China’s anti-America posture becomes more brazen by the day. Trump’s frustration was obvious after the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Tianjin: ‘Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China.’ All the usual suspects, predictably, began proclaiming Xi Jinping the winner of the twenty-first century’s instalment of great power rivalry. Not so fast.

The Guardian’s Hannah Ellis-Petersen, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, blamed Modi’s public embrace of Xi (and Vladimir Putin) on Trump’s ‘tariff tantrum’. And in one sense, of course, she is right. Modi wants to continue buying discounted Russian oil without attracting a 50-per-cent impost on Indian exports to the US. New Delhi making seemingly – or genuinely – diplomatic overtures to Beijing raised the stakes in a high-risk game of geopolitical poker. But it’s way too early to be calling for Trump to throw in his cards.

The abrupt warming of Sino-Indian relations appears, at first sight, to fit a pattern. Russia, Belarus, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela, North Korea, South Africa, Cuba, Brazil et al. turned to the People’s Republic of China to bankroll them after civilisational norms no longer suited their perceived interests. When, for example, the regimes in Belarus, Iran and Venezuela cracked down on their captive populations after losing democratic elections – earning the ire of the civilised world – Uncle Xi was only too willing to stake the forces of dictatorship. Putin invades Ukraine? Xi backed Putin by purchasing Russian energy, replacing Western commodities in shops, and providing dual-use technology for the Kremlin’s war machine.

Once Trump called out Modi for buying – after a brief pause – Russian oil, the ever-opportunistic Xi made his play. Modi found himself being praised by Foreign Minister Wang in New Delhi and subsequently feted in Beijing. Direct flights between India and the PRC were restored for the first time since the PLA killed Indian border guards in June 2020. At the back of Modi’s mind, additionally, would have been the ongoing threat of Beijing to cripple India’s crucial manufacturing sector by withholding the sale of rare earths and magnets. More importantly, though, Modi – no strategic slouch himself – was sending a message in Beijing to Trump. He was, in the parlance of poker, upping the ante.

The Australian’s Paul Kelly could not help drawing the most dire implication from Xi and Modi’s tête-à-tête: ‘There is an ominous reality to be confronted – every sign is that Xi is too clever and too tough for Donald Trump.’ Trump-haters, such as Ellis-Petersen and Kelly, would have more credibility if they owned up to being wrong more often than not about Trump’s winning mental game. Only an unrepentant anti-Trumper can deny the 47th President’s strategic genius after improbably triumphing in the 2016 presidential election, enduring Russiagate, beating two impeachments, surviving the leftist lawfare of 2023-24, regaining the White House, rebounding from the fallout of ‘Liberation Day’, and on and on.

While luck played a role in Trump averting two assassination attempts in 2024, for the most part it is his strategic aggression and acuity that accounts for the man’s unending victories. The same, no doubt, goes for Xi. He, too, is a ‘stable genius’ determined to push his ‘China Dream’ as far as the civilised world will allow him. Pointedly, Trump has always acknowledged his opposite number is a ‘brilliant guy’ capable of ruling 1.4 billion people with an ‘iron fist’. The critics choose to interpret this recognition of reality as an indication that Trump himself aspires to the status of dictator. The stinging reference to ‘deepest, darkest, China’ suggests otherwise.

But the question remains, has the ‘brilliant guy’ in Zhongnanhai outmanoeuvred the ‘stable genius’ in the White House on the subject of India? Certainly Trump’s threat to impose 50-per-cent tariffs on Indian exports came as both a shock and an insult to Modi. Such a move would constitute a devastating setback for Indian commerce and undermine Modi’s reputation for sound economic management. Moreover, Washington is a supporter of the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor which, if completed, will deliver for India the infrastructure and connectivity necessary to compete with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Bluntly put, America needs India but India needs America more.

Apart from the rare earths dilemma – which, in any case, will likely be solved by the US within a year – increasing imports from China might be more of a negative than a positive for India’s emergent manufacturers. By 2026, all US-bound iPhones will be assembled in India because of Trump’s ‘tariff tantrum’ with Beijing. How likely is Modi to jeopardise this opportunity, and others like it, to turn India into a global economic powerhouse? In the end, why would India yoke itself to Beijing which not only arms Pakistan, India’s mortal enemy, but itself is constructing mega-dams in occupied Tibet to control water supplies to India? Beijing, ultimately, seeks nothing less than the subjugation of India.

During the Pakistan-India War in May this year, the Pakistani Air Force claimed success with their Chinese-made J-10C fighters and PL-15 missiles. It is, then, difficult to believe reports that New Delhi will forgo or even pause the purchase of US-made aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons. We have not even got to the consequences for India if Washington withdraws from the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Consider China’s ‘string of pearls’ strategy in the Indian Ocean, including the Maldives and Sri Lanka, its purpose being to thwart forever the projection of Indian maritime power. Is it possible that Modi, a ‘stable genius’ in his own right, remains unaware of this?

Thus, the US-India relationship, regardless of the current spat, is more than an alliance of convenience. India, the largest democracy in the world, is not another North Korea, Iran or even Russia. It does not need to be bankrolled by Beijing. At the same time, Modi wants to extract from America the best possible deal he can without calling Trump’s bluff one time too many. Accordingly, Modi responded positively to Trump’s post about ‘the special relationship’ between the two countries notwithstanding their ‘moments on occasion’. The Indian PM speedily responded that he ‘deeply appreciates the US President’s positive assessment of our ties’. There is always the possibility Modi will now attempt – again in the parlance of poker – a double bluff. But only the likes of Paul Kelly could fall for it.