Core Five: Trump’s Strategic Trap to Break BRICS and RIC — The Real Game Behind the Leak
Introduction — A Leak That Reshaped the Global Conversation
Reports emerging from Defence One and Politico about a longer, unpublished draft of the 2025 US National Security Strategy—allegedly containing a proposal for a “Core Five” or C5 forum involving the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan—have triggered intense discussion, particularly in India. The publicly released NSS makes no mention of any such grouping, and the White House has formally denied the existence of an alternate or classified version of the strategy. However, the very idea of a five-power dialogue of this scale quickly gained traction in Indian media, where it was presented as a significant diplomatic shift, a potential counterweight to the G7, and a signal of India’s rising stature in global affairs. Amid this surge of coverage, the deeper strategic meaning of the Core Five (C5) proposal has largely gone unexplored. Far from being a benign attempt to reconfigure global governance, the Core Five (C5) concept appears structured to weaken the only coalitions capable of challenging long-term American dominance—most notably the BRICS economic framework and the Russia–India–China (RIC) strategic triangle.
How the Media Captured and Amplified the Core Five Narrative
Indian media (including RT-India) were the first to aggressively amplify the leak, interpreting it either as a diplomatic elevation for India or as confirmation of India’s arrival in the top tier of global decision-making. Television channels, news portals and commentators on Social Media highlighted India’s inclusion as the “balancing anchor” of the forum. This narrative swiftly spread across Indian social platforms, where users linked Core Five (C5) to discussions on de-dollarisation, BRICS coherence and India’s strategic autonomy. The enthusiasm reflected both national pride and a desire to see India in an exclusive great-power circle.
Western media, by contrast, displayed notable restraint. Major outlets published limited coverage, focusing almost entirely on the White House’s denial rather than the implications of the proposal. There was no serious editorial engagement with what Core Five (C5) would mean for Europe’s global relevance, for NATO, or for the G7. This silence is strategic. For Europe, Core Five (C5) is unsettling because it sidelines the EU and fractures Eurasian coalitions that Brussels cannot counter directly. A new forum that excludes Europe but includes China, Russia and India is not a narrative Western governments want to amplify.
Globally, reactions remained cautious. Japan acknowledged awareness without taking a position, while China allowed commentary through academic circles rather than official channels. The world did not embrace Core Five (C5) as a serious initiative; the excitement was concentrated primarily in India.
Russia’s Reaction — Strategic Silence With Clear Intent
Russia’s response has been the most revealing. Moscow neither confirmed nor denied interest in Core Five (C5). The Kremlin spokesperson offered a general remark that the overall NSS appeared more pragmatic compared to earlier American frameworks, but deliberately avoided addressing the Core Five (C5) idea. However, Russia’s actions spoke louder than its words. Days before the leak surfaced, India-Russia RELOS was ratified by Russian Duma, followed by President Putin’s State Visit to India and revived the RIC framework, calling it a stabilising force for Eurasian affairs. During the visit, Russia signed energy and defence agreements with India and reinforced trilateral cooperation signalling. The timing was not accidental. It was Russia’s way of reminding both India and China that the only meaningful strategic platforms for Eurasia are those created within Eurasia—not those orchestrated from across the Atlantic.
On 11 December 2025, Kremlin Spokesperson Peskov, while responding to a question regarding reports on Core Five (C5) said RIC is ready as Russia already involved in projects with India and China without the Core Five (C5).
The message is simple: Russia sees Core Five (C5) as an attempt to dilute BRICS and dismantle RIC by placing all three Eurasian powers into a US-directed negotiation space. Moscow understands that once the US is placed inside the same room, Eurasian autonomy disappears. Therefore, Russia’s silence is not neutrality. It is strategic resistance without open confrontation.
The Core Argument — C5 as a Deliberate Demolition of BRICS and RIC
The central purpose of Core Five (C5) becomes unambiguous when examined through a structural lens. BRICS has evolved into the world’s most credible alternative economic coalition, with growing ambitions in currency coordination, non-dollar settlements, and energy-security frameworks. By extracting its core members—Russia, India and China—and tying them into a US-framed dialogue, Core Five (C5) weakens BRICS’ internal unity. If the BRICS centre collapses, the bloc becomes an expanded but directionless body, losing momentum on its financial and strategic initiatives.
The RIC triangle is even more threatening to American interests because it provides Eurasia with a diplomatic mechanism that excludes the United States entirely. RIC allows Russia, India and China to discuss security, border management, energy and infrastructure without external interference. Core Five (C5) directly attacks this autonomy. Once the US becomes a permanent participant with agenda-setting power, RIC becomes redundant—not by formal termination, but by suffocation. Washington understands that the biggest threat to US global influence is not China alone but a functioning Eurasian compact where Russia, India and China coordinate their interests.
The Core Five (C5) also undermines the QUAD indirectly. The QUAD’s purpose is to balance China in the Indo-Pacific. Yet if India, Japan, the US and China are placed together in a cooperative framework under the Core Five (C5), the QUAD’s confrontational logic collapses. QUAD cannot retain an anti-China posture while its members simultaneously sit with China at a “solutions table”. Thus, Core Five (C5) neutralises QUAD without dissolving it.
Why Trump’s Talk of Abandoning G7 or NATO Is Only Rhetoric
One of the most misunderstood reactions to Core Five (C5) comes from the assumption that Washington intends to replace the G7 or disengage from NATO. This is not supported by political, structural or historical reality. NATO is the backbone of America’s European strategy and a central pillar of US global influence. It is tied to cultural, historical and civilisational bonds between the US and Europe. No American administration can withdraw from NATO; Congress would prevent such a move, and Europe remains deeply dependent on the US for security.
Similarly, the G7 is not simply an economic forum. It is the institutional embodiment of Western financial dominance. For the US, G7 is a legitimacy engine—an organisation that anchors Western decision-making power within global norms. Trump may criticise the G7 publicly, but he will never discard it in favour of a group that includes Russia and China. The purpose of Core Five (C5) is not to replace the G7. The purpose is to weaken the non-Western alternatives outside it.
This is the essential insight: Core Five (C5) is a tool to fracture Eurasian coalitions, not Western ones.
What RIC Countries Should Do Now
If Russia, India and China correctly interpret the intent behind Core Five (C5), their response must be measured and coordinated. The first step is strengthening RIC as an independent strategic mechanism, upgrading it from a symbolic dialogue track into a meaningful platform for energy, security and technological cooperation. The second is accelerating BRICS financial convergence, including developing non-dollar settlement systems, digital payment platforms and stabilisation frameworks that reduce exposure to US monetary pressure. Third, the RIC countries must treat Core Five (C5) as an exploratory concept rather than a binding institutional structure. Participation should be limited and tactical, ensuring that no commitments undermine existing Eurasian partnerships. Fourth, Eurasian institutions like the SCO, EAEU-linked corridors, India–Russia defence frameworks and China–Russia industrial cooperation must be kept insulated from US influence. Finally, India must assert strategic autonomy and ensure that Core Five (C5) does not become a pressure lever on its defence and energy policy, particularly at a time when its partnerships with Russia remain crucial.
The Real Stakes Behind the Core Five
The Core Five (C5) is not a diplomatic innovation designed to bring great powers together. It is a calibrated instrument crafted to dilute BRICS, neutralise RIC, weaken QUAD, preserve Western institutions, and protect the dollar’s global supremacy. If the RIC countries misunderstand this intention, they risk losing the strategic depth they have spent decades building. But if they recognise that Core Five (C5) is primarily a geopolitical trap, they can ensure it remains what it is at this moment: an unverified leak, a political talking point, and not the foundation of a new world order.
