What did the recent Trump-Xi summit actually accomplish? Are geopolitics at a strategic crossroads or at an inflection point?
How will the TROIKA powers – China, the U.S., and Russia – deliberations impact the strategic postures of middle powers, like India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, among others?
What are the future strategies for India in the short-, mid-, and long-term context of 2049, with China achieving its “China’s Dream of Dominant Status” in global affairs as the worst-case scenario?
At the time of mind-boggling dynamic complexity and fluidity of global affairs, India fortunately has S. Jaishankar, an astute former diplomat, at the helm as the Minister of External Affairs, steering the course of foreign relations. His oft-repeated assertion favors multipolarity as the ideal course for shaping the balance of power at the global level.
Let me briefly review the outcomes of Xi Jinping’s September 2026 visit to the USA to reset the fundamentals of U.S.-China relations. As per geopolitics experts, the summit was driven by optics rather than outcomes, and long on pageantry and short on substance. No progress on the core issues, including the ongoing Iran war and its associated energy crisis, AI, trade, or security. Xi had the upper hand over Trump, saddled with low approval ratings and a no-exit Iran conflict. Many differences remain.
Also, the question is how sustainable this trajectory will be and whether it could withstand political changes, including the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026, the 2028 presidential election, and a new administration in 2029.
Even Xi Jinping is currently facing internal challenges to overcome, including: economic distress due to the collapse of the real estate sector; severe local government fiscal crisis across the provinces; tariffs from trading partners; manufacturing overcapacity, sparking intense trade friction (“China Shock 2.0”); military leadership crisis; and high youth unemployment. Therefore, China’s “Dream of 2049” to lead the world in “composite national strength and international influence”, is not easy to predict. 95% monolithic Han society and the single-party CCP rule offer hopes for stability.
China and the U.S. understand the importance of sustained engagement. There is a positive trajectory following two prior summits in Busan 2025 and Beijing May 2026. Both Trump and Xi Jinping have committed to attend the APEC forum in China in November 2026 and the G20 in the United States in December 2026.
China and the U.S. can bargain bilaterally. But by themselves, they cannot resolve many challenges. Even the rest of the world will increasingly be part of the bargain, whether both want it or not. European leaders are seriously considering moving ahead with measures to deal with China Shock 2.0.
Let me review and outline the complexity and fluidity of international affairs. Currently, the world order has shifted to a bipolar order, with the U.S. as a declining power and China as the rising power. It may remain so in a short-term context. In retrospect, geopolitics is at a strategic crossroads or inflection point. This is due to Trump’s idiosyncratic policy shifts on trade, aid, security, immigration, and technology. Trump’s policies have raised doubts among allies and friends about its reliability: alliances with European nations is uncertain; US-Canada relations are under great stress; supports Israel in the fight against Hamas; encourages Saudi-Israel rapprochement; commitments to defend Taiwan cannot be taken for granted; may court Russia to dent the Russia-China strategic partnership; unpredictable relations with Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Latin America, Africa, ASEAN and South Asian nations. It is not clear whether Trump will see South Asia through the lens of US-China rivalry or independently. It remains to be seen how US-Pakistan relations evolve. Bangladesh is in turmoil; relations with India have deteriorated. Bangladesh’s foreign policy must navigate the delicate balance between China’s BRI and the US. Sri Lanka would also be watching Trump’s policies closely. India should be clear about what the US wants from India.
On the economic front, the world economy has transitioned away from the era of hyper-globalization and radical market liberalization. Economic coercion is increasingly common. Trump has weaponized trade and technology in its foreign policies to retain and further its global primacy. Trump has little regard for multilateral institutions. The US has withdrawn from the WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement. Trade and technology are at the heart of US-China strategic competition. Whether Trump will succeed or not is still unclear.
The US is desperately scouting for critical minerals necessary for economic and technological growth. It wants to break the Chinese monopoly in this area. Africa and Central Asia, where minerals are in abundance, might benefit from US investments.
Ipso facto, the world is in the throes of one of its most turbulent periods. The standoff between the two superpowers continues. Due to hyper-nationalism, the world is becoming fragmented and protectionist. The liberal rules-based international order is eroding. Across the globe, nations are prioritizing strict sovereignty and zero-sum security over international treaties. This ideological shift has forced superpowers and middle powers alike into a frantic race to rebalance military, economic, and technological power. Climate change, demography, energy, food, water, migration, minerals, health, and skills will certainly impact the future. In all these areas, negative tendencies are palpable.
The transition from a U.S.-dominated unipolar system to a highly fluid, fragmented, and multi polar world order has fundamentally altered global diplomacy, trade, and institutional legitimacy. Rather than a unified global community, the international arena has evolved into a “multiplex” system—a patchwork of traditional alliances, rising non-Western powers, and flexible, issue-based coalitions.
Most important is the relevance of the structure of the UN to resolving many challenges in global affairs. In hindsight, the structure of the UN established on 24 October 1945 with only 51 founding member states, five UN Security Council Members (U.S. Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China (ROC) and a global population of roughly 2.3 billion, is absolutely redundant to manage global affairs of 195 member states, and a global population of 8.32 billion people today with raising aspirations. Due to the rising power of emerging nations surpassing some of the original UN Security Council members with veto powers, surely there is a need to revamp the structure of the UN Security Council.
In retrospect, in short- and mid-term contexts, emerging and middle powers are qualifying their support to multilateralism. However, in a long-term context by 2049, if China achieves the “Dominant Status in Comprehensive National Power”, one cannot rule out the possibility of reversion to a unipolar order.
The moot question to ponder over is “how can countries and companies survive in a world without rules”? Is the global security landscape shifting from a system of cooperative multilateralism back to a volatile balance of power? Be that as it may, for other powers including India, there are too many “ifs” and “buts” on likely outcomes. Historical, geographic, and other patterns may grant insight into coming events, but they’re by no means a crystal ball when it comes to forecasting.
Currently, the concept of “Concert of Nations” system is making headlines re-emerging as refinement of multi polarity. The “Concert of Nations” system is a network of high-level coordinating councils that offers the most realistic and feasible option for overseeing global governance. It describes a system where the world’s major powers cooperate to maintain a global balance of power, resolve conflicts through negotiation rather than war, and uphold international stability. More regional and global architecture/institutions are a compelling need to preserve peace for posterity.
Originating at the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) to manage the post-Napoleonic European order, the system relied on several core concepts to keep the peace: maintain the “Balance of Power”; shared responsibility to manage international crises; and stability relied on the consensus that no power would interfere in another’s sphere without prior consultation, maintaining a delicate status quo. Its core concepts laid the groundwork for modern international institutions. The UN Security Council, with its veto-wielding permanent members, is a direct modern adaptation of the great-power consensus model pioneered by the “Concert of Nations.” But it stands challenged today.
A key challenge will be to construct a global order that strikes the right balance between top-down and bottom-up governance. An international system that is at once centralized and regionalized offers the best—and perhaps only—hope of maintaining order in the world that lies ahead. A concert system would complement, not replace, the revamped U.N. The revamped U.N. would be buttressed from above by a network of steering groups and from below by regional bodies.
India’s strategies for short-, mid-, and long-term scenarios, therefore, must be viewed from the backdrop of current complexity and fluidity of global affairs through pragmatic crystal gazing. Experts believe that India may emerge as a “Rising Power” by 2049. In terms of GDP, by 2049, India is projected to reach roughly $28 trillion to $35 trillion; in PPP, roughly $38 trillion to $44 trillion. By contrast, in 2049, the GDP of the U.S. is projected to reach roughly $45 trillion to $49 trillion and in PPP, reach $32 trillion to $38 trillion. From an economic power point of view, India will continue to be a “Swing Power” coveted by all other great powers, including Russia, South America, SE Asia, Australia, and EU powers.
However, India’s rise as a “Swing Power” is dependent on its capability to overcome internal crises of a raucous democracy. Protests to “Save Democracy” are never-ending by opposition parties. Also, political leaders’ penchant is to splinter society on caste, communal, and class lines. Even the projection of “Youth Dividend” is a bogey. The HRD of youth is very poor. For example, large numbers can be seen sweeping the streets of cities/towns, and unskilled/unemployed youth indulging in raucous politicking.
How can a nation traversing on the path of divisive discourse or disintegration narrative with soaring unemployment ever foster peace and unity so vital for progress and prosperity? Thus, India as a ‘Rising Power’ by 2049 may remain a mirage and illusion.
Be that as it may, S. Jaishankar is in the midst of steering major geopolitical repositioning, discarding old NAM rhetoric, pursuing hard-headed national interest-based policy, and building stronger strategic ties with a wide range of countries, including China, the U.S., Russia, and emerging and middle powers. The strategic shift is to multi-alignment and strategic autonomy, actively forging partnerships rather than rigid military alliances. Driven by a “Vishwa Bandhu” (friend of the world) vision, S. Jaishankar is building flexible, issue-based cooperation across diplomatic, economic, and security spheres to protect its national interests and support global development.
Recently at the 62nd Munich Security Conference, S. Jaishankar described the United States as having “deliberately become a lonelier power”, saying a radical repositioning of Washington and the rise of China are reshaping the global landscape. And the international order is being defined by sharp US-China competition, growing self-reliance among emerging and middle powers, and a push to diversify partnerships and reduce risks.
Also, S. Jaishankar has strongly defended the relationship with Russia, which is anchored in national interest and a history of mutual support. S. Jaishankar explicitly highlighted that Russia and the Soviet Union consistently supported India during critical historical moments when its security and territorial integrity were under threat. He recalled periods when “much of the world preferred backing a military regime” in neighboring Pakistan, while Russia remained a reliable partner with whom India maintained exceptionally good relations. He stated bluntly that “people don’t forget good history or bad history,” asserting that this consistently positive track record remains deeply embedded in India’s current strategic choices.
- Jaishankar is on the move, building stronger strategic ties with like-minded nations with convergent/congruence views in economic, energy, technology and military arenas. India is a member of the BRICS, SCO, QUAD, BIMSTEC, and Act East policy with ASEAN countries. The India-European Union Free Trade Agreement (India-EU FTA) reached a historic breakthrough when negotiations were successfully concluded on January 27, 2026. It is dubbed by political leaders as the “mother of all trade deals”. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPA) and Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreements (CECA) are used with key economies like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and the UAE to boost investment and supply chain resilience. India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is a major infrastructure initiative designed to stimulate commercial progress and establish reliable transit routes linking India to European and Middle Eastern markets. It is developing key assets like Iran’s Chabahar Port and the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project to unlock connectivity with Central Asia and circumvent regional bottlenecks. The Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET) is a landmark partnership with the US to expand cooperation in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum computing, and defense innovation. The International Solar Alliance (ISA) is co-founded by India; this global platform spearheads solar energy deployment, particularly benefiting developing nations. The Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) is a global partnership led by India to foster climate-resilient infrastructure globally. India maintains robust, pragmatic ties to ensure domestic energy security, such as maintaining diversified oil imports from Russia while expanding green energy cooperation with the European Union.
India champions the developmental priorities, financial reforms, and climate concerns of developing nations on platforms like the G20. It is offering non-prescriptive, demand-driven developmental aid, capacity building, and digital public infrastructure (like the India Stack) to partner nations. It is leveraging cultural commonalities, yoga, Ayurveda, and a vibrant global Diaspora to strengthen people-to-people ties and shape international goodwill.
To sum up, geopolitics is stuck at the crossroads or inflection points. Nonetheless, the future strategies for India in economic, energy, technology, and military are being charted on an even keel. The multilateral or the “Concert of Nations” approach offers flexibility to promote, modify, advance, and consolidate future strategies as per situational complexities and fluidity. However, the only impediment to “Rising India by 2049” is local divisive and disintegration forces aided and abetted by a multitude of external “dark forces” nibbling away at social cohesion and unity. Otherwise, all other external geopolitical challenges can be managed adroitly by successor regimes to maintain global balance of power to ensure India emerges as the “Troika Power” by 2047, that is, the Centenary year of Independence. (Concluded)
