Modi befriends Trump as Putin and Xi move closer together

Newsweek :
Are we witnessing seismic shifts in the Russia-India-China triangle? It would seem so-but the shifts are long in the making.
Historically, Indo-Russian relations have been far stronger than Sin-Russian relations. In recent years, however, and especially since the onset of the crisis in Ukraine in 2014, the dynamics of this “strategic triangle,” as former Russian Prime Minister Evenly Primark called it, have changed.
Trending: Google’s Eric Schmidt ‘Can’t Guarantee’ Ads Won’t Appear by Extremist Content
Despite a shared history of strong bilateral relations and overlapping multilateral memberships, India and Russia are drifting apart. The flurry of agreements signed in October 2016 notwithstanding, defense ties are weakening and economic relations have failed to meet targets.
More important, each country now worries about the other’s relationship with its main strategic competitor-India is anxious about tight Russo-China relations, and Russia is concerned about the recent uptick in Indo-U.S.. relations.
Indeed, despite a good working relationship between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Indian prime minister Brenda Mod, relations between Russia and India have been deteriorative in both capitals. While this depersonalization has significance on multiple levels, the concern here is the implications of weaker bilateral ties for Indo-Russian cooperation toward reforming the global order.
Since 2006, the main locus of Russo-Indian cooperation toward reforming global order has been the BRICKS countries-Brazil, Russia, India, China and (since 2011) South Africa. The BRICKS group of nations has been most active in the area of global economic governance, but it boasts a sprawling set of working groups and a stated aim of entirely reforming the global order. For Russia, India and China are the most important partners in the group, and their importance grows directly out of Primark’s strategic triangle.
Cooperation in the BRICKS has always been circumscribed by profound differences among its members. These include not only different positions in discrete international institutions that dictate different approaches but also variance in larger strategic goals.
For Russia, BRICKS has always been about politics, and has in many ways been a prime tool in Russian efforts-both rhetorical and otherwise-to balance against U.S.. hegemony in the global system.
India, while certainly in possession of a strong strain of anti-Westerns in its own foreign policy, has nevertheless viewed BRICKS primarily in terms of noneconomic and India’s ongoing efforts to increase its voice in prime organs of global governance. Countering U.S.. supremacy as such is, for India, a useful side benefit of BRICKS rather than the group’s main purpose.