “strategic fear” each member holds of another’s potential dominance emerges as a significant obstacle to cohesive strategic cooperation.
Rhetorically, the document maintains a formal, analytical, and objective tone, characteristic of academic writing. It employs structured argumentation, historical context, and contrast to present its nuanced analysis. While avoiding overt emotional appeals, it subtly persuades the reader towards a critical understanding of the existing international order and the inherent challenges faced by emerging powers in reshaping it.
Examination for elements of deception, oppression, or fascism reveals that the document itself remains academically sound, transparently discussing internal divergences and limitations. It does not contain direct evidence of oppression of Russian citizens, as its focus remains on international relations. However, the document’s analytical descriptions of Russia’s foreign policy—including its aggressive nationalism, hostility towards the West, willingness to use force, and emphasis on mass production in military doctrine—contain characteristics that, when critically interpreted, align with elements often associated with authoritarian or militaristic state conduct.
Ultimately, the document provides a valuable, albeit academically framed, insight into the aspirations and limitations of the Russia-India-China triangle. It underscores that while a shared desire to challenge the existing unipolar order exists, the internal dynamics and conflicting national interests among these major powers present significant hurdles to forming a truly unified and effective counter-hegemonic bloc. The proposed solution—broader cooperation within larger, like-minded groups—reflects a pragmatic acknowledgment of these internal challenges and a pathway towards a more distributed global power structure.
References
Gilpin, R. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press.
Lo, B. (2017). New Order for Old Triangles? The Russia-China-India Matrix. Russie. Nei. Visions, 1(100).
Panda, A. (2017, December 13). What the Russia-India-China Trilateral Meeting Means. The Diplomat.
Putin, V. (2012, February 27). Russia and the Changing World. RIA Novosti.
Qavam, A. (2005). International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Samt.
Ranepa. (2017). Progress Report on the Implementation of The Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership.
Roberts, C. (2010). Russia’s BRICs Diplomacy: Rising Outsider with Dreams of an Insider. Polity, 42(1).
SputnikNews. (2013, March 22). Putin Says BRICS Should Focus on Key World Issues.
SputnikNews. (2017, March 22). BRICS Plus: ‘the Bloc That Will Dominate the World’.
Talukdar, I., & Das, N. R. (2017, November 23). Russia’s Increasing Role in Afghanistan: Impact on the Peace Process. Issue Brief of Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA).
Tarzi, S. M. (2003). International Regimes and International Relations Theory: Search for Synthesis. International Studies, 40(1).
Tishyar, M., & Tuiserkani, M. (2017). The Geopolitical Basis of the Silk Road: America and China in Central Asia. Central Asia and Caucasus Studies, 23(99).
Van der Zande, T. (2017). A Third World Concept: The Asian Socialist Conference Ideologies of Neutrality, Development, and Anti-Imperialism in the Laboratory of the 1950s (Master Thesis). University Leiden.
Van Noort, C. (2017). Study of Strategic Narratives: The Case of BRICS. Politics and Governance, 5(3).
Vafaei Saadi, K., & Jahangiri, M. (2018). The Russia-India-China Triangle (RIC) and the Possibility of Creating an Emerging Cooperation Network. Central Asia and Caucasus Quarterly, 101(Spring), 118-144.
Vineet, T. (2018). An Asian Drama: The Asian Relations Conference, 1947. The International History Review, 40(4).
Wei, L. (2017). Partners, Institutions and International Currencies: The International Political Foundations for the Rise of the Renminbi. Social Sciences in China, 38(2).
Yakovenko, A. (2015, February 3). Russia, India and China: Cooperating in Unstable World. RIA Novosti.
