Every mainstream foreign desk in Washington and London treats a Modi, Xi, and Putin summit like a cinematic trailer for a global divorce. The lazy consensus writes itself: authoritarian alliances coalescing, the dollar's dominance hanging by a thread, and a neat little axis of convenience ready to carve up the map. Analysts hyperventilate over body language. They dissect handshakes, seating arrangements, and the exact angle of a shared grin in Bishkek as if world-historical shifts are decided by high-end tailoring and photo lighting.
It is kindergarten geopolitics. Learn more on a related subject: this related article.
I have spent the better part of two decades watching foreign policy wonks mistake strategic insurance policies for ideological marriages. The real story of these summits is not about an anti-Western bloc forming a unified front. The real story is the staggering, brutal pragmatism of countries that despise each other almost as much as they distrust Washington, yet find themselves forced into the same room by a shared enemy.
If you think these three are plotting the downfall of the West together, you are falling for the oldest propaganda trick in the book: confusing a shared exit door for a shared destination. Further reporting by NPR explores similar views on this issue.
The Myth of the Sino-Russian Embrace
Let us start with the anchor of this supposed anti-Western axis. Beijing and Moscow signed a partnership with no limits shortly before tanks rolled toward Kyiv. Every talking head in the cable news ecosystem treated it as the birth of a permanent alliance.
They ignored history.
China and Russia share thousands of miles of heavily militarized border, a centuries-long history of bitter territorial suspicion, and a fundamental clash over who gets to call the shots in Central Asia. Moscow views Central Asia as its backyard, its historical sphere of influence. Beijing views Central Asia as an economic highway, pouring billions into the Belt and Road Initiative, locking resource-rich nations into yuan-denominated debt traps, and quietly replacing Russian security dominance with commercial hegemony.
Moscow did not choose Beijing out of love. Moscow chose Beijing because Western sanctions left it with the economic equivalent of a cardboard box and a tin cup. Russia is now the junior partner in an asymmetric economic relationship, selling discounted crude to an industrial dragon that drives a brutally hard bargain. Vladimir Putin does not want to be Xi Jinping's younger brother. He has too much imperial pride for that. He is enduring a master-vassal dynamic because alternative options evaporated overnight.
When cameras flash in Bishkek, remember the tension underneath. Beijing wants stability and open trade routes to Europe. Moscow wants chaos to break Western resolve on Ukraine. Those two objectives collide violently beneath the surface.
New Delhi Will Never Sign Up to Be Anyone's Junior Partner
Then there is India.
Western commentators love to fret over New Delhi's participation in multilateral blocks like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or BRICS. They wring their hands because Modi buys Russian oil and refuses to parrot Western talking points on Ukraine. The knee-jerk reaction in Western capitals is panic: India is drifting toward the autocratic camp.
That diagnosis displays a profound ignorance of Indian strategic culture.
India has practiced strategic autonomy since independence. It is an article of faith in New Delhi that India aligns with no one, because aligning with someone means taking orders from someone. Modi's foreign policy is transactional, fiercely nationalistic, and anchored by a singular, unyielding obsession: containing China.
Look at the map. Look at the Himalayas, where Indian and Chinese soldiers regularly trade blows with clubs and spiked sticks because firearms are banned by border treaties. Look at the Indian Ocean, where Beijing's string of pearls naval strategy aims to encircle the subcontinent.
India does not sit at a table with Xi Jinping because they are friends. India sits at that table because diplomacy is an intelligence-gathering exercise, and keeping channels open with your primary geopolitical adversary is basic statecraft.
Imagine a scenario where a major border flare-up occurs in Ladakh tomorrow. Do you think Moscow is going to send troops to bail out New Delhi? Moscow is deeply dependent on Beijing for microelectronics, dual-use technology, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Russia will offer mild platitudes and keep selling weapons to both sides. New Delhi knows this. Modi is not naive. He is playing a ruthless balancing game, hedging bets against a volatile United States while keeping a wary eye on a rising dragon to the north.
The Bishkek photo op is not an anti-Western coalition. It is India keeping its options open while America demands absolute fealty.
Why Washington Misreads the Global South
The fundamental failure of Western strategic thinking is the belief that the world is divided into a binary choice between democracy and autocracy. This worldview is comforting, morally righteous, and utterly detached from how the rest of the planet operates.
Most developing nations look at Washington's foreign policy and see a history of selective intervention, weaponized finance, and double standards. When the United States freezes a nation's foreign reserves or slaps secondary sanctions on global trade, every non-Western capital takes notes. They do not necessarily run to Moscow or Beijing out of ideological alignment; they build financial firewalls.
They use mechanisms like local currency trade settlements, alternative payment messaging systems, and diversified diplomatic portfolios precisely because they want to insulate themselves from American hegemony.
When Modi shakes hands with Putin and Xi, he is signaling to Washington that India cannot be taken for granted. He is saying: Do not lecture us on human rights while you coddle our regional adversaries. We have choices.
It is diplomatic leverage in action. It is not a declaration of war against the liberal international order.
The True Cost of Superficial Analysis
When analysts misread these summits, bad policy follows.
If Washington believes it faces a monolithic, organized anti-Western bloc, it responds with bloc-building of its own, forcing third-party nations into rigid binary camps. That approach alienates the Global South, drives middle powers closer together out of defensive necessity, and accelerates the very fragmentation the West fears.
Instead of panicking over a photo op, watch what these three countries actually do when their immediate national interests diverge.
Watch how Russia votes when China pushes territorial claims in the South China Sea. Watch how India deepens intelligence-sharing with the Quad while sharing a stage with Beijing. Watch how trade disputes simmer beneath the polished rhetoric of multilateral declarations.
The next time you see a headline screaming about an axis of autocrats gathering in Central Asia, remember that real power is messy, contradictory, and entirely transactional. Bishkek is a theater. The performance is meant for domestic consumption and strategic signaling.
Behind the curtain, they are watching each other with knives drawn.
Stop looking at the smiles. Look at the borders. Look at the balance sheets.
The alliance does not exist.
