At the recent meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers, the long-dormant Russia–India–China (RIC) format received a new impetus as Moscow confirmed efforts to revive the trilateral dialogue and Beijing expressed open support. Amid the current easing of tensions between India and China, RIC’s revival comes as a critical step towards reinforcing the strategic core of the BRICS+ framework and bolstering stability across Eurasia.
This shift in strategic thinking among RIC countries comes at a pivotal moment. Earlier this month, at the 17th BRICS Summit held in Rio de Janeiro under Brazil’s 2025 Chairmanship, with the stated theme “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance”, the leaders reiterated their commitment to multilateralism, international law, and equitable development, and vowed commitment to build a more inclusive and representative global order that would be in the best of the Global South’s interests.
The leaders’ common vision is that emerging powers must enjoy a greater role in global governance, with the UN remaining its center and cooperation, not coercion guiding international affairs. Importantly, the leaders emphasized the need to abide by the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the UN Charter in their entirety. They also voiced the need to build deeper interconnectedness, advance sustainable development, and ensure the protection of human rights for all—not in the Western format, but in a manner that respects cultural diversity, national sovereignty, and the unique developmental contexts of the Global South nations.
The 2025 Rio de Janeiro summit marked a turning point in BRICS’s history. Welcoming new members, including Indonesia, and 12 partner nations such as Belarus, Cuba, Nigeria, and Uzbekistan, it demonstrated its ambition to serve as a collective voice for the Global South and represent a broad spectrum of developing economies. The Summit’s key initiatives include the Climate Finance Framework and SME Plan (2025–2030), and the Submarine Cable Proposal—a feasibility study for a high-speed BRICS internet cable. With over 40% of the global population, 37.3% of global GDP, and 18% of world trade, BRICS alone (even more if expanded as BRICS+) now wields significant global influence.
As BRICS+ forges mutually beneficial partnerships across the Global South, there is a growing need to ensure internal cohesion and effective coordination among its core members. Without a stable foundation, it risks fragmentation or a functional paralysis under the West’s pressure, divide-and-rule tactics, and opportunistic concessions.
Since its inception in 2006 as a loose association of emerging economies, BRICS has evolved from an investment acronym into a multilateral institution with growing global clout. Institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB) were created as alternatives to West-led financial bodies like the IMF and World Bank, offering more equitable support to developing nations. However, for BRICS to fully realize its potential, further institutional development is needed—especially in enhancing intra-BRICS trade, investment, and technological cooperation.
The RIC trio, which together made 36.7% of global GDP in 2024, forms the backbone of BRICS. Yet longstanding political tensions remain a stumbling block. The diplomatic progress made in 2024 by India and China through an agreement to restore mutual patrolling rights in Depsang Plains and Demchok in Ladakh—the first significant breakthrough since the 2020 border crisis—is limited as it does not resolve the broader boundary dispute. Nonetheless, China remains India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $127.7 billion in FY 2024-25, albeit heavily tilted in China’s favor. Meanwhile, Russia—facing Western severe sanctions due to the war in Ukraine—has grown more dependent on China, with bilateral trade reaching record high $245 billion the same year. This growing Russia–China alignment has raised concerns in New Delhi about the potential imbalance within RIC, and the risk of India being sidelined.
Beyond geopolitics, RIC faces significant structural hurdles to deeper cooperation. Disparate trade policies, customs procedures, and intellectual property regimes hinder intra-RIC trade, which remains modest relative to BRICS’s total trade volumes. In 2024, India’s trade with China accounted only for 7-8% of its total, and trade with Russia was even less. Cooperation is further complicated by divergent digital governance frameworks. India’s data localization mandates under its Digital Personal Data Protection Act clash with China’s tightly state-controlled internet regulations, limiting the scope of cross-border digital trade. Technological gaps also persist: while China leads in areas like 5G, AI, and quantum computing, India faces challenges in bridging its rural-urban digital divide, and Russia struggles for access to advanced technologies amid sanctions.
A shared legal and regulatory framework could unlock smoother trade and investment flows across member states. A BRICS Customs Union could help reduce tariffs and streamline customs procedures, potentially elevating intra-BRICS trade to that of more integrated associations such as the EU or ASEAN.
Digital interoperability should also be a top priority. India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI), which is gaining global traction, and China’s Alipay offer platforms that could facilitate cross-border transactions within BRICS+ economies. The 2025 submarine cable project presents another promising avenue for integrating digital infrastructure and enhancing collective cybersecurity.
Bridging the technology gap requires standardized agreements on innovation and intellectual property. The BRICS Action Plan for Innovation (2025–2030) must prioritize joint research in green energy, quantum computing, and other emerging fields, while also deepening cooperation in traditional industries such as oil and gas, manufacturing, and agriculture. Institutions like the BRICS Space Council, which facilitates the sharing of satellite data for disaster response and climate monitoring, should be further leveraged to enhance cross-border technological collaboration.
Equally vital are people-to-people linkages. Simplifying visa regimes for professionals, students, and researchers can foster deeper societal ties and serve as a soft-power asset. Expanded academic exchange programs, cultural initiatives, and youth empowerment—especially for women and underrepresented communities—are essential for building long-term cohesion within the BRICS+ framework. While initiatives like the 2025 Memorandum of Understanding on Youth Cooperation are welcome, they require sustained funding and political backing to achieve a meaningful impact.
Climate cooperation is another area where RIC must lead by example. The BRICS Climate Finance Framework, launched in 2025, aims to pool resources and expertise to help BRICS member states adapt to climate change. Here, the strengths of each RIC nation are complementary: China’s green technology leadership, India’s solar power initiatives through the International Solar Alliance, and Russia’s vast natural resource base provide a solid foundation for collaborative environmental action.
Ultimately, the future of BRICS+ hinges on Russia, India, and China’s capacity to overcome their divisions and remain committed to collective progress.
The challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities. If the RIC nations harmonize trade policies, digital systems, and innovation agendas, they can solidify their role as the nucleus of a more inclusive, multipolar world order—one that reflects the true aspirations of the Global South.
