Over several months, a subtle but potentially significant geopolitical realignment has been unfolding. Less and less is being discussed publicly about BRICS, while quiet discussions are getting a little louder about the possibility of a de facto tripolar system among the US, Russia and China. This emergent formation (some geopolitics analysts are now calling it ARC) is not as a result of merging ideologies, rather a pragmatic convergence of interests. While each power remains competitive, their engagements have become increasingly transactional, focused primarily on energy, trade and stability. If the trend continues, this triangular dynamic could reshape global order in surprising ways.
A quiet US–Russia rapprochement
After decades of hostility, yet particularly bitter since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Washington and Moscow appear to have reopened channels of communication. Meetings in early 2025 have explored co-operation on Arctic energy, rare-earth minerals and even the restoration of direct air links. Economically, there has even been discussion of US investment in the Russian Arctic around joint resource extraction. These talks indicate a major pivot from the “sever all ties” posture that dominated much of the last decade.
Kremlin voices have publicly celebrated this shift in attitudes between the two countries. Kirill Dmitriev, Head of Russia’s Direct Investment Fund, recently described a “positive dynamic” in US-Russia relations as business interests from America re-enter Russia, looking to take advantage of opportunities left by fleeing European companies.
Further, policy choices being made suggest that Washington is not rushing to re-impose maximal pressure on Russia. While sanctions do remain in place, US restrictions have paused on new measures, a signal that at least some in Washington are willing to trade restraint for dialogue. This change in tone does not suggest there has been a reset, but the moderation of rhetoric and some concrete openings do point to a more complex interaction than pure containment.
Thawing in US-China trade talks
In the meantime, US–China economic ties are beginning to show signs of momentum. Reports in mid-2025 described how treasury and economic officials from both countries crafted a “very substantive framework” for a trade deal that could ease off some tariffs and avoid more aggressive restrictions. The fact that oil prices reacted favourably to that news at the time is suggestive of the importance of such dialogue for global markets.
This economic détente is not altruistic. For the US, there is a desire to stabilise inflation and global commodities flows. For China, the appeal lies in resuming growth and avoiding the disruption of its key export markets. While their ‘relationship’ does remain tense, there is a small, but slowly growing, pragmatic co-operation beginning to develop in certain areas, which could provide a path for further improvements. AI risk, especially around general safety, extreme risks and standards-setting, are a worry for both countries. Experts and policymakers from both sides have expressed shared concerns about advanced AI. For example, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), autonomy as well as dual-use applications, and they are exploring mechanisms for co-ordination (such as joint testing, risk indicators and intergovernmental dialogue on these matters).
This does not mean the two countries are on the verge of a binding treaty. But the risk landscape is becoming a real point of mutual interest, not just a domain of geopolitical competition.
Russia–China: strategic partners but pragmatic, not ideological
Meanwhile, the Russia–China relationship is evolving. They continue to deepen energy co-operation and, in September this year, they signed a legally binding memorandum to construct Power of Siberia 2, a massive gas pipeline to supply China via Mongolia. But the deal’s commercial terms in relation to pricing and construction timetable remain unsettled.
This hints at a broader truth. While Russia and China remain aligned on some global concerns, their co-operation is not driven by shared ideology so much as it is mutual benefit. Russia depends on Chinese markets and capital, especially in the face of Western sanctions, but China is cautious about overdependence. At the same time, the two continue to co-operate militarily and technologically, but their partnership is transactional rather than just a grand alliance of equal ideological purpose.
Toward a system of managed rivalry
Taken together, these dynamics suggest the emergence of a tripolar architecture in which rivalry is becoming more manageable. None of the three powers seem intent on all-out confrontation. The US, under Trump, is pragmatically revisiting its relationship with Russia, Beijing is recalibrating its rivalry with Washington, and Moscow sees China as a crucial economic lifeline but not a strategic partner to subsume its sovereignty.
Under this framework, stability becomes an interest in itself. Each country has incentives to avoid destabilising crises. US–Russia alignment is essentially focused on energy and Arctic access, the US-China co-operation over trade and technology, while Russia–China co-ordination is based on energy exports. These convergences do not require formal alliance commitments. They need only enough mutual trust and alignment of interest that the costs of a breakdown outweigh the benefits of unilateral aggression.
For the rest of the world (middle powers, emerging markets and regional actors) this is not a bloc to be accepted or rejected, but a structure that will need to be navigated. Smaller countries may find it harder to play US and China against each other without risking disruption, but they may also benefit from greater predictability. A tripolar system may pressure local actors to resolve crises internally and avoid escalating them through external patrons.
Europe, especially, faces a reckoning. As Washington works quietly with Moscow, the EU is finding its influence diminishing rapidly. Conversely, countries in the Global South may see opportunity as they become more essential to the trade corridors and energy flows that are created under this new formula.
Fragile but potentially enduring
It is important to note that ‘ARC’, as this tripolar framework has been coined, is not a formal alliance. There has been no treaty signed, no joint institution created, and there is no shared ideology. Instead, it is a structural alignment born of exhaustion, limitation and necessity. The three powers may regulate (some) crises together, but they remain strategic rivals in other matters.
This system is inherently fragile. Co-ordinated stability is clearly not the same as solidarity. If any element of the triangle miscalculates (for example, over Ukraine, Taiwan or the Arctic), then the balance could unravel. Worse, if one of the three succumbs to domestic or economic pressure, the implicit bargain could break down, leaving a vacuum more dangerous.
Conclusion
The emergence of ‘ARC’ could be one of the most consequential geopolitical developments of our era. It is not built on ideology or ideology-driven blocs, but on shared necessity. If the three powers can maintain enough trust to manage the competition between them and avoid catastrophic escalations, the world may settle into a more stable, though still competitive place.
To download a copy of this article, please click here.