RIC Revival: A Strategic Moment for India in the Indo-Pacific Era

Introduction: Multipolarity in the Making

The reactivation of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral format, long dormant since the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes, is back on the geopolitical table. Russia’s recent diplomatic overtures signal a renewed push toward Eurasian multilateralism, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov advocating for the earliest resumption of the RIC mechanism. 

“Now that, as I understand, an understanding has been reached between India and China on how to calm the situation on the border, it seems to me that the time has come to revive this RIC troika,” said Lavrov. The call comes at a moment of global flux—where trust in Western-led security architectures is fraying, the Indo-Pacific is witnessing new fault lines, and emerging powers are reassessing their alignments. At the center of this recalibration stands India.

Lavrov Criticizes Quad, Calls for RIC Revival

In remarks shared by Russian state media, Lavrov said that India needs to see “provocations” by fellow Quad members.

Lavrov said that Quad members conduct military activities targeting China in the garb of economic and trade cooperation. He went on to say that the RIC troika should now be resumed as India and China have reached an understanding.

“I am sure that our Indian friends see these provocations [of Quad members] and we are speaking about anti-China initiatives in the eastern parts of Asia. We would like to reaffirm our interest in seeking resumption of trilateral established many years ago…When India and China have come to an agreement on how the situation at the border can be resolved, I think it can be resumed in this format, the RIC format,” said Lavrov.

Genesis of RIC: A Eurasian Counterweight to Unilateralism

The Russia-India-China (RIC) format emerged in the late 1990s, envisioned by Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov as a response to the post-Cold War unipolar world dominated by the West and the expanding influence of NATO. It aimed to bring together three major Eur+Asian powers—each with deep civilizational histories, significant economic weight, and nuclear capabilities—into a strategic consultative mechanism that could advocate for a more balanced, multipolar global order. Over the next two decades, RIC facilitated more than 20 ministerial-level meetings, enabling dialogue on foreign affairs, defense, trade, counterterrorism, and regional security.

However, despite its broad scope, the informal nature of the grouping exposed it to geopolitical frictions—most notably the deteriorating India-China relationship. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash, which resulted in heavy casualities on both the sides, triggered a diplomatic freeze between New Delhi and Beijing, effectively stalling the RIC process. In the years that followed, India recalibrated its strategic posture, prioritizing disengagement at the border and deepening its partnerships with like-minded nations through alternative platforms such as the Quad (India, the United States, Japan, and Australia) and I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, and the United States). As a result, the RIC format faded into dormancy, a casualty of unresolved bilateral tensions and shifting regional alignments.

Russia’s Renewed Push: What’s Driving It Now?

India-China Equation Appears to Be Stabilising

The handshake between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi at the 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan sent a global signal: a pragmatic thaw, however cautious, is underway. Russia interprets this as a strategic opening to bring the troika back to life. While deep-rooted issues remain, Russia believes that structured dialogue via RIC can normalize relations further.

Russia’s Unease with India’s Western Tilt

India’s growing engagement with the U.S., Japan, and Australia—particularly via Quad, I2U2, and defence-tech pacts—has worried Moscow. As Russia finds itself increasingly isolated by Western sanctions over Ukraine, it views the RIC format as a tool to prevent India from slipping entirely into a Western camp. RIC gives Russia a way to stay diplomatically relevant in Asia by maintaining triangular cooperation.

The NATO and Indo-Pacific Factor

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently accused NATO of attempting to "lure India into anti-China intrigues," warning against India being drawn into a Western-led security architecture. Russia sees the RIC as an ideological counterweight to the Western Indo-Pacific strategy, especially as NATO tries to extend influence into Asia.

Tariff Tensions and India’s Strategic Rebalancing

India’s trade relationship with the United States has come under strain due to ongoing tariff disputes, particularly the continuation of Trump-era import duties on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%). Despite WTO rulings against these tariffs, the US has not rolled them back, leading India to escalate the matter. Beyond metals, broader trade negotiations with the US and EU remain sluggish, reflecting growing challenges in relying solely on Western-led trade frameworks.

In this context, the revival of the RIC platform emerges as a pragmatic move for India. The trilateral could act as a geopolitical buffer, reducing dependence on an unpredictable West while creating space for economic and strategic diversification. With Russia and China actively pushing alternatives to Western systems, India can use RIC to maintain strategic autonomy, negotiate better terms globally, and hedge against rising economic nationalism in transatlantic relations.

India’s Balancing Act: Navigating Strategic Autonomy

For India, the choice to re-engage with RIC is not one of ideological tilt but of calculated pragmatism. India’s foreign policy has long championed strategic autonomy, avoiding entanglement in rigid alliances. The resurrection of RIC must, therefore, serve Indian interests in a rapidly polarizing world order.

While the Quad remains central to India’s Indo-Pacific vision, recent global shifts—such as the strategic uncertainty posed by a potential return of Trump-era diplomacy in the U.S., and the West’s inconsistent approach on issues of critical technology, vaccine equity, and global south representation—have sown doubts about the reliability of Western alignments.

In contrast, RIC offers a non-Western platform for issue-based cooperation on global reforms, regional infrastructure (such as INSTC), climate finance, and counterterrorism—without ideological preconditions.

China Factor: Tensions, Trust Deficit, and Tactical Utility

Despite recent diplomatic engagements, the India-China border remains a contentious issue. The perception of a trust deficit persists, driven by PLA activity near the Line of Actual Control and China's geopolitical assertiveness in South Asia. India will not ignore these realities. However, RIC offers a rare platform where both nations can engage indirectly under Russian mediation, creating space for confidence-building, dialogue continuity, and crisis de-escalation.

Moreover, China's expanding influence in multilateral groupings such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) calls for India to assertively shape the agenda of non-Western coalitions. Participating in RIC can be a tactical move to ensure Indian positions are not overshadowed by Sino-centric narratives.

Conclusion: A Recalibration, Not a Realignment

RIC’s revival is not a foregone conclusion—but it is an opportunity. For India, it offers a chance to reclaim agency in shaping a multipolar Eurasian order. As the tectonics of global power shift, India's strength will lie not in choosing camps but in constructing bridges—wherever its national interest can be advanced without compromising on sovereignty, stability, or global standing.

Engaging in RIC, therefore, is not about siding with Russia or placating China—it is about reinforcing India’s place as a responsible, independent actor in a volatile world.