From isolation to integration: How Russia, China, and India are reshaping the world order

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China has underscored the shifting direction of global politics. Efforts to isolate Russia have failed, and Europe’s Russophobia has backfired, pushing Moscow to deepen ties with China and the Global South. Russia–China energy cooperation, in particular, will have long-term consequences for Europe, once heavily dependent on Russian gas.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s penchant for public bullying alienated many global leaders. His unnecessary comments on the Russia–China–India engagement at the SCO only hardened India’s resolve to participate more actively in the grouping. Until recently, India was seen as hesitant in SCO matters. Ironically, U.S. pressure and attempted humiliation nudged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to alter course.

For any durable diplomacy, the principle must remain clear: sovereign countries—whether India, Russia, or Venezuela—must be free to choose their partners. India does not require permission from Washington or Brussels to frame its foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Trump administration often displayed undiplomatic behavior that resembled street-level aggression rather than statesmanship.

Washington’s renewed interest in a “regime change” operation in Venezuela is likely to fuel unrest in South America, just as similar interventions created instability in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Plans against Iran, often pushed in tandem with Israel, will only deepen the global crisis. What remains troubling is the inability—or unwillingness—of the U.S. to restrain its closest ally, Israel, leading many to ask: who influences whom?

Every nation today prioritizes its own interests. India engages both Russia and Ukraine; China supports Pakistan but values India’s economic and cultural weight; Russia negotiates with the U.S. while strengthening its China ties. Turkey too juggles contradictory alliances. Such pragmatism is not hypocrisy but the very essence of diplomacy.

Unfortunately, in the age of social media, loud posturing often overshadows nuanced diplomacy. Modi’s domestic image-building—through edited visuals portraying him as a global master of diplomacy—only provokes counter-narratives. Allegations of betrayal, such as Russia speaking with Pakistan, miss the point. International summits are forums for dialogue; engagement across divides is natural, not scandalous.

What truly damages diplomacy is the kind of behavior Trump displayed—publicly mocking Ukraine’s President Zelensky, patronizing Liberia’s leader for his “wonderful English,” and lecturing South Africa’s president about internal affairs. Such condescension signals disrespect and weakens trust.

India’s foreign policy is ultimately shaped by economics. Many Modi supporters abroad—particularly in the U.S., U.K., and Europe—have vested business interests, discouraging any deterioration of ties. Likewise, Gujarat-based businesses with Chinese investments see Beijing as indispensable. The Russian oil trade enriched companies but hardly benefited ordinary Indians. Personal relationships matter, but economic realities remain paramount.

Contrary to Western stereotypes, Russian leaders understand English but often avoid speaking it publicly to prevent misinterpretations. Their preference for written statements highlights a professionalism absent in the casual, sometimes careless style of U.S. diplomacy.

Since the Second World War, the world has changed dramatically. The war in Ukraine is reshaping global alignments, while the European Union’s political missteps are pushing it toward isolation, with individual states asserting independent policies. A prolonged conflict will only weaken Europe further.

What the world needs today is stability. Another global recession or a wider war could unleash an unprecedented crisis. Every effort must be made to end conflicts—not only in Ukraine, but also in Gaza and Venezuela. A peace-driven economy would be far more durable and democratic than one fueled by militarism, which serves only elites in Brussels, London, and Washington.

---

*Human rights defender