The RICs Ring Road: a network of bi-oceanic corridors for Eurasia

Among the infrastructural trends of the past several years, one of the most actively discussed has been creation of bi-oceanic corridors across the main regions of the Global South. And while the benefits from the launching of a system of bi-oceanic corridors would arguably accrue to the entire global economy via reducing the dependency on a limited array of chokepoints, some countries stand to derive benefits that are particularly palpable. This concerns the largest emerging markets, most notably the BRICs economies, that are separated from neighboring oceanic coastlines by distances of 500-1000 km*. In effect, across the world’s heavyweights, the largest BRICS economies are in unique position to become the main beneficiaries of gaining access to the network of bi-oceanic corridors and boosting their bi-oceanic connectivity capabilities (the largest developing economies such as China and India have gateways only to one ocean – Pacific and Indian ocean respectively; same for Brazil with respect to the Atlantic). In particular, the respective distances (shortest distance taken) for BRICs to their respective oceanic coastlines are the following[1]:

• Brazil to Pacific coast: around 500-600 km (via Peru)
• India to Pacific coast: less than 950 km (alternative measures at less than 800 km) (via Thailand)
• China to Indian ocean coast: around 500 km (via Myanmar)
• Russia to Indian ocean coast: around 1700 km (via Iran/Azerbaijan)

In the above list of BRICs distance gaps to attain bi-oceanic capability, the Eurasian segment, in particular that of the RICs economies (Russia, India, China), presents particularly sizeable challenges. In Russia’s case, the key bi-oceanic gateway to the Indian ocean is the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multimodal transport network of ship, rail, and road routes connecting St. Petersburg in Russia to Mumbai in India via Iran and the Caspian Sea. The network consists of three branches – the Western Branch connects Russia and Iran via Azerbaijan; the Eastern Branch connects Russia and Iran through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan; the Trans-Caspian Branch connects the ports of Russia and Iran via the Caspian basin.   

China’s bi-oceanic gateway into the Indian ocean relies on the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) as well as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The latter connects Kashgar in China’s western Xinjiang region to Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea (northern Indian Ocean) via a network of highways, railways, and pipelines. The CMEC corridor connects southwest China’s Kunming (Yunnan region) to the Bay of Bengal via Mandalay, Yangon and Kyaukpyu in Myanmar.

India’s connectivity to the Pacific is routed via the Mekong-India Economic Corridor (MIEC) which runs from Chennai to Dawei in Myanmar (maritime segment) and then to Bangkok and Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Another bi-oceanic route is the India–Myanmar–Thailand (IMT) Trilateral Highway that connects Moreh in Northeast India via Myanmar to Thailand – existing regional agreements envisage this corridor to be extended into the Pacific to reach Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

The above network of bi-oceanic corridors in Eurasia spearheaded by RICs economies has the potential to drastically improve connectivity throughout the continent, particularly for the landlocked Central Asian economies. What is needed to derive the synergy from such a logistical network is to co-integrate its main arteries – something that has been advocated by Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev[2]. Eurasia’s regional development institutions such as the Eurasian Development Bank together with the rising number of peer development banks could form a co-financing platform to support this massive infrastructural effort.

Bringing together the main bi-oceanic corridors of RICs economies may with time give rise to what may be termed as the RICs Ring Road (RRR) that is supported by other parts of Eurasia’s connectivity network, including the BRI. The INSTC would form the Western contour of the co-integrated RRR, India’s and China’s projects would form the southern and eastern branches, with the BRI and other Russia-China transportation lines forming the northern contours of the logistical framework. While such a co-integration effort may prove costly in terms of capital outlays, particularly given the differences in infrastructural standards and structures (including railway gauge), the longer-term benefits of boosting economic cooperation across Eurasia’s largest economies and addressing the needs of Eurasia’s Hinterland regions would be crucial for the success of SCO+ and EAEU integration efforts.

Table 1: Segments of the RICs Ring Road (RRR) in Eurasia

Source: author’s compilations, assisted in table generation by Google AI

The bi-oceanic connection is particularly critical for China and India – in the case of China, access into the Indian ocean improves the country’s accessibility to the GCC markets that are also crucial sources of energy supplies; for India accessibility into the Pacific basin will expand the possibilities of trade with ASEAN – one of the fastest growing parts of the world economy. Furthermore, rather than two separate bi-oceanic projects being developed by China and India, there could be a case for building a joint bi-oceanic project connecting China to the Indian ocean and India to the Pacific – such a connectivity track could potentially become one of the strongest linkages between the two largest economies of the Global South. Such a crucial gateway to building China-India economic ties could be driven by de novo logistical arteries and projects or the resuscitation of past projects such as the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor running from Kolkata, India via Bangladesh and Myanmar to Kunming, China.

Overall, while the RRR project holds a wealth of promise, it is also susceptible to significant risks associated with high financing requirements (to be addressed via syndicated regionalism and co-financing by regional development banks) as well as geopolitical/security risks in the region. Nevertheless, the RRR system of inter-connected bi-oceanic corridors among the RICs economies addresses some of the fundamental connectivity needs in Eurasia, including via building stronger linkages among the largest economies of the continent as well as providing higher optionality in the access to coastal areas for the landlocked regions in Central Asia and South Asia. The uniqueness of the logistical challenges faced by BRICs countries in building their bi-oceanic capabilities if addressed through coordinated infrastructural efforts could deliver sizable multiplier effects to intra-BRICS and South-South economic cooperation. The Eurasian part of this effort could be then connected with other bi-oceanic networks of the Global South in Africa and Latin America, with the latter, in particular Brazil, already exploring the possibility of connecting regional bi-oceanic routes with China’s ports. The result of such cross-continental co-integration of bi-oceanic projects across the main regions of the Global South would be a global connectivity network that creates back-up options for the world economy and reduces its dependency on the traditional congested routes.

[1] Approximate distances as gauged via https://antipode.com/

*Russia is the only economy within BRICs that is tri-oceanic, but it also faces significantly higher separation of nearly 1700 km to the Indian ocean compared to the distances faced by the rest of the group.

[2] https://kz.kursiv.media/2026-09-13/brics-yaroslav-lissovolik/

Yaroslav Lissovolik, Founder, BRICS+ Analytics

Image by Hans from Pixabay