Strategic insights into Russia’s military doctrine, Eurasian geopolitics, NATO confrontation, energy diplomacy, and its global security calculus.
Can the Russia–India–China triangle help stabilise a turbulent world after BRICS 2026 in Trump 2.0 Era? Major General (Dr) S B Asthana examines the strategic opportunities, structural contradictions and implications for India's strategic autonomy in an era of Cold War 2.0.
The international environment has deteriorated rapidly. The Russia-Ukraine war continues; the US-Israel-Iran confrontation has transformed West Asian security and energy calculations; the threat of punitive US tariffs against countries purchasing Russian energy directly affects major BRICS economies; and the India-China relationship is simultaneously showing cautious signs of stabilisation after years of tension.
The forthcoming Modi-Putin meeting adds another important dimension. The Russian President is expected in New Delhi ahead of the Summit, with defence, energy, trade and technology among the issues attracting attention. The meeting comes at a time when India is under pressure over its continued engagement with Russian energy while simultaneously seeking to preserve its wider strategic partnerships.
Iran will also enter the BRICS discussion with expectations that India will go beyond general expressions of concern and support a stronger collective response to the US-Israeli military campaign. Tehran has already urged BRICS members to explicitly condemn what it describes as US-Israeli aggression.
Yet this is precisely where India's balancing challenge becomes acute. The BRICS table also includes Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose security calculations have been profoundly affected by the conflict and by Iranian attacks on Gulf states and shipping. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have strongly condemned Iranian attacks and asserted their right to defend their sovereignty and security.
Thus, unlike a conventional alliance, BRICS cannot simply adopt one member's geopolitical narrative. The same organisation contains countries seeking condemnation of US-Israeli action, countries directly exposed to Iranian military action, Russia seeking relief from Western pressure, China pursuing a larger role in an emerging alternative architecture, and India seeking strategic autonomy without bloc confrontation.
The SCO Summit has already provided India with a useful diplomatic template. Its handling of the Iran crisis demonstrated that a diverse grouping can register opposition to military action and reaffirm multipolarity while leaving room for individual members to maintain their own strategic relationships. The BRICS challenge, however, is more complex because its expanded membership has imported sharper regional and geopolitical contradictions.
The following analysis examines whether India's calibrated activism can convert this turbulence into greater BRICS cohesion—or whether the very forces that have increased BRICS's geopolitical importance will expose its internal limits.
The test at Bharat Mandapam is therefore larger than another summit declaration. It is a test of whether India can help BRICS become what it should be: non-Western, but not anti-Western; strategically autonomous, but not strategically confrontational; and increasingly capable of converting the aspirations of the Global South into practical institutional outcomes.
BRICS enters its third decade at a moment when the international order is undergoing profound strategic transformation. Its expanded membership gives the grouping unprecedented demographic, economic and geopolitical weight—but also exposes deep internal contradictions. As India assumes the BRICS Chairmanship in 2026, I share an analysis whether New Delhi can convert this diversity into practical cooperation, strengthen the voice of the Global South and help build a more representative multipolar order—without turning BRICS into an anti-Western coalition. There is still one month for the Summit and events do seem to be moving fast in optimistic and challenging side before India sets the stage for the Summit.
As global geopolitics undergoes a profound transformation, India confronts simultaneous challenges on its Himalayan borders, in the Indian Ocean, and across West Asia. This article examines why strategic autonomy, indigenous defence capability, and calibrated multi-engagement remain India's most effective response to an increasingly transactional international order. As Washington and Beijing recalibrate their relationship, India faces its most consequential strategic choices since the Cold War2.0. The answers lies in building capabilities and maintaining genuine strategic autonomy till then.
Bridging the Divide in a Multipolar World
“India has good relations with Western countries and is uniquely placed to act as a bridge between SCO and the West” — Major General Dr. S B Asthana
As global governance institutions experience a profound drop in credibility, the geopolitical center of gravity is shifting rapidly toward localized regional alternatives. Covering over 42% of the global population and nearly one-third of the world’s GDP, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) stands as a massive Eurasian bloc navigating the dangerous currents of "Cold War 2.0". Yet, can an organization containing four nuclear-armed powers, deep internal political rivalries, and structural decision-making vulnerabilities truly evolve into a cohesive security alliance?
How can a bloc divided by ideological friction and historical rivalries achieve genuine military and security cohesion? In this insightful analysis, Major General Dr. S B Asthana explores the structural hurdles of the SCO and outlines India's strategic vision for a secure, technologically integrated, and stable Eurasian future. This chapter, titled “Strengthening Military and Security Cooperation in the SCO: An Indian Perspective,” is featured in the seminal volume Reimagining Regionalism: Geopolitical Shifts and Strategic Realignments in Central Asia and the Global South.
The Russia–Ukraine war has moved far beyond its initial framing as a limited “special military operation” or a territorial dispute over Donbas and Crimea. It has become the world’s longest major conventional war of the twenty‑first century, a grinding contest of endurance in which political will, industrial capacity, energy infrastructure and nuclear thresholds all shape the battlefield more than any single offensive. In this analysis, Major General Dr S B Asthana examines how the conflict has evolved into an industrial‑age war of attrition fought with twenty‑first century tools—and explores how a war stretched between proxy dynamics, industrial capacity and nuclear deterrence might eventually end. Sharing my latest analysis as on first week July 2026 as an analytical article in below.
