When India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi climbed into Vladimir Putin’s car on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, the moment was as symbolic as it was spontaneous. For 45 minutes, the leaders of India and Russia – two countries bound by decades of military and energy ties – sat together, away from official meeting rooms and camera flashes.
Later, Modi posted a photograph of the encounter, praising the “insightful” exchange with the Russian president. Putin’s spokesman offered his own interpretation: “They were at home… they felt comfortable there, and that’s why they continued the conversation.”
The meeting itself, informal and unusual, carried layers of meaning. It came at a time when India is facing unprecedented pressure from Washington over its continued trade with Moscow, and as the SCO summit itself has been framed as a platform for countries dissatisfied with U.S. dominance to assert alternative visions of global order.
What unfolded in Tianjin was not just a photo opportunity or a personal moment of camaraderie. It was a reflection of India’s increasingly complex diplomatic balancing act – one that pits historical reliance on Russia against a modern strategic partnership with the United States, while China, Russia, and India circle one another under the SCO umbrella.
Earlier in the summit, Modi and Putin were seen holding hands as they walked into a session hosted by China’s Xi Jinping. The images were broadcast widely, showing unusual warmth between the two leaders. To many observers, this was more than personal chemistry: it was a message to Washington, and specifically to President Donald Trump, who has imposed some of the harshest tariffs India has ever faced.
For Trump, who has often claimed he could end the war in Ukraine “in one day,” India’s refusal to curtail its purchases of Russian oil and weapons is both a strategic and political challenge. Last year, he imposed tariffs of 50% on Indian goods, explicitly citing New Delhi’s continued dealings with Moscow.
The tariffs are punitive in two ways: 25% applies to Indian exports more generally, while an additional 25% penalty targets transactions with Russia. Combined, they represent one of the toughest trade actions Washington has taken against any country in recent history – and they directly punish India for helping sustain Russia’s war economy.
For India, the consequences are steep. The U.S. was, until recently, India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade surpassing $120 billion annually. The new tariffs threaten industries from textiles to pharmaceuticals to IT services. Yet, despite the economic pain, Modi has shown no signs of slowing Russian imports.
India’s stance is rooted in decades of reliance on Russia for energy and defense. More than 60% of India’s military equipment originates from Russia, ranging from tanks and fighter jets to nuclear submarines. Even as New Delhi diversifies suppliers, Moscow remains central to India’s defense posture.
On the energy front, discounted Russian crude has become a lifeline. Since Western sanctions on Russia began in 2022, India has emerged as one of Moscow’s biggest buyers of oil, refining it and often re-exporting it. For an energy-hungry economy of 1.4 billion people, the affordability of Russian fuel is hard to ignore.
Strategically, Russia also provides India with diplomatic leverage. Moscow has long been seen as a partner that supports India’s position on issues such as Kashmir at the United Nations, and the Kremlin has cultivated its image as a dependable ally, unlike the conditional and transactional partnerships India often perceives in the West.
Still, India’s relationship with Russia is not without tension. New Delhi has grown uneasy with Moscow’s deepening embrace of Beijing, particularly after border clashes between India and China in 2020. Yet Modi’s willingness to be seen alongside Putin at the SCO highlights India’s determination to avoid being boxed into Washington’s camp.
The context for Tianjin was not just trade, but Trump’s latest ultimatum to Putin. Speaking on August 22, the U.S. president declared he had given Putin “a couple of weeks” to respond to demands for peace talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Russia, however, has dismissed such pressure. Putin’s spokesman said there were “no plans” for a meeting with Zelensky. At the summit, Putin himself struck a different note, thanking China and India for their “efforts to facilitate the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.”
In his speech, Putin referenced the “understandings” reached with Trump during their meeting in Alaska last month, saying he hoped they were “moving in this direction, opening the way to peace in Ukraine.” Yet many observers view this as posturing, not policy. Putin has repeatedly ignored Trump’s deadlines, and few believe Moscow is ready for genuine compromise.
Trump, meanwhile, has tied his political identity to the claim that he could solve the Ukraine war in a single day. His repeated ultimatums risk being seen as hollow if Putin continues to brush them aside. For Modi, aligning too closely with either Washington’s rhetoric or Moscow’s defiance carries risks.
India’s broader strategic landscape makes this balancing act even more fraught. In the Indo-Pacific, New Delhi is a vital U.S. partner in countering China’s assertiveness. It is a member of the “Quad” grouping alongside the U.S., Japan, and Australia, and American officials often describe India as indispensable to their Asia strategy.
At the same time, India’s economic ties with China remain massive, despite border disputes and political mistrust. The SCO summit, hosted by Xi, was a reminder that regional frameworks excluding the West continue to pull India in.
Thus, Modi’s actions in Tianjin can be read on multiple levels:
To Washington, they signal that India will not be coerced into abandoning Russia.
To Moscow, they reaffirm that India remains a loyal buyer and a friendly power, despite Russia’s tilt toward Beijing.
To Beijing, they demonstrate that India is willing to engage in forums like the SCO, even as it builds rival partnerships elsewhere.
The image of Modi and Putin sitting together in the back of a car encapsulates this moment of flux. Unlike formal summits, where talking points are scripted and aides are present, car rides allow for candid conversation. For two leaders navigating a world where Washington sets conditions and Beijing offers alternatives, the symbolism of informality was striking.
According to Indian officials, the discussion touched on energy, defense, and the evolving situation in Ukraine. Both leaders reportedly reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership, with Modi emphasizing India’s independent foreign policy.
The optics were unmistakable: rather than appearing cornered by Trump’s tariffs, Modi appeared comfortable, literally seated beside Putin in an intimate, informal setting. For Moscow, the message was clear – Russia is not isolated, and it still has powerful friends.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, founded in 2001, has grown into a significant bloc encompassing China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and several Central Asian nations. Though often dismissed in the West as unwieldy, the SCO has gained prominence as a platform for countries frustrated with U.S. dominance.
At this year’s summit, the undercurrent was unmistakable. Xi Jinping positioned the SCO as a counterweight to Western alliances, emphasizing “multipolarity” and “inclusive security.” Putin used the platform to thank allies for resisting Western pressure. Modi, while careful to avoid direct anti-U.S. rhetoric, embraced the SCO as part of India’s multi-alignment strategy.
This positioning reflects a broader shift in global politics. As Washington doubles down on sanctions and tariffs, alternative blocs like the SCO and BRICS (which India also belongs to) provide forums for states to coordinate resistance.
For Modi, the optics also serve domestic purposes. At home, his government faces criticism over the impact of U.S. tariffs on Indian exporters. By demonstrating warm ties with Putin, Modi can argue that India has alternative partners and cannot be bullied by Washington.
Moreover, Modi has built his political brand on the idea of India as a “vishwaguru” – a global leader with independent voice. Aligning too closely with the U.S. would undermine this image, while public displays of equality with Putin reinforce the narrative of India as a sovereign power, not a junior partner.
The symbolism of the hand-holding and the car ride feeds into Modi’s broader projection of himself as a statesman who can navigate East and West with equal confidence.
For the United States, India’s stance is both frustrating and indispensable. On one hand, Washington views India’s Russian ties as undermining sanctions and sustaining Putin’s war. On the other, the U.S. needs India as a counterweight to China in Asia.
This leaves Washington with limited leverage. Tariffs can hurt India economically, but they also risk alienating New Delhi and driving it closer to Moscow and Beijing. Trump’s transactional approach – punishing partners for disobedience – may work with smaller states, but with India, it risks backfiring.
The longer the Ukraine war drags on, the more Washington will need to reconcile its pressure campaign with the reality of India’s independent choices.
The Tianjin meeting highlights the shifting sands of global order. U.S. dominance is being tested not only by Russia and China but also by countries like India that refuse to align neatly with either camp. The war in Ukraine, far from isolating Russia, has accelerated these realignments.
For Modi, the challenge is to preserve strategic autonomy without sacrificing economic growth. For Putin, the goal is to show that Russia is not alone. For Trump, the risk is that repeated ultimatums without follow-through erode U.S. credibility.
In that sense, the 45-minute car ride was more than symbolic. It was a snapshot of the emerging multipolar world: one where personal gestures matter, alliances are fluid, and middle powers like India play outsized roles in shaping the balance of power.
