India + China = A Reset That Isolates America
A historic realignment that could redefine the century
In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and the West punished Moscow, the Cold War seemed to have suddenly returned. But, this was not only about the rising tensions between the US and Russia. In tandem, the Western moves were pushing China and Russia into a quasi-alliance. This was precisely what America wanted to avoid during the 20th century, and was part of the reason why Washington pursued its infamous “reopening with China” in the 1970s, hoping to drive a wedge between China and the Soviet Union.
Since Crimea switched hands, the choices that drove China and Russia together have been referred to as a strategic blunder, in particular by one man, US President Donald Trump. Beyond the US leader, few can deny the pressure and strain the Sino-Russian relationship is inflicting on the Western order.
But today, something very similar is occurring.
The US decision to “punish” India with 50% tariffs for its trade with Russia, making India one of the highest-tariffed major economies in the world, has resulted in what can only be described as extraordinary: the US is driving India and China together. For the first time in modern history, New Delhi and Beijing are united by the same headache: America.
Border tensions between India and China, which almost brought both sides to war in 2020 and seemed impossible to overcome, have been completely tossed to the side. After a seven-year gap, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China earlier this week for the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit—an event often characterized in the West as a gathering of authoritarian leaders. Except this year, standing alongside them was the world’s largest democracy.
Seldom does geopolitics occur this quickly.
As two emerging shot-callers start a rapprochement, many in the West may be feeling the same sense of dread as in 2014 when the first signs of a Sino-Russian romance emerged.
If India and China actually reset ties, massive changes will follow. Some realize the stakes, including Alexander Stubb, Finland’s president, who has warned that unless the West adopts a “dignified foreign policy” towards the new powers like India, it could “lose this game.” Without saying it, Stubb is making it clear: the West must treat countries like India as equals or lose control of the world.
The stakes have never been bigger. What is on the horizon is truly transformative.
Historic Blowback
First, if India and China stand shoulder-to-shoulder, the entire Western strategy to combat Beijing gets disrupted. This is not just about losing the key piece to offset China’s rise.
The geoeconomics in play are the real story.
The entire Western supply chain diversification, underpinning the new grand strategies of de-risking and decoupling, will be shattered if India stands with China. The US may not allow its companies, or others, to move operations to India, blocking technology transfers or permits for hardware deliveries. This will spin US businesses, as the market they bet on to manage US-China (India) is treated as an adversary. Except that there is no guarantee that the rest of the West will stand with America. The largest trade partner of India is the EU. After aligning with America over China, Europe may refuse to align with America over India, especially as America First strains the Atlantic alliance. While US firms depart India (and China), European firms may remain India-centric, meaning the “India question” could fracture the West.
Equally significant, the West’s ability to convince large swaths of the world, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, to join it and restrict China will become limited.
Already, countries like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia are unsure of whether to stand with the West against China, or vice versa. But the idea of aligning with the West and losing India as well as China will be impossible to stomach. The West may have opened the door to a stunning moment, where the Global South outright rejects its demands. Being asked to pick sides against India and China is like a country being asked not to use the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans for trade—and just stick to a few waterways deemed “safe.”
Second, the new ideological battle underway, where the West presents itself as a united democratic front against communist and socialist regimes, will enter a strange moment if India and China rekindle the fire.
The world’s largest democracy may not be standing in the democratic camp. It could be standing with those who are supposed to be “encroaching” on democracy and “converting” it into something else.
This goes well beyond optics.
Once again, it is also about convincing countries to distance themselves from China. Before, the West could approach other democracies and play the ideology and politics card (i.e., all major democracies are standing together). Indirectly, they would be raising doubt as to whether a nation that stands with China and Russia is a “true democracy.”
But India clearly planted alongside China (and Russia) will either result in the West no longer referring to India as a democracy. Or, it will result in the rest of the world rebuffing the West’s logic. If India can remain a democracy and stand in the counter-order, why can’t they?
And for China, it is a massive victory. With India at the same table, Beijing can no longer be labelled as a state that is threatening democracies.
Cause and Effect
While the US geopolitics toward India has serious drawbacks, it does not change the direction America and potentially its allies may be moving in, where India is in the same boat as China and Russia.
Many may be wondering what exactly is going on here. If there is a method to the madness, what is it?
There are two answers to what the US is doing:
Officials in the US are convinced that no matter what Washington does or offers, the more India develops, the more it will chart its own path and refuse to decouple from Western adversaries. Put differently, India will never stand with the West and pick sides.
Depending on powers like India is a strategic vulnerability for the West, which needs guarantees and long-term security. The Western strategy to compete with China cannot depend on what countries like India decide. That is far too risky and uncertain.
This shift in decades of American geostrategy means multiple things at once.
First, the US is betting on itself or its closest allies, like Australia or Japan, along with strategic relationships, like with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to continue managing the world. America believes it has the pull, the gravity, and the resources from this “base” to keep calling the shots.
Second, the US does not believe that Russia and China, with or without India, can actually offer anything of substance to the world. Without American involvement, even if purely through the supply of technology, these two nations will struggle to create a counter system—and convince the majority of the world to join it. This goes back to the first point and that of “pull.” Whatever Beijing and Moscow launch, the US may be betting on tariffs and sanctions to get countries to dance to America’s tune. Of course, the writing on the wall reflects something different.
Third, from this solidified base, mainly of Western democracies, those that share American values, or those whom America directly protects (giving it tremendous leverage), the US government is preparing to compete for control of the world. This means, instead of trying to hold India’s hand and win states, the US will use its own hand and pull countries into its orbit, able to provide strategic deals and tie-ups that do not depend on other states. A new competition is beginning, in part driven by India’s changing geopolitics, taking America into the far-flung corners of the globe, in particular Asia and Africa, to distance economies from three giant powers (China, Russia, and potentially India).
Return of Chindia?
A lot has to happen before India and China can truly hold hands and walk toward a new sunrise (or sunset). There is a range of key structural issues that have not yet been resolved. Even at the SCO summit in Tianjin, there were no concrete deals, from FDI to tourism, and only statements. Even substantial “optical victories,” like India and Pakistan standing in the same room after trading blows months ago, are also serious risks: China is bringing nations into the same room who could descend into war at any moment.
Just as America’s geostrategy requires some deciphering, so does India’s. Many have characterized what New Delhi is doing as picking sides and becoming part of the Sino-Russian alliance. This is not accurate. There is no reset—yet. For sure, India is circling this alliance and counter-order. But India is unlikely to join it short of the US going unhinged, like banning all trade with New Delhi.
For now, India’s decisions are warning shots. The links connecting the US and India are weakening, almost to the point of snapping. If America does not reverse direction, India will fully open the door to nations Washington is competing with. It is pure geopolitical signaling at this point. And right now, what happens next is 50/50: either the US and India reembrace or bleeding begins.
Should the situation reach a critical juncture, where India turns away from America and towards China, once again, this does not mean India will be ditching its non-aligned stance. Instead, the same priority India gave America, it will now give China, albeit in a far more cautious way.
This comes with massive shockwaves.
The China that existed when India and China halted their relationship during the peak of the pandemic is not the same country today. Of the many differences, China is the global green superpower—and India’s hunger for green development is rising. Both nations may pursue a flurry of activity, in particular, China funding India’s green ideas, or even jointly rolling out solutions in India.
Equally important, the India that existed years ago is not the same today—in particular, India has the world’s largest oil refinery.
If Chindia returns, it also means RIC may return (Russia, India, and China). A new land-based energy corridor, underpinned by Russian oil and gas, settled in local currencies, could begin to integrate the three states, redefining the dynamics of Asia.
The return of Chindia also puts others in a confusing state.
For Chindia to be successful long-term, Beijing has to recalibrate its relationship with Pakistan, in particular, CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor). CPEC is already shaky, and strangely, Pakistan has turned to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to fund a CPEC project because of Chinese hesitation to commit more resources. Are cracks forming between Beijing and Islamabad, and in conjunction, is an opening forming for Beijing and New Delhi?
Equally disrupted may be Japan, which recently committed to doubling investment in India to $68 billion, from $34 billion today, over the next 10 years, driven almost entirely by Japan’s private sector. If Chindia takes off, Japan faces a dual challenge: navigating an Indian market where China’s footprint is growing, and simultaneously, navigating its most strategic global relationship (India), besides the US, at a moment when America wants nations to pull away from New Delhi.
Conclusion
In geopolitics, nothing is set in stone. But also in geopolitics, nothing is completely impermanent. Except in the case of the US, India, and China, this is precisely the case. What America is doing may be remembered as a defining point of the 21st century, when India changed its geopolitical orientation, carrying consequences felt for decades.
Surrounding the dozens of potential consequences and shockwaves, one requires special attention. What is looming could mean that within a short time, the world’s two largest democracies diverge and collide. This has not occurred in the post-Cold War world. It changes the very nature of geopolitical competition in a way that could trickle into everything. Already, MAGA supporters in the US are starting to criticize Indian immigrants as relations with India shake.
Connected to this, America itself has to question whether it is truly ready to stand alone and ditch a relationship that was once referred to as the defining partnership of the 21st century. If America loses India, if China and Russia move against the US world order, and if much of the world becomes non-commital to the US, how exactly does Washington keep calling the shots?
The situation is fluid—to put it mildly.
There is a chance that Trump and Modi can meet at the upcoming UN. But if this does not happen, then attention will turn to the G20, which Trump might skip. And, between these events, the US will have to decide whether to collide with Russia over Ukraine or keep negotiations and diplomacy going. Much will define the future of the US-India relationship.
But, just as action will determine what happens next, so will inaction. India is starting to shift positions. If the US does not want this, it has to act now—or forever holds its tongue.
-ABISHUR PRAKASH AKA. MR. GEOPOLITICS
Mr. Geopolitics is the property of Abishur Prakash/The Geopolitical Business, Inc., and is protected under Canadian Copyright Law. This includes, but is not limited to: ideas, perspectives, expressions, concepts, etc. Any use of the insights, including sharing or interpretation, partly or wholly, requires explicit written permission.
Have questions or thoughts? Let’s talk: mrgeopolitics@substack.com
If you like Mr. Geopolitics, your colleagues might too.
Feel like doing something unique for somebody important?