Heramba Nath
(herambanath2222@gmail.com)
The early decades of the twenty-first century were marked by an unmistakable sense of global unease. The optimism that followed the end of the Cold War has steadily faded, replaced by a fractured international system where power is contested, alliances are increasingly fragile, and trust between nations is eroding at an alarming pace. In this turbulent environment, the triangular relationship involving India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russia led by President Vladimir Putin, and the United States as the principal Western power has emerged as one of the most significant and closely scrutinised dynamics in contemporary geopolitics. This relationship is not merely about diplomacy between three capitals; it is about the future shape of the global order and the ability of nations to retain autonomy amid mounting pressure to conform.
India today stands at a critical juncture in its foreign policy journey. No longer constrained by the limitations of the immediate post-colonial era, it has evolved into a nation with expanding economic influence, growing military capability, and an increasingly confident diplomatic voice. Yet, it remains acutely aware of its vulnerabilities—energy dependence, developmental challenges, regional security threats, and the imperative of social stability in a vast and diverse society. The manner in which India navigates its relations with Russia and the United States reflects an ongoing effort to reconcile ambition with caution, principle with pragmatism, and global responsibility with domestic necessity.
The historical foundation of India’s relationship with Russia cannot be understood without revisiting the Cold War period. At a time when global politics was rigidly divided between competing ideological blocs, India chose the path of non-alignment, seeking to preserve its independence of judgement and freedom of action. In practice, however, the Soviet Union emerged as a crucial partner. Moscow’s diplomatic support on issues of sovereignty, defence cooperation, and industrial development played a vital role in strengthening India’s strategic position. From defence technology transfers to political backing during moments of international isolation, the Indo-Soviet relationship was forged in trust, consistency, and mutual respect.
This legacy has endured beyond ideological shifts and dramatic geopolitical upheavals. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia remained a central pillar of India’s defence preparedness. A significant portion of India’s military equipment continues to be of Russian origin, supported by decades of training, maintenance infrastructure, and operational familiarity. Such deep-rooted cooperation cannot be unwound without substantial cost to national security and operational readiness. For India, therefore, Russia represents not nostalgia or sentiment, but continuity, reliability, and strategic stability.
Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought to reclaim its status as a major global power. Its worldview is shaped by a deep sense of grievance over the post-Cold War order, which it perceives as dominated by Western interests and dismissive of Russian security concerns. NATO’s eastward expansion, Western interventionism, and economic sanctions have reinforced Moscow’s belief that confrontation with the West is not a choice but an inevitability. The war in Ukraine has become the most visible and consequential expression of this confrontation, transforming what began as a regional conflict into a defining global fault line.
For the United States, the Ukraine conflict is framed as a defence of international law, sovereignty, and the rules-based global order. It is presented as a moral and strategic struggle against aggression, with clear expectations of alignment from partners and allies. Russia, by contrast, portrays the conflict as a defensive response to encroachment and an existential threat to its security and identity. These competing narratives have divided the world into camps, leaving limited space for neutrality, nuance, or independent positioning.
India’s response to the Ukraine war has been measured, consistent, and deliberately cautious. It has avoided explicit condemnation while repeatedly calling for dialogue, diplomacy, and an immediate end to violence. This position has drawn criticism from sections of Western media and political circles, where moral clarity is often presented as a prerequisite for global leadership. Yet, India’s stance reflects a broader and more experienced understanding of international relations, where moral positions are frequently shaped by strategic interests rather than universal principles applied evenly across conflicts.
For India, the Ukraine conflict has immediate and tangible consequences that cannot be ignored. Disruptions in global supply chains, volatility in energy markets, rising food prices, and fertiliser shortages directly affect millions of lives. A developing nation with a vast population and ongoing poverty alleviation responsibilities cannot afford to treat such issues as secondary to geopolitical signalling. Energy security, in particular, has emerged as a critical concern with direct implications for inflation, growth, and social welfare.
India’s decision to continue purchasing Russian oil, often at discounted rates, has been portrayed by critics as undermining Western sanctions and weakening collective pressure on Moscow. From New Delhi’s perspective, however, this decision is rooted in economic survival and social stability. Affordable energy underpins inflation control, industrial productivity, and the sustainability of welfare programmes. These are not abstract policy considerations but core responsibilities of governance. To expect India to compromise these priorities for symbolic alignment is to ignore the realities faced by developing economies in an unequal global system.
The United States, despite expressing discomfort with India’s energy purchases and diplomatic posture, has largely refrained from imposing punitive measures. This restraint reflects a clear understanding that the India–US relationship is too strategically important to be jeopardised by rigid demands or moral absolutism. Over the past two decades, bilateral ties have expanded dramatically, encompassing defence cooperation, advanced technology partnerships, education, trade, and deep people-to-people exchanges.
Under Narendra Modi, India–US relations have acquired unprecedented momentum. High-level political engagement, landmark defence agreements, and sustained strategic dialogues have transformed the relationship from cautious engagement into a comprehensive partnership. The Indo-Pacific has emerged as a central focus of this engagement, driven by shared concerns over maritime security, freedom of navigation, regional stability, and the shifting balance of power in Asia.
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, involving India, the United States, Japan, and Australia, symbolises this convergence of interests. While not a formal military alliance, it reflects a shared commitment to maintaining a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. Joint military exercises, intelligence cooperation, coordination on emerging technologies, and supply chain resilience initiatives underscore the growing depth and seriousness of this engagement.
Yet, this partnership is not without tension. Differences over trade policies, human rights narratives, climate responsibilities, and India’s continued engagement with Russia surface periodically. The United States often expects alignment consistent with alliance politics, while India insists on autonomy rooted in its own historical experience and strategic calculations. This tension is not a flaw but an inherent feature of a relationship between two sovereign nations pursuing overlapping but distinct national interests.
Narendra Modi’s foreign policy approach represents a marked departure from the hesitations and ambiguities of the past. It is characterised by assertive engagement, symbolic diplomacy, and a clear articulation of national interest. Modi has projected India as a confident global actor capable of engaging all major powers on equal terms. His interactions with Vladimir Putin have maintained continuity and trust even during periods of global isolation for Russia. At the same time, his engagements with American leadership have signalled India’s readiness to shape global outcomes rather than merely respond to them.
China’s rise adds a critical and unavoidable layer of complexity to this triangular relationship. For the United States, China is the primary strategic challenger, reshaping global economic, technological, and security dynamics. For Russia, China has become an indispensable partner amid Western sanctions, providing economic support and strategic alignment. For India, China represents a multifaceted challenge—a neighbour, a competitor, a major trading partner, and a strategic adversary.
Border tensions between India and China have fundamentally altered New Delhi’s security outlook. Incidents along the Line of Actual Control have underscored the fragility of peace and the limits of diplomatic engagement. These developments have reinforced the importance of closer ties with the United States and its allies, while simultaneously highlighting the need to maintain functional relations with Russia, which continues to wield influence in Eurasia and maintains its own complex partnership with Beijing.
India’s engagement with Russia, therefore, serves multiple strategic purposes. It preserves critical defence cooperation, ensures energy security, and provides diplomatic space in a rapidly shifting Eurasian landscape. It also prevents overdependence on any single power, reinforcing India’s long-standing commitment to strategic autonomy rather than bloc-based alignment.
Multilateral forums further illustrate India’s careful balancing act. In BRICS, India engages with Russia and China to advocate reforms in global financial institutions and greater representation for emerging economies. This engagement does not imply ideological alignment but reflects pragmatic efforts to diversify global governance structures. In the G20, India works closely with the United States and other Western powers to address global economic challenges, debt relief, and development priorities.
India’s leadership roles in international forums have demonstrated its capacity to bridge divides at a time of deep global fragmentation. By foregrounding issues of development, climate finance, and global equity, India has sought to shift the focus from geopolitical rivalry to shared human challenges. Its ability to secure consensus language amid sharp divisions reflects diplomatic skill, patience, and credibility.
The ethical dimension of foreign policy remains a subject of intense debate. Critics argue that India’s approach risks diluting its moral voice on the global stage. Supporters counter that selective moralism often masks strategic self-interest. The history of international relations is replete with examples of powerful nations framing pragmatic choices as universal moral imperatives. India’s emphasis on consistency, sovereignty, and dialogue seeks to avoid such contradictions.
Domestic sentiment in India strongly favours an independent foreign policy. The memory of colonial subjugation and external interference continues to shape national consciousness. There is little appetite for becoming a junior partner in another power’s strategic agenda. Modi’s foreign policy resonates deeply with this sentiment, projecting India as a nation capable of making its own choices despite external pressure.
Russia, facing isolation from the West, values India’s engagement not only for economic and strategic reasons but also for symbolic legitimacy. India’s continued dialogue signals that Moscow is not entirely isolated, enhancing New Delhi’s diplomatic leverage. This unique position allows India to communicate with multiple power centres at a time when meaningful dialogue is increasingly scarce.
The risks inherent in this approach are substantial. Prolonged global confrontation, escalation in Ukraine, or intensifying rivalry between the United States and China could narrow India’s room for manoeuvring. Sanctions regimes, economic disruptions, and security crises may force difficult decisions. Strategic autonomy is not a guarantee of insulation but a continuous process of negotiation, adaptation, and careful judgement.
Yet, India’s current trajectory suggests a willingness to accept these risks in pursuit of a long-term vision. That vision is of an India that neither blindly aligns nor reflexively opposes but engages selectively, speaks independently, and acts decisively when its interests are at stake. It is a vision of a multipolar world where power is diffused, coercion is restrained, and dialogue remains possible.
The relationship between Modi, Putin, and the United States encapsulates the defining tension of our age. It reflects a world struggling to reconcile power with principle, sovereignty with interdependence, and national interest with global responsibility. India’s navigation of this triangular relationship is not merely a diplomatic exercise; it is an assertion of its evolving identity as a major power seeking its rightful place in a changing world. In choosing autonomy over alignment, engagement over isolation, and pragmatism over posturing, India has charted a path that is neither easy nor risk-free. Yet, it is a path grounded in realism and shaped by historical experience. As global politics continues to evolve, the manner in which India sustains this balance will not only define its own future but also influence the broader contours of the international system.