The Strategic Reality of Trump’s G2 Reset

 With his trademark social post, “The G2 will be convening shortly”, Trump drew global attention to the anticipated trade talks between the US and China at Busan in South Korea. Beijing long sought parity with Washington. By calling the meeting ‘G2’, Trump has fulfilled the CCP’s long-cherished Chinese Dream. By placing China in the same league, Trump lent legitimacy to China’s superpower ambitions. The acknowledgement of duopoly by Trump is an emphatic victory for Xi, struggling with economic slowdown, high unemployment crises, deflationary pressures and oversupply.

The recently concluded fourth plenum of the CCP, held ahead of the Trump-Xi meeting, silently set the strategic tone. Though the focus remained on domestic affairs, with many simply dismissing the plenum communiques as political propaganda, they often chart China’s long-term plans.  For instance, prior to the 13^th five-year plan in 2015, the CCP plenum released a decade-long industrial blueprint for development that culminated in the launch of ‘Make in China 2025’ in response to Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy. A decade hence, the Make in China has been extremely effective in thwarting Washington’s containment as Beijing achieved technological dominance in emerging technologies.

Evolving the framework for the 15^th five-year plan, the October plenum doubled down on achieving ‘self-sufficiency’ in ‘advanced manufacturing’. Taking note of the “complex and severe” international environment, the plenum has preferred a dialogue with the US rather than “decoupling and confrontation” with the underlying motive being “within crises lie opportunities, and crises can be transformed into opportunities”.

Days after the plenum, the fifth round of trade talks between the US and China in Kuala Lumpur agreed to an extension of the trade truce beyond November 10^th. Interestingly, the readout of the Xi-Trump meeting issued by the Chinese side noted, “Xi stressed that dialogue is better than confrontation”. China’s calibrated and measured response is at odds with the unmissable Trump’s exuberance, who boasted of a massive success in trade talks.

But beneath the veneer of Trump’s proclaimed success of the US-China trade deal lies an inexorable truth of the temporary suspension of implementation of the rare earth export control measures announced on October 9 for one year. This implies that the earlier announcement on rare-earth curbs in April by China would still be in vogue. Trump reduced Fentanyl tariffs to 10% and suspended the implementation of the 50% penetration rule, 301 investigative measures for one year. In turn, China has also agreed to suspend the implementation of non-tariff countermeasures against the US for one year. Countries reached a consensus on anti-drug cooperation on fentanyl, and leaders agreed to work together for global economic stability. In all, Trump has trimmed the trade tariffs to 47% from 57%, lower than India's.

China pledged to purchase 12 million metric tonnes (MMT) of soybeans this year and an additional 25 MMT for the next three years to stabilise ties. Beijing has also agreed to terminate investigations targeting US companies and resume trade from Nexperia facilities in China. Beijing’s blockade of Nexperia chip shipments sent shock waves across the European automotive sector. China released its press note on October 30, hours after the summit, White House’s Fact Sheet was out on November 1^st. This gave upbeat Trump to revel in self-promotion as he effusively rated his meeting with Xi as “12 on the scale of 10”.

By averting immediate escalation, both leaders secured a temporary reprieve from the retaliatory countermeasures. Yet, Trump’s climbdown reflected America’s waning economic leverage. He unleashed the tariff trade war to target China. But, given America’s reliance on China for critical minerals, he was compelled to take a restrained approach.

By deferring the rare earth controls by one year, Xi avoided a serious trade escalation and demonstrated to the World who holds the cards. A tight leash on rare-earth exports can potentially choke the US economy. Back in 1992, on his tour to Baotou rare earth facilities, in Inner Mongolia, Deng Xiaoping stated, “The Middle East has its oil; China has rare earths”. Planning ahead of time, understanding the importance of rare earths, China’s industrial policy strategically prioritised them. While Beijing invested all its forces to dominate crucial mineral mining, refining and processing, General Motors of the US began divesting from rare earths.

Countries should have paid heed to the said and unsaid words of Chinese leaders who were preparing to weaponise these crucial minerals. But the US, smitten by an industrial strategy paralysis, allowed the sale of GM’s Magnequench in Indiana to a consortium which had two sons-in-law of Deng on the board. The unit closed by the mid-2000s. Around the same time, the rare-earth reserve in Mountain Pass Mine, located in the Mojave Desert, which catered to 60 to 70% of global supplies, was ordered to shut down by the Environmental Protection Agency due to wastewater leakages. It was the world’s second-largest mine.

While the US lagged, through export subsidies and asymmetric VAT systems, China favoured its domestic manufacturers. By the late 2000s, when the US stopped producing rare earths, China took the lead. Though Molycorp tried to revive the Mountain Pass in 2008, Chinese export quotas turned the market tide. By lifting curbs on exports after the diplomatic row with Japan in 2010, China exported rare earths at low profit margins. Backed by government subsidies, Chinese companies flooded the global markets, making the business unsustainable for others.

After decades of policy paralysis, the US is making efforts to secure the rare earth supply chain through “Operation Warp Speed”. Treasury Secretary confidently remarked that European and Asian countries would join the US in developing reliable supply chains. Trump has alienated friends and allies with tariffs, fostering reluctance among countries to join Washington’s initiative. Even if the US aggressively pushes for self-reliance now, its efforts might at least take 5-7 years to yield tangible results. Having squandered decades of strategic opportunity, Washington finds itself playing catch-up to match an ascendant China.

Endowed with substantial reserves of critical minerals, China has astutely mastered the technology to mine and process rare earths for decades. Controlling more than 69% of rare earth reserves and 90% of processing capacity, Beijing has also systematically acquired rare-earth mining rights from various countries to strengthen its dominance. Risking significant environmental dangers over many years, China has monopolised rare earth processing. Imposing tight controls on rare-earth exports, China not only signalled its willingness to wield economic coercion but also unintentionally exposed the United States’ strategic vulnerabilities and unpreparedness.

US dependence on rare-earth far exceeds China’s requirement of US soybeans. With zero US soybean imports this harvest season, Beijing showed who held the cards in these trade negotiations. China trumped the US at its own game of economic warfare. By blocking rare earth exports and rerouting agricultural imports from Latin America, Xi has shown the world who is the boss. With few cards against Beijing, Trump wasn’t into hard bargaining with Xi. Instead, he was courting Xi to defer the tight regulations on critical mineral exports. For all the brouhaha, countries, at best, reached a status quo. A comprehensive trade deal remains elusive as of now, with no major breakthrough on the horizon.

Trump is on a weak wicket, and the Republican containment policy of China hardly resonates with the American public. The 2025 Chicago Council Survey shows that 53% Americans favour friendly cooperation and engagement with China and only 50% perceive China as a threat to the US, down from 58% in 2023. Negative perceptions about China have rebounded, with Democrats holding the most favourable view of Beijing.

As per the survey, Americans see the US and China as the top two global powers. 53% believe that America is strong militarily, while the verdict is narrowly split about the economic power- 34% see the US as a major economic power, and 33% perceive China as economically stronger.  Given the rising inflation, Americans are rejecting high tariffs against China.

However, a whopping 82% of Americans refuse the idea of granting China the sphere of influence of Asia. The survey may not be a true reflection of American society, riven by partisan affiliations playing a role in shifting attitudes. However, by and large, the underlying message of diminishing dominance of the US is clear. The age of American unipolarity is nearing an end.  Trump started the trade war to bully China, got bullied in turn. Forced to dial down, pandering to Beijing, he hasn’t raised the issue of Taiwan or Chinese purchases of Russian oil during his meeting with Xi. Though the US still leads in innovation, design and advanced technologies, a retreating Washington is now focused on bolstering its hemispheric dominance.

For the first time since the Cold War, America has grudgingly ceded ground to China, accepting its global rise. Bargaining from a position of weakness, Trump preferred to woo Xi to avert a plausible collapse of strategic industries due to the lack of rare-earth minerals. Trump’s unpredictability and transactionalism have eroded mutual trust even in alliance partnerships.

Paradoxically, just as many Americans remain reluctant to decouple with China, Southeast Asian and European nations—despite territorial disputes and concerns over Beijing’s mercantilist practices—are choosing to manage their relationships with China rather than confront it. At the same time, they continue to maintain strong ties with the United States.

While President Trump hastily framed the meeting as a “G2,” hinting at a global duopoly, the geopolitical reality today defies such binary divisions. The world can no longer be neatly delineated into spheres of influence or rigid blocs. Recognising their deep interdependencies, countries are increasingly prioritising strategic interests—engaging with major powers while retaining their strategic autonomy. The logic of G2 is misplaced in the contemporary geopolitical arena with multiple players and many poles. The rise of Middle Powers like India, Russia, Germany, Turkey and GCC nations and their growing relevance in the new global order hints at a new reset.

However, as the great power competition between the US and China intensifies, the world will witness a restructuring of supply chains and a strategic realignment of countries to safeguard their national interests. Clearly, the archaic framework of G2 capable of imposing its decisions on the rest of the World is a relic of the Cold War era.  Though Trump’s G2 offhand reference of G2 is the strategic reality of their mutual interdependencies, an impulsive compartmentalisation of spheres of influence undermines global stability.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Dollar Diplomacy: Trump Dangles Economic Aid to Sway Argentina

 With his tariff ‘magic bullet’, Trump has irked both friend and foe alike. Fearing American wrath, traditional American allies- Japan and South Korea, the EU and export-oriented economies- sealed trade deals pledging investments for lower tariffs. China, the largest trade partner of the US, with a huge trade surplus in its favour, had dug in its heels. The US-China trade war can be traced back to Trump’s first term, when the US levied retaliatory tariffs citing unfair trade practices and intellectual theft. China retaliated with its own tariffs. Following the escalations in 2019, countries signed the Phase 1 trade deal in 2020, and those tariffs remained in place until Trump’s second inauguration in 2025.

In addition to the sweeping tariffs on all trading partners, Trump announced ‘fentanyl’ tariffs on China in the second term. After an initial phase of escalation, intransigence, tariff readjustments and Trump’s TACOs, countries agreed for a three-month period, which is set to expire on November 9. Since Trump’s first term, China’s economic heft, influence, and global presence have increased manifold. Trump Liberation Day tariffs announced on April 2 stated, “protecting sovereignty and strengthening economic and national security” as the rationale and declared, “foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency”. While the blanket tariffs on countries are an attempt to leverage trade, the primary target of Trump was China.

Gearing up for a coercive trade war, Beijing bolstered its trade levers in the past seven years. Strategically working on weaknesses, Beijing has readied itself to beat the US at its own game. Besides building scientific and technological prowess, China began dissuading third countries from siding with the US. Pushing the envelope further, China has deepened its influence in America’s strategic backyard, Latin America and the Caribbean. Although Trump has escalated the trade war, he is critically aware that coercive tariffs alone are too insignificant to challenge the growing Beijing economic and geopolitical heft.

With zero imports of US soybeans, citing high tariffs for the first time in seven years, in a show of power and confidence, China hit back at the US.  Last year, China purchased nearly half of the entire soybean exports worth $12.5 billion or 27 million metric tonnes. The total soybean exports of the US are worth $24.5 billion. This year, China dumped the US farmers and imported soybeans from Argentina and Brazil. This left US stunned. Soybean imports from Brazil rose 29.9% and those from Argentina jumped 91.5%.

China’s tit for tat move underscored its ability to inflict serious damage to the US economy. With one move, Beijing turned American farmers against Trump and demonstrated its ability to strategically source agricultural imports from third parties at will.

In early 2023, Argentina was invited to join BRICS along with five other countries- Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. However, Javier Milei, who stormed into power in the 2023 Presidential election, declined to join the BRICS, reflecting a pro-Western foreign policy shift. During his election campaign, Milei dismissed any “business with communists” and maintained that he wouldn’t maintain diplomatic ties with China. Months into power, with economic realism dawning, Milei accepted the renewal of the currency swap with China in 2024 to repay $5billion debt. In November 2024, Milei met President Xi at the Brazil G20 summit and held talks with him.

Taking over the presidency, Milei, a libertarian economist, faced the insurmountable challenge of taming the bloating inflation and rescuing the sinking economy. Milei's austerity measures proved effective. The economy showed signs of recovery inflation came down to 100% as of December 2024 from 300%. However, by February 2025, a financial scandal unfolded after eight crypto wallets withdrew $99 million from the liquidity pool of the $LIBRA token promoted by Milei, undermining his credibility. Meanwhile, his austerity measures triggered protests. The initial temporary shocks of the devaluation of the Peso and the ‘crawling peg’ strategy of controlling inflation temporarily stabilised the economy. In the absence of comprehensive structural reforms, this failed to translate into sustainable growth. Consequently, to replenish depleting forex reserves, Milei sought $ 20 billion IMF bailout.

Since 1958, Argentina has received 22 IMF bailouts, mostly to repay the IMF itself. Argentina owes $44 billion to the IMF, and the institution, though wary, has finally approved a bailout thanks to the potential claims of “Milei Miracle” in April. Argentina is the largest borrower of IMF bailouts. However, two months ahead of the legislative elections on October 26, the Peso has collapsed, posing a serious threat to Milei’s regime. Milei, who aligns closely with MAGA, has rushed to Washington. Trump more obligingly authorised $20 billion aid package, proposing to double it if Milei wins the legislative elections, warning, “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.”

Milei swept the mid-term election, and the US will now extend a $40 billion aid package ($20 billion currency swap plus $20 billion aid from sovereign wealth funds and private banks). Amid uproar from both aisles—betrayed American farmers, who deemed the financial aid to a competitor as awkwardly contradictory to “America First Agenda,” and Democrats attempted to unanimously pass “No Argentina Bailout Act,” Trump approved the bailout plan. Notwithstanding the backlash from the Republican MAGA camp and political opponents, Trump announced plans to import Argentinian beef as well.

Stating aid to Argentina “is not election-specific, it is policy-specific”, while presenting the Atlantic Council’s Global Citizen Award to President Javier Milei, Bessent let the cat out of the bag. He insisted that the package is part of the “economic Monroe Doctrine” of asserting the United States’ domination in the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s strategic intervention in Argentina stems from burgeoning Chinese influence in its backyard.

Argentina and China signed a Belt and Road Initiative cooperation plan in 2023 with a focus on infrastructure, energy and industrial development. With the acquisition of 80% stakes in Standard Bank of Argentina, China steadily increased its footprint in the country through subnational agreements. Given the strong federal character of Argentina, where provinces have direct control over resources, by passing the national government, Beijing is directly signing agreements with provincial governments- copper mining (Catamarca province),  Potassium mining (Buenos Aires, Salta provinces), coal mining (La Pampa Province), Lithium (Jujay, Catamarca, Salta provinces), gold and silver mining (San Juan province). China is also actively engaged in constructing hydroelectric power plants, solar parks, a fourth nuclear power plant, Atucha III, aerospace base in Neuquen in Argentina. The telecommunications network in Argentina is now dominated by Huawei, banned by Western countries over national security issues.

China is also the top destination of Argentinian beef, which makes up over 50 per cent of the country’s exports. In September, availing Argentina’s suspended export tax window increased soybean imports from Argentina, stirring a domestic storm in America. China has emerged as a vital partner for Argentina on an equal footing with the US. 

Countries first signed a currency swap agreement in 2009. Over the years, it was extended to $18.3 billion (130 billion yuan), including the latest renewal agreement of $5 billion in April 2025. Bessent travelled to Argentina to stall the renewal and threatened to withhold $20 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF), an arrangement with the US since 1958. Later, Trump’s Latin America envoy said that the US wants Argentina to end its currency swap with China at a conference. In response, China shot back, saying China’s currency swap contributes to “Argentina’s economic and financial stability and is welcomed by the Argentine government”. The currency swap enabled Argentina to convert yuan into dollars to repay debts.

The Currency swap served twin purposes for China in terms of deepening its involvement in the Argentinian economy and promoting international use of the yuan, elevating its global stature and chipping countries away from dollar dominance.

Unambiguously admitting Washington’s concerns over China’s deepening economic engagement with Argentina, Bessent stated that the US didn’t want Latin American countries to confer mining rights of rare earths for financial aid, as it has happened in Africa. Latin American countries are sitting on a huge pile of critical minerals.

Having monopolised the global supply of critical minerals, tightly regulating their exports, Beijing leveraged them against the US in this ongoing tariff war. Indispensable for chips, EVs, automobiles and renewable energy, a critical shortfall can paralyse the US defence and other allied sectors. To reduce reliance on China, Trump has frantically inked critical mineral framework agreements with Australia, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Japan. Trump even wooed Pakistan for mineral exploration and mining projects.

Contending with a declining American hegemony, the Trump administration is focused on building domestic stability and reasserting the US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. China’s growing economic power, with ambitions of reshaping the World order, poses an imminent challenge to US unipolarity. Beijing is now an economic and geopolitical risk for the United States. Trump’s economic package for Argentina is an attempt to win an ally in the region and wean it away from the Chinese orbit. The huge rare-earth stockpile is a huge bonus which Trump refuses to let go of, even at the cost of angering its MAGA camp.

Trump’s geopolitical manoeuvring signals a renewed U.S. push to reclaim influence in Latin America. Washington appears to be deploying every tool at its disposal to reassert dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, Trump has ramped up pressure on Venezuela, while simultaneously signalling a willingness to revisit tariffs on Brazil—even as the Senate moves to block them. Though whispers of a neocolonial plan remain speculative, Trump’s aggressive interventions in the region make such concerns hard to dismiss.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Alaska Summit: Putin Gets the Better of Trump

The Alaska Summit between President Trump and President Putin has been the major talking point for various reasons. An invitation to President Putin for direct talks ended the Western isolation that began with Moscow’s special military operation in Ukraine. More than three years into the war, which Trump has proclaimed “should have never happened”, has turned into an acid test for the much-trumpeted negotiation skills of the US president who got re-elected on the promise of ending the war ‘within 24 hours’.

Close to eight months into his inauguration, Trump failed to make a headway in the Ukrainian peace process. Worse still, barking at the wrong tree, Trump not only impaired the trade ties with India, Treasury Secretary threatened New Delhi with secondary sanctions if “things don’t go well” during talks between Putin and Trump. Hours before the scheduled summit between the two Presidents, European leaders in a virtual meeting urged the US not to strike a unilateral Ukrainian deal.

Soon, the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing also held talks with the US Vice-President JD Vance, where President Zelenskyy put forth five key ‘common principles’ to guide the negotiations. These are -nothing related to Ukraine should be discussed without Ukraine; there should be US, Russia and Ukraine trilateral; a precondition for Russian ceasefire for the peace talks to begin in all earnest; fourth, Ukraine should receive security guarantees and Moscow can’t veto Ukraine’s EU or NATO prospects and finally, Russia should face fresh sanctions if Putin refuses to ceasefire. Sufficiently briefed by the European leaders, Trump, who bluntly hinted at ‘land swapping’ initially, reprimanded Putin of “very severe consequences” in the run-up to the summit.

Trump announced a summit with Putin after his deadline for sanctions on Russia’s touted “shadow fleet” had expired on August 8^th, without facing any consequences.  With a reputation of bombastic threats culminating in a “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out) and episodic blusters ending in a blooper, it was hardly any surprise when Trump remarked, “it’s not a deal until done”. Trump’s call for direct talks with Putin underscores his strategic weakness as Moscow remained unflinching in the face of sanctions designed to cripple its oil trade and finances. Nor does the penalty on countries trading with Russia work in his favour. PM Modi rebuffed his threats and strongly resisted US attempts to gain access to the Indian agriculture and dairy sectors.

The Ukraine war is becoming unsustainable to the US, and in the backdrop of Russia’s continued advances into Eastern Ukraine, it is turning into a major setback for the West. As per the Institute for the Study of War, Russia has gained 2350 sq. kilometres since December 2024. Frustrated by Russian escalations and the lack of progress towards a ceasefire, Trump shortened the 50-day deadline on July 28.

Later, in response to Russia’s former President Dimitri Medvedev’s perceived “inflammatory remarks” on August 1, Trump ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines closer to Russia. On August 4^th, far from being ruffled, Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which it unilaterally upheld after the US suspended its participation in 2019.  The announcement, coinciding with the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, cautioned of an impending “nuclear reality” replete with burgeoning nuclear risks. Trump’s lame negotiation tactics, online barbs and ultimatums have miserably failed to bring Putin to the table.

Trump’s trail of desperation became more evident as he warmly greeted Putin on the tarmac with a B-2 bomber escorted by four F-35s flying overhead and F-22s lined along the runway. The staged display of American might was responded to in full measure by Russia, by bombing Ukraine around the same time. Trump’s show of power revealed America’s insecurities and growing anxiety. 

After three hours of closed-door one-on-one talks, while Putin triumphantly walked away saying, “Next time in Moscow”, like a burdened general, Trump admitted, “We didn’t get there”. A seasoned intelligence veteran, Putin has assessed the weakness of Trump’s pompous vanity and ceded not an inch. In fact, a direct conversation with Trump has ended Russia’s diplomatic isolation and put him on an equal footing with the European leaders. Excluded from the talks, the direct stakeholders of the region’s security, Ukraine and European leaders, together with Trump’s act of rehabilitating Putin, widened transatlantic rifts.

Unquestionably hailed as “peacemaker” by minions under diplomatic duress, the summit punctured Trump’s tall claims of master dealmaker.  Trump’s ultimatums and sanction threats have, till now, failed to make peace; on the contrary, it exposed his bullying tactics. Across the board, bullies are deemed cowards. Chinese resistance to Trump’s sanctions, Putin’s defiance towards peace negotiations on US terms and India’s stark rejection of mediation claims during Operation Sindoor have underscored the futility of tariff/sanction threats.

Putin is certainly in no hurry to clinch a ceasefire agreement. While admitting that the “conversation was very frank, substantive, and, in my opinion, brings us closer to the necessary decisions. We had the opportunity, which we did, to talk about the genesis, about the causes of this crisis”, and reiterated, “It is the elimination of these root causes that should be the basis for settlement”. Ukraine is an “existential war” for Putin and “non-negotiable” for Russia. Embarking for Alaska, Trump stated that his main goal is a ceasefire, a stance echoed by Ukraine, “Our vision is a ceasefire first, and then everything else”.

However, shortly after meeting Putin, Trump wrote on social media, “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.” Eyeing a long-term durable plan, Putin is steadfast about Russia’s security interests. Intractable in his approach, Putin has vowed to protect the interests of the Russian-speaking people in the occupied regions.

For long, Russia has been firm on steps for a durable peace and strongly opposed to Ukraine’s association with the EU and NATO. Putin expressed concerns about the swift militarisation of Europe and its plans to deploy peacekeepers on the ground.  This runs contrary to Trump’s short-term, Nobel Peace Prize-winning plan of huddling the stakeholders into a quick agreement. Right now, Putin is testing the waters. His first priority on the list is to negotiate the lifting of the stringent sanctions regime on Russia. Putin is here for the long haul. His calibrated, clinical plan would test the diplomatic patience of Trump.  

Humiliated, disrespected, and isolated globally, Putin has quietly endured everything from being labelled as a ‘war criminal to being accorded a red-carpet welcome on US soil’. The Alaska Summit is a turnaround of sorts for Putin, who has weathered numerous economic and geopolitical storms. Leading Russia through the thick and thin for over 25 years, Putin has mastered the craft of diplomacy, which is reduced to a social-media bluster by Trump.

For Trump, Ukraine is a “photo-opportunity move”, while the security calculus of Russia hinges on resolving the issue. Peace is not a breakthrough for Putin but inevitable for Russian sovereignty. Russia made the cardinal mistake of buying James Baker’s promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move “one inch to the east”. This time around, Russia would want the origins of the conflict hammered out for eternity. Peace remains elusive until the moot point is addressed. 

The Alaska Summit is just the beginning..

@ Copyrights reserved.

RIO BRICS Summit: Championing the Voice of the Global South

The BRICS is a group of countries with disparate economic priorities, interests and governance systems. These divergences were at the heart of strategic speculations about its coherence and long-term relevance since its inception in 2009. The steady progress of the BRICS New Development Bank, launched in 2015 as a viable alternative, forced the global commentariat to rethink. Contrary to the popular Western perceptions about its pertinence, the group began to attract many nations.

At the 2024 Kazan BRICS Summit, opening a new chapter, BRICS welcomed new countries into its fold. BRICS transformed into BRICS+ with the joining of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE. Saudi Arabia’s membership was formalised, but it hasn’t officially joined the group. In January 2025, BRICS welcomed Indonesia. Now the extended BRICS family has a new category of 10 partner countries- Bolivia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Uganda, Uzbekistan

Comprising Emerging Markets and Developing Countries (EMDC), all these nations have one thing in common- a vision for an inclusive, multipolar world order. The pandemic has been a major turning point in terms of the collective resolve of countries. Economic crises in the post-pandemic world, further exacerbated by fuel, food and fertiliser insecurities, have exposed the ineptness of the post-World War II multilateral institutions.

The dominance of the Western powers, the exclusion of the developing countries and the persistence of inequalities have laid bare the inherent weakness of the existing world order. The prolonged marginalisation of the interests of developing nations and the inelasticity of unequal power structures to address fundamental inequalities have impelled nations to organise into a coalition or group. BRICS is not decidedly anti-West, but it is non-West.

Post-pandemic, BRICS has emerged as a nucleating centre around which countries rallied. The growing interest in the BRICS is driven by a shift in the economic centre of gravity away from the West. As a seat of fast-growing economies with a teeming young demography with a significant potential for technology adoption, countries are gravitating towards BRICS, a group of developing countries, to have access to emerging markets, regional trade blocs, and to avoid unilateral sanctions. Incidentally, prioritising the challenges of developing countries, BRICS is now positioning itself as a fairer system offering a level playing field for the Global South nations.

BRICS now represents 49.5% of the world population, 39% of the global GDP in PPP terms and conducts 26% of international trade.  With the joining of the oil-rich nations, BRICS controls 44% of global oil production and 38% of natural gas production. BRICS nations make up for 72% of rare earth mineral reserves. Dismissed as an incoherent body, the BRICS footprint is steadily expanding the global affairs. BRICS nations held the Presidency of G20 consecutively for four years- Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa. Brazil is the host for COP30 to be held at Belem in November 2025.

With the joining of new nations, while the heterogeneity of the group has further increased, there has been a significant jump of 85.1% trading (from 2012 to 2023). The use of local or alternative currencies for intra-BRICS trading has been a troubling aspect for the US, as dollar dependency has come down. The sidelining of the US dollar for transactions has been the cause of consternation for the Trump administration.

To evade, US sanctions regime, Russia encouraged trade in local currencies and emphasised reducing dependency on the US dollar. The Kazan BRICS Summit, chaired by Russia, mooted de-dollarisation. However, de-dollarisation was never on the agenda. India quickly distanced itself from the de-dollarisation move and the BRICS common currency proposal.

India has reiterated that it has no policy to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. China, India, and US allies like the UAE, which rely on the US markets, have shunned this move. While nations are making an effort to internationalise their currencies, there is no consensus on de-dollarisation within BRICS. At the Rio Summit, Russia denied discussion on BRICS currency payments between the members. On the contrary, BRICS is trying to evolve a payment mechanism to facilitate cross-border trade among the members. Hence, Trump’s concerns that BRICS is aggressively moving towards de-dollarisation are misplaced and unwarranted.

The 17^th BRICS Summit held at Rio de Janeiro, themed on “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for a More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance”, the largest participation of the BRICS family drew the ire of the Trump administration. Interestingly, the Rio Declaration took an unequivocal stand on several geopolitical issues. They condemned military strikes against Iran, terming them as violative of international law, reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, objected the use of starvation as a method of warfare and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, Lebanese territory. In a major boost to Russia, BRICS strongly voiced concerns on Ukrainian attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Russian Federation.

The firm rejection of “unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs)”, a strong attack on both Trump’s tariffs and the EU’s arbitrary trade barriers must have riled the combined west. But undeniably, the West’s unilateralism and arbitrary trade policies are becoming more disruptive. Indeed, the declaration has called out the Western hegemony in multilateral financial and trading institutions -the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.

Speaking at a BRICS session on “Strengthening Multilateralism, Economic and Financial Affairs and Artificial Intelligence”, PM Modi said, “We need to work together to make supply chains for critical minerals and technology secure and reliable. It’s important to ensure that no country uses these resources for its own selfish gain or as a weapon against others,” in a direct dig at China’s restrictive trade policies. In fact, Brazil and Indonesia have recently imposed tariffs on China over industrial overcapacity and dumping.

Comparisons of BRICS to the G7 and its ability to establish a new world order might be far-fetched. Unlike the G7, BRICS is a heterogeneous group. It is an emerging coalition seeking collaboration and cooperation to mitigate global challenges for sustainable growth and inclusive development. Considered as a stagnant grouping after the launch of the New Development Bank (NBD), BRICS is now steadily evolving. Fostering South-South cooperation, BRICS is now actively expanding cooperation in new domains- Innovation, AI, Science and Research, Climate Change, Financing, Women’s Empowerment, Startups, Space cooperation, Vaccines, Culture, Sports etc.

Reiterating the principle of “African solutions to African Problems”, BRICS is now espousing the rights of Africa. Widening global inequalities have reinforced that the Global South has been neglected. In his address at the BRICS “Global Governance and Peace and Security Session”, PM Modi stated that the Global South faced double standards in development, distribution of resources, climate finance, sustainable development issues, technology access and security-related issues. To reflect the contemporary realities of the times, he called for urgent reforms to the multilateral institutions and global governance institutions, particularly the UNSC.

In a scathing attack, he said, “The World needs a multipolar and inclusive world order- not merely symbolic, real impact should be visible. Changes must be brought in the Governance structures, voting rights and leadership positions. The global south must be given priority in policymaking. He added, “You can’t run 21st-century software on 20th-century typewriters”. In this context, his reference to strong condemnation of the Pahalgam attack by the BRICS countries flies in the face of the US, which continues to cultivate a strategic partnership with Pakistan despite being designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

BRICS has now become representative of the Global South. The Rio Summit was steered by India and Brazil. Brazil, as the host, used the BRICS platform to unequivocally assert its views on the geopolitical developments. PM Modi has set the agenda and toppled the Chinese Applecart of turning BRICS into a Chinese playground.

BRICS is not antagonistic to the West, but global uncertainties and challenges warrant comprehensive reforms in the existing system to make the World more inclusive. Established in times of Western imperialism when the majority of the Global South nations were still colonised, the Western institutions reek of bias and aren’t representative.

While questions about the cogency of BRICS still persist, BRICS countries are partnering to realise their individual aspirations, pursue new economic opportunities, enhance political influence and collectively as a group hedge against the West’s unilateral sanctions. In the process, BRICS is envisioning a plan to strengthen the BRICS framework to leverage its credibility to bid for comprehensive multilateral reforms. However, the parochial Western commentary equating BRICS to the fate of the G77 bloc of developing nations can be presumptuous.

Playing the ‘strategic autonomy card’ close to the chest, BRICS nations are aligned to drive the world towards multipolarity. As the chair for BRICS 2026, PM Modi indicated that India intends to redefine BRICS as Building Resilience and Innovation for Cooperation and Sustainability. During its G20 presidency, India promoted the aspirations of the Global South and brought their concerns to the global centre stage. With a people-centric approach and spirit of ‘Humanity First’, India intends to champion multilateralism, which is inclusive and representative.

Western fears of BRICS as anti-West and a powerful counterweight are clearly unfounded.

Double Standards or Realpolitik? U.S. Playbook on Nuclear Brinkmanship Part 2

The threat from Iran’s Islamic regime to Israel is clear, and a nuclear-armed Iran can be an existential danger to Israel. While an inverted logic continues to label Israel as the aggressor, a close look at the Ayatollah’s remarks approves of a jihadi war against Israel.

Iran’s Axis of Resistance is not a figment of imagination as Khamenei at a prayer sermon in February 2012 said, “We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on, we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime; we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not”².

Iran’s deeply entrenched anti-Zionism gradually evolved into a series of proxy wars- manifesting in cyberattacks, maritime sabotages and acts of terrorism. The ongoing Gaza conflict intensified the rivalry, culminating in two rounds of direct missile and drone retaliatory strikes in April and October 2024.

Operation Rising Lion has established Israeli dominance over Iranian airspace. With excellent operational synchronisation and superior Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, Israel prevailed over Iran in an operation that had tacit American approval. Even Israel’s cities, military and intelligence installations and economic hubs also suffered severe damage in the retaliatory strikes.

Vowing a complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel refused to back down, raising fears of a full-blown war. A war in the Middle East dragged into its ninth day, in an unprecedented operation- ‘Midnight Hammer’, seven US B-2 bombers hurled 14 bunker bombs at the Iranian nuclear facilities- Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Pulling out a shocker, President Trump sent out a chilling message through a comprehensive and devastating bombing. Since assuming office, Trump repeatedly stated, “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon…. You cannot have peace if Iran has a nuclear bomb”. Shortly, as a retribution, Iran announced “Operation Tidings of Victory” to attack US bases in the region. However, barring America’s Al-Udeid base in Qatar, none have been hit. Iran had notified the US officials prior to the attack, minimising the losses, if any.  Soon, Trump called for a ceasefire, and both countries, after their fair share of violations, abided by it.

Terming the attacks on the US base in Qatar a “slap in the face”, the Iranian regime claimed victory much like Pakistan after Operation Sindoor. The eerie similarities don’t end there, as Trump’s social media posts on the ceasefire in both cases had the same template, with the only difference being a change in names.

America’s blatant breach of Iran’s territorial airspace and the audacious air raid to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities sparked a global debate. Critics argue these actions undermine the UN, erode the foundations of international law and compromise the US’s moral standing in condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Far from reinforcing deterrence, US strikes might inadvertently prompt countries to pursue nuclear weapons as a safeguard against external intervention.  

On a different count, the US strikes have provided a temporary reprieve, enabling a broader momentum for the expansion of the Abraham Accords and the realignment of US Arab allies with Israel. A weakened Iran can shift the regional dynamics, opening new avenues for addressing the Gaza issue.

Satellite imagery revealing dotted truck convoys outside Iran’s Fordow facility—captured just before US strikes—has fuelled speculation that enriched uranium was covertly relocated to secure locations. While a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might stall its ambitions, it is unlikely to extinguish them. Armed with technological know-how, Iran’s path to developing nuclear weapons would be delayed, not derailed.

The US justified its strikes on Iran citing its long-standing designation of a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s cultivated jihadi militia has ring-fenced Israel leading to regional insecurity. A parallel dynamic exists in the Indian sub-continent,  where unmissable similarities emerge between the Islamic regime of Iran and the jihadi leadership in Pakistan. While Ayatollahs refused to bow down to US wishes, Pakistan has positioned itself as a compliant proxy of Western interests. In 1979, cleric Ayatollah seized power in Tehran - around the same time, Pakistan’s Zia-ul-Haq created the Afghan Mujahideen to take on the Soviet forces.

Pakistan under Zia became the most important player in America’s fight against the Communist USSR. Aligning governance with Islamic laws, Zia Islamised Pakistan. Despite his distaste for Western values, Zia consciously aligned with the US. Capitalising on its strategic geographic location, Zia allowed Pakistan to become a launch pad for America’s strategic pursuits in the region. As a result, Pakistan continues to remain in the good books of America despite its indubitable reputation as the ‘mothership of terrorism’. Pakistan is home to several internationally proscribed terror outfits. Indeed, eight Americans were killed in the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Mumbai attacks in 2008.

Grey-listed thrice by FATF for sponsoring terrorism, Ghazwa-e-Hind, the cornerstone of Pakistan’s anti-India policy, is an existential threat to India. The core tenets of Islamic regime of Iran and Pakistan are based on same jihadi ideology. But the US chose to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program and allowed it to accumulate a stockpile and make weapons.

For decades, Pakistan wielded cross-border terrorism as a geopolitical tool to destabilise India. Yet, unlike Iran, Pakistan enjoys the status of a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Adroitly managing the US, Pakistan has evaded international censure and continues to acquire advanced weaponry from the US. Adeptly kow-towing to the US strategic interests, Pakistan amassed a nuclear arsenal on par with India, while Iran, for merely approaching that threshold, faced punitive strikes.

Despite deep-rooted ideological divergences and lingering distrust, many Muslim-majority nations continue to pursue diplomatic engagement with the United States. While Islamic sentiment often shapes their foreign policy postures, geopolitical pragmatism prevails. Notably, Iran’s Supreme Leader has never concealed his antagonism toward Washington and never attempted to mend ties since the 1979 revolution.

Post-US air strikes, the Middle East might still witness a protracted period of instability. The Islamic regime, backed by the IRGC, is still under control and back in the saddle. Operation Rising Lion, much like the Ukrainian attacks on Russia, has exposed the presence of Mossad’s robust undercover network. Given the magnitude of the internal sabotage, Iranian authorities have swung into action to identify the moles. Iranians are yearning for freedom and secular democracy. But any external intervention can push the country into further chaos.

Pakistan and Iran, both epicentres of terrorism, pose a serious and imminent threat to global peace and stability. The spectre of a nuclear-armed state guided by a jihadi ideology is a geopolitical time bomb that demands urgent attention. While nations like North Korea and Iran face severe Western sanctions, Pakistan, despite its track record, continues to be shielded for its utility as a strategic ally. This glaring disparity in Western responses raises unsettling questions about the consistency and credibility of global non-proliferation efforts.

Double Standards or Realpolitik? U.S. Playbook on Nuclear Brinkmanship Part 1

Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion on June 13^th, the Middle East has been on the brink. Israeli fighter jets striking deep into the Iranian territory attacked nuclear facilities, missile strikes and the senior leadership. Drawing the first blood, Israel set Iran into a tizzy by systematically eliminating the senior ranks of military leaders and nuclear scientists.

Since the October 7^th Hamas terror attack, Israel has clinically neutralised Iranian proxies and reduced its sway. Through a string of assassinations, including Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, Israel brought Hamas and Hezbollah to their knees. Iran’s Islamic regime wields great influence in Lebanon, Syria and has a destabilising effect on Yemen and Iraq. Hezbollah’s losses and the fall of the Assad regime diminished Iran’s power and influence in the region and significantly weakened Iran’s axis of resistance.

Israel and Iran have been strategic collaborators and friends before the radical Islamic ideology engulfed and roiled the relations. Iran transitioned to an Islamic regime with the takeover by the Ayatollahs in 1979. The Iranian revolution ushered the country into an Islamic ambit. Israel’s relations with Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty were friendly. Iran was among the second major-Muslim country after Turkey to recognise the Jewish State following its founding in 1948. Iran, along with India and Yugoslavia, was part of the special UN committee formed to formulate a future course for Palestine and voted against the UN’s partition plan for Palestine.

Iran saw Israel as a key partner to counter the rising Arab nationalism and to maintain positive relations with the West. The ties took a brief hit under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1951, who wanted to nationalise the oil and expel the British.  Following his ouster and the installation of the Shah in 1953, the ties blossomed, and countries exchanged ambassadors.

As a part of the strategic ‘Periphery Doctrine’,  Israel forged alliances with non-Arab states to counter hostile neighbours. In 1958, Israel, Turkey and Iran formed the “Alliance of Periphery” and solidified the “Trident” pact- an agreement encompassing intelligence sharing, economic cooperation and arms trade. Indeed, Mossad and the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK collaborated closely, and Israel provided extensive technical support to help develop Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure.

During the crippling Arab boycott and oil embargo, Iran emerged a major oil supplier to Israel helping Israel to circumvent the crisis. In return, Israel provided technological and agricultural assistance. Both countries jointly constructed a pipeline and supplied oil to Europe. Israel supported Iran’s covert efforts to assist the Kurdish separatists in Iraq.

The 1979 overthrow of the Shah marked Iran’s transformation into an Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The new clerical regime redefined Iran’s national identity around religiously driven anti-Zionism, severing decades of covert cooperation with Israel. In response, Israel shut down its embassy in Tehran, which was soon replaced by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) mission. This dramatic realignment also prompted an exodus of many Iranian Jews, who fled the country amid rising hostility and uncertainty.

Denouncing the US as “the Big Satan” and Israel as “Little Satan”, the clerical regime championed the Palestinian issue. The jihadi roadmap for the Islamic regime can be traced to the Khomeini’s “The Little Green Book” akin to the Mao Zedong’s “The Little Red Book”.

Transforming the Palestinian cause into an Islamic cause, Khomeini declared every last Friday of Ramadan as Quds Day (Jerusalem is called al-Quds in Arabic), and held rallies across Iran in support of Palestine to brandish Iran’s Islamic credentials. The larger idea was to put the Arab countries allied to the US on the defensive. But through the 1980s, Israel considered Saddam Hussein of Iraq a greater threat than Khomeini’s Iran. Israel supplied military equipment to Iran during the long wars with Iraq and served as a conduit for US weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

As per CIA reports, contrary to American assessment, Israel believed Iran could be an important partner in promoting its interests in the region and eventually hoped that it could play a role in facilitating rapprochement between the US and Iran. Ironically, Khamenini portrayed Israel as a ‘usurper Zionist regime’; a tool of American imperialism.

At the First Islamic Conference on December 4^th, 1990, Khamenei expounded the goal of liberating Palestine, “Regarding, the Palestine issue, the problem is taking back Palestine, which means disappearance of Israel. There is no difference between the occupied territories before and after [the Arab-Israeli war of] 1967. Every inch of Palestinian land is an inch of Palestinians’ home. Any entity ruling Palestine is illegitimate unless it is Islamic and by Palestinians. Our position is what our late Imam (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) said, “Israel must disappear”. The Jews of Palestine can live there if they accept the Islamic government there. We are not against Jews. The issue is the illegal ownership of Muslims’ homes”¹.

Reiterating support for a new Palestine government, Khamenini in August 1991, said, “Solving the Palestinian problem entails destroying and eliminating the illegitimate government there, so that the true owners [of the land] can form a new government; Muslims, Christians, and Jews can live side by side. . . Our view regarding the Palestine issue is clear. We believe the solution is destroying the Israeli regime. Forty years have passed [since establishment of the state of Israel], and if another forty years passes, Israel must disappear, and will”².

Around the same time, Iran nurtured Hezbollah in Lebanon, which bombed a Jewish community centre and the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992. Khamenini began backing the Islamist jihadi groups like Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihadi groups stating, “The United States cannot solve the Palestinian problem to its own liking. The issue is like a bone choking them and, God willing, with Israel’s disappearance will be solved”². This pathological hatred reached a crescendo with the election of a hardliner, President Ahmadinejad, in 2005, who hosted the Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran. This irrevocably damaged Iran-Israel relations.

In 1990s, Israel-Iran secret collaboration ended after Israel got a whiff of Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Iran’s nuclear program, which began under the Pahlavi dynasty, hit a pause during the Iranian revolution. But it secretly continued to pursue the program under the codename AMAD project. After the first reports of a nuclear enrichment centre surfaced in 2003, facing the prospect of censure, Iran agreed to sign the Tehran Agreement with Britain, France and Germany to suspend enrichment.

However, huge inconsistencies uncovered by the IAEA led to the imposition of sanctions by the UNSC in 2006. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement between P (5+1) and Iran in 2015 provided limited relief after Iran agreed to cap enrichment at 3.7%.

While publicly asserting its nuclear plan served civilian use, appearing to uphold commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Additional  Protocols, Iran covertly pursued enrichment activities. In 2018, a covert Mossad operation uncovered blueprints detailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, revealing undisclosed weapons-related facilities. Contending that the checks under the JCPOA as inadequate, then President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA.

From 2006, the covert hostilities escalated significantly as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces (IRGC) provided substantial backing to Hezbollah’s resistance against Israel. In response, Israel intensified cyber warfare against the Iranian nuclear programme. By early  2010s, amid the Arab Spring upheaval, Iran consolidated its ‘Axis of Resistance’ to strangulate Israel. The threat from the Ayatollah regime is real and undeniable, and the October 7 attacks have reinforced the same.

The IAEA reports from 2022 have consistently reported a steady increase in the Iranian stockpile of enriched Uranium. The latest IAEA report of May 2025 notes an expanded production of 60% enriched Uranium of 408 kg below the weapons-grade. This quantity places Iran perilously close to the nuclear threshold, raising international concerns should the trend continue unchecked.

On June 12, 2025, the IAEA board found Iran non-compliant with nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years³, and the board voted to censure Iran. In response, Iran announced it would activate a third nuclear enrichment facility⁴. Hours later, Israel launched strikes on Iran. Considering Israel’s record of taking down Iraq’s Osirak in 1981 and Syria’s putative nuclear facility in the Deir ez-Zor region in 2007, the air strikes on Iran aren’t unprecedented but just a continuation of a pattern.

Copyrights Reserved.

Selective Outrage: The West’s Double Standards on Dissent

The disturbing visuals of rioting, vandalism and arson from Los Angeles have stunned the world. Large-scale violence, unrest and loot typically associated with the Third World is the unpleasant reality of America’s Tinsel Town.

Declared as a sanctuary city, in 2019, LA has been on Trump’s immigration radar. Ahead of his inauguration, Trump vowed to use all tools at his disposal to fulfil the campaign promise of mass deportations. To thwart a massive clampdown, the LA City Council adopted a “sanctuary city” ordinance forbidding the use of the city’s resources and staff for federal immigration enforcement efforts. It barred city employees from collecting individual’s immigration status and notifying federal authorities about the release or detention of illegal immigrants.

California had in place special provisions that safeguarded undocumented immigrants. In 1979, the LA Police Department adopted Special Order No.40, barring officers from questioning individuals solely about their immigration status. During Trump’s first term, California’s then-governor, Jerry Brown, signed into law the California Values Act, SB 54, limiting the use of state and local resources for federal enforcement efforts.

The state-installed legal buffers made California a safe haven for 11 million illegal immigrants. When the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched raids to apprehend illegal immigrants, mostly those with criminal histories, demonstrations escalated into violent protests. The unjustifiable violence forced President Trump to deploy the National Guard troops.

Democrats swiftly condemned the crackdown on illegal immigration as a “provocation”. Objecting to Washington’s overreach, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, urged Defence Secretary Hegesth to rescind the Federal Order on troop deployment that violated the 10^th Amendment. Even as the anarchy masquerading as protests continued, the LA Mayor, Karen Bass, downplayed the violence and termed “deployment a chaotic escalation” and “political retribution”.

Voted to power for promising decisive action on illegal immigration, Trump’s decision to call National Guard troops and mobilise Marines resonated with people beyond ideological lines. A recent Pew Research Survey in the US indicated that an overwhelming 97% favoured the deportation of illegals with a criminal background. Countries across the world are grappling with illegal immigration and the security challenges it poses. However, the far-left ecosystem, favourably disposed towards illegal immigration, is weaponising them to take on the populist and nationalist governments.

The despicable whitewashing of lawlessness and utter confusion created by the rioting mobs, most of them illegal immigrants in the LA riots, exposed the agenda of the far left.  The rioters torched public property, clashed with police, defaced buildings, raised foreign country flags and even spat on the American flag and burned it. But Democrat leaders- Elizabeth Warren called them “Peaceful Protests”, former Vice President Kamla Harris termed them as “Overwhelmingly peaceful”, and Gavin Newsom echoed “It’s under control”, justifying the violence as ‘acts of resistance’. Ironically, while Democrats vehemently oppose Trump’s ICE raids, they remained silent on Obama-era record-high ICE  formal deportations headed by Tom Homan, now Trump’s ‘Border Czar’.

America’s growing political polarisation eerily mirrors the Indian scenario. Despite their own internal turbulence, the US media and establishment often adopt a sanctimonious tone and sit in judgment of the Global South.

The year 2019 was an important milestone in India’s political history. The re-election of PM Modi for a second term with a thumping majority bolstered hopes of a much-needed political stability that can springboard India’s economic growth.

Abrogation of Article 370 boosted India’s faith in the political leadership, the historic Ram Mandir judgement and the iconic Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) law revitalised the fledgling Indic renaissance. The rise of a nationalist government and its firm commitment to rejuvenate India’s civilisational heritage rattled the vested interests and their foreign masters. Consolidating the electoral victories, the nationalist government firmed up its presence even in the States. A sprightly India, refusing to be a pliable power, not in the best interest of the foreign lobbies, was suddenly marred by waves of orchestrated protests.

The CAA, which attempted to rectify “historical wrongs” by offering citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, along with an announcement for the NRC (National Register of Citizenship) to identify illegal migrants, triggered a torrent of protests across different parts of the country. Principal opposition, Congress, which initiated the CAA process during Manmohan Singh's rule, termed the law as divisive. TMC’s Mamata Banerjee, who demanded NRC in the Parliament, cast aspersions on the government. Online misinformation and fear-mongering portrayed CAA-NRC as discriminatory, aimed at “othering of Indian Muslims”, fuelling mistrust.

Under the guise of ‘peaceful dissent’, the ‘kagz nahi dikhayenge’ gang occupied public spaces in the capital for months. Mutating into a platform for incendiary speeches, the Shaheen Bagh protests- an ostensibly non-violent demonstration- erupted into full-blown 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi riots shortly after Trump’s visit. Over 50 lives were lost, exposing the charade of peaceful protests.

Firmly backed by the global far left brigade, the Indian Opposition defended the blockade of public space as an acceptable form of democratic protest.

Soon after, for political rehabilitation, the Indian opposition aligned with anti-India elements intent on maligning India’s image. In cahoots with disgruntled elements, the Indian opposition enacted a democratic coup by backing farmers' protests that strategically blocked Delhi’s borders for 16 months to repeal transformative farm laws.  

In a planned insurrection, on the 72nd Republic Day, the protestors occupied the Red Fort and hoisted religious flags and unleashed violence, injuring hundreds of security personnel. Shortly, infantile socio-environmentalist Greta Thunberg, in a post on X, inadvertently exposed the toolkit, a global campaign to fuel unrest in India.

Five years ago, India, and more precisely, farmers' protests, hogged the international headlines. Every newspaper worth its salt had a message for India. Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Trudeau hit out at India during the farmers' protests. Trudeau, former Canadian Prime Minister, the left-wing darling, remarked, “I would be remiss if I didn't start by recognising the news coming from India about the protest by farmers. The situation is concerning. We are all very worried about family and friends….. Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue”.  

Two years hence, declaring a state of emergency, Trudeau crushed the ‘Freedom Convoy’ protests with an iron hand. Defending his actions, he tweeted, “Canadians have the right to protest, to disagree with their government, and to make their voices heard. We’ll always protect that right. But let’s be clear: They don’t have the right to blockade our economy, or our democracy, or our fellow citizens’ daily lives. It has to stop”.

This duplicity speaks volumes.  The West sets standards for others that it refuses to subscribe to. While preaching that dissent is the essence of democracy, leaders like Trump and Trudeau resorted to militarised crackdowns at home. Yet, the West demands that India show unwavering restraint toward squatters and protestors who, under the guise of democratic expression, disrupted supply chains and posed a direct threat to public order for over two years.

The LA riots have spread to 37 locations across the US, yet not a single international agency of repute has raised a concern. In stark contrast, prominent global organisations—Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the UN Human Rights Commission, and USCIRF and celebrities like Rihanna and Jay Sean, joined the chorus to criticise India, while Western think tanks went so far as to label the country an 'electoral autocracy.'

Alas, for all its lofty moral posturing, the image of an Australian reporter hit by a rubber bullet will be hard-wired in the Indian psyche. India holding up a mirror to the United States isn’t an act of defiance—it’s a much-needed reality check. Long hailed as the bastion of liberal democracy, America is proving to be anything but the torchbearer of democratic ideals.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump Vs Zelenskyy: Geopolitical Ramifications

The diplomatic fallout, an open spat between the world leaders in a presser, has for the first time shed the respectable veneer of niceties often associated with meetings at the highest level. Diplomatic snubs, intentional slighting and cold shouldering are commonplace in strategic jostling.

Grave disagreements traditionally shunted away from the public eye have left an image of pleasing civility as the natural accompaniment of diplomatic engagements. Public display of geniality by heads of state serves as a natural spring that nourishes bilateral relationships and spawns goodwill. The spectre of public spat in the White House, which became the talking point across the world, has changed public perception of diplomacy and exposed the leaders threadbare.

The world is reeling under the burden of the over three-year-long Ukraine conflict, which is showing no signs of abatement. Articulating the need to end this crisis, Trump, in his election campaign, enlisted a peace deal as one of his top priorities. Advocating the need for a reconciliation with Russia with utmost clarity even before his inauguration, Trump engaged in phone conversations with Putin. Following it up, the Trump administration initiated peace talks with Russian counterparts and held two rounds of negotiations in Riyadh and Istanbul. However, Europe and Ukraine, the main stakeholders of the conflict, have been left out of these conversations.

Sidelined by Trump, European leaders, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer queued up to the White House and expressed their interest in being part of the peace deal under the leadership of President Trump. While working with the Kremlin, Trump proposed a Rare Earth Mineral Deal with Ukraine wherein Kyiv would use the mineral wealth to repay the $ 500 billion US military assistance provided by the US. The agreement would double up as a reconstruction investment fund under the joint ownership of the US and Ukraine. Both countries finalised the initial framework of the agreement with no mention of security guarantees for Ukraine.

European leaders had laid the ground for the mineral deal framework ahead of Zelenskyy’s US visit. Along with the deal, a detailed discussion on the peace plan topped the agenda. However, the last 10 minutes of the 50-minute conversation shattered the plan, with Zelenskyy preferring confrontation and contestation in an otherwise freewheeling discussion before the US media.

Thoroughly briefed by Republican legislatures ahead of the meeting about Trump’s way of handling things, Zelenskyy indulged in a verbal spat with the Vice-President JD Vance. Interjected by President Trump, Zelenskyy, who attempted to educate Vance, haughtily shot off, “During the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless, you will not have war”. Zelenskyy’s warning changed the tone and tenor of the conversation.

Hailed as the “resistor in Chief” by Europe, Zelenskyy was eulogised for taking the brunt of Russian neo-imperialism. Ukraine paid a heavy price to repel the Russian invasion. Displaying extreme valour, Ukrainian soldiers defended their nation with advanced weaponry, arms and intelligence provided by the US and the European countries.

In the process, Ukraine suffered severe destruction and lost one-fifth of its territory. An entire generation was decimated. It might take decades for Ukraine to get back to pre-war days. In its quest to be part of NATO, Ukraine became a proxy of the West in a needless war with Russia, which shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

Since the turn of the century, Ukraine has willingly allowed itself to become a playground for the US geopolitical pursuits of vanquishing its former Cold War enemy. American attempts to deepen defence cooperation with Ukraine, the subsequent colour revolution, regime change, flirtations with neo-Nazi Azov Brigade and the installation of a pliable leadership at the helm, has been part of the same game plan. Things went out of control after Kyiv disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings about its “red lines”, which led Moscow to launch a “special military operation” in Ukraine on 24^th February 2022.

Rallying strongly behind Ukraine and advocating for an uninterrupted supply of arms, weapons and military assistance to Kyiv, Europe has ensured that the conflict continues to rage even as thousands of lives are lost on the battlefield. Turning Ukraine into a pawn in their war against Russia, Europe and the US celebrated the resolve and determination of Zelenskyy and honoured him with special invites to every major congregation in the West.

In the past three years, there wasn’t a single event of strategic importance unattended by President Zelenskyy. Donning the victim badge of Russia’s imperial tyranny, Zelenskyy and by extension the Ukraine crisis became the top priority of the collective West. Thrust into limelight, Zelenskyy’s sense of entitlement heightened. Even former president Biden yelled and grumbled at Zelenskyy when the latter harped about inadequate help over the phone.

Zelenskyy’s public spat has exposed his overbearing demeanour, which met its nemesis in Trump, who pointed that American generosity can’t be taken for granted. After the coup de grace, European leaders lined up to express solidarity with Ukraine and Zelenskyy. Soon, the UK convened an urgent meeting with European leaders including Turkey, the Secretary General of NATO, the Presidents of the EU Council, the EU Commission and Canada in London. In pursuit of ‘peace through strength’, all of them agreed to enhance support to Ukraine and work with Trump for a just and lasting peace.

The ‘EU solidarity’ buzzword sold to the world, in reality lacks the real muscle. Clearly, the multiple security cooperation agreements that Zelenskyy signed with European countries only commit to security assistance, military equipment and economic support. Unlike NATO’s Article 5 provision, none of these bilateral security agreements obligate parties to deploy military forces. In fact, despite the talks of Europe standing together, countries are sceptical about sending troops to Ukraine as openly voiced out by Italy PM Meloni.

Prior to the US-Ukraine mineral deal, Ukraine signed a 100-year partnership agreement with the UK with the latter as the preferred partner for Ukraine’s energy sector and critical minerals strategy. The loans extended by the Europe to Ukraine are majorly profits accrued from Russian frozen assets. Europe has been thriving under the defence and security umbrella of the US. Zelenskyy’s slanging match has pushed the envelope further with Trump stalling military support to Ukraine. In reality Europe’s tall claims of solidarity woefully falls short of real action.

Spurred by the Zelenskyy’s spat and Trump’s open poser to Starmer, ‘Could you take on Russia by yourselves?’ the EU executive proposed pooling 800 billion Euro for REARM package to strengthen EU defence. The Ukraine conflict, which could have been resolved within the first week of conflict, was disdainfully turned down by Kyiv. Three years hence, the violence continues, and Trump’s peace plan and attempts to normalise ties with Russia offered a hope to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.

Initially, Trump attempted to use China’s economic leverage in his Ukrainian peace efforts. China’s involvement would have burnished its global gravitas. But soon Trump recalibrated his approach. Unlike Europe which believes in more sanctions and creating economic pressure on Russia to bring it to the table, Trump has preferred the alternate route of opening up embassies to foster peace talks. Trump’s approach rankled the Cold War obsessed American deep state and Europe, which considers Russia as an archenemy while ignoring an imminent threat from a rising China.

Instead getting mired in the Ukrainian sink hole and lament, ceding space to Beijing to dominate the Indo-Pacific theatre, Trump has pressed a reverse 1972 President Nixon’s strategic reset. An economically depleted and demographically weakened Russia is no longer the major threat to the US or even Europe. However, Russia’s deepening economic dependence on China and the so-called ‘no limits friendship’ can definitely threaten the American Unipolarity.

As an opening move, at the first round of direct talks with Russia at Riyadh, among the four key points- Trump administration included the possibility of geopolitical and economic cooperation. By trying to swing Russia in its favour, Trump has exploited a chink in the Sino-Russo alignment and boosted the prospect of peace process.

Trump’s recalibration and Russian rapproachement is driven by a level-headed assessment of the impending geopolitical configurations and changing world order. More importantly, it eventually takes into account Beijing’s plans to invade Taiwan when Russia can no longer be the deterrence.

Pursuant to US geopolitical ambitions, Trump is attempting to make a calibrated reset factoring China’s ‘peaceful rise’. The power centres have slowly moved East and Trump turning in to Moscow signals the onset of a new geostrategic churn that is bound to dominate in the years to come. It is an attempt to paralyse the stinging tentacles of a rising hegemon in the East.

Zelenskyy’s open spat with Trump has been music to Russia. This entire diplomatic fiasco, other than weakening NATO, has exposed the European inability to defend itself. Clearly, the aspersions of isolationism cast on the US is a futile exercise. It reeks of Europe’s short-sightedness and exceptionalism. Europe must now become atmanirbhar to handle implicit and explicit territorial threats instead of piggybacking on the US to safeguard its interests.

Europe’s concern for Ukraine is driven by its security interests and not by its commitment for a rules-based order. Ukraine is Europe’s backyard. Russian aggression is an immediate threat to Europe. The Indo-Pacific arena is highly critical for American security. Trump’s reset is inexorably driven by an objective to safeguard its interests in the Pacific region and beyond. This move also signals Trump administration’s keenness to shed the global policeman tag.

Trump’s defiance, besides weakening the transatlantic alliance, attested to a glaringly contrasting NATO stance. The imminent security schism between the US and Europe appears to be the new foreign policy reality of Trump 2.0, which is bound to reshape the global security architecture. 

Hamas Presence in POK Exposes Pakistan’s Terrorism Agenda

In January 2023, EAM Jaishankar, in an interview with Austrian media ORF, called Pakistan an “epicentre of terrorism”. When asked about such a “not very diplomatic” term, Jaishankar replied, “Because you are a diplomat, it doesn’t mean you’re untruthful. I could use much harsher words than epicentre, believe me, considering what has been happening to us, I think epicentre is a very diplomatic word”. New India under the leadership of PM Modi has been equivocal in calling out the state sponsor of terrorism for what it is.

The unabated cross-border terror attacks seeped in “bleed India with thousand cuts” or Ghazwa-e-Hind modus operandi, the defining statecraft of Pakistan is a constant reminder of Pakistan’s international repute as a global terror factory. Grappling with domestic unrest over rising inflation, unemployment, economic recession and eroding people’s trust in the Army, Pakistan has used the February 5, Kashmir Solidarity Day to reignite anti-India sentiment and boost its terror recruitment by organising a mega terrorist conference.

The event on February 5^th held at Rawalkot in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), titled “Kashmir Solidarity and Hamas Operation ‘Al Aqsa Flood Conference” marked the coming together of Mujahideens of Palestine and jihadis of Pakistan. The conference was attended by a representative of Hamas in Iran Dr Khalid Qaddoumi, Hamas leaders Dr Naji Zaheer, Mufti Azam and Bilal Alsallat, JeM’s leader Talha Saif, brother of Masood Azhar, commanders Asghar Khan Kashmiri, Masood Ilyas and top LeT leaders. As per some reports, Hafiz Talha Saeed son of Hafiz Saeed made provocative statements with religious overtones from the same platform- “I want to warn PM Modi that Kashmir belongs to Muslims, and we will take Kashmir from you. It will be a part of Pakistan Muslim India soon”.

The viral videos of warm embraces, red-carpet welcomes, gun salutes and horse-riding rallies commemorating the presence of Hamas leaders on social media though labelled as a “narrative-building exercise” have deeper undertones to them. Meanwhile, allaying concerns a Pakistani analyst alluded that Hamas participated in the conference “for solidarity with the Kashmir cause, as Hamas believes that the cause of Gaza and Kashmir is one”. He argued that Pakistan’s invitation to Hamas to the conference is part of its strategy to strengthen ties with Iran after both countries ruffled feathers over Balochistan and Iran’s interference in Islamabad’s internal affairs. But this sugar-coated commentary lay bust with Jaish leaders proclaiming that they are all together in fighting for Kashmir.

The potential collaboration between Pakistani terror groups and Hamas was orchestrated by ISI which tapped into Hamas' angst with India for condemning the October 7 terror attack on Israeli civilians. India always backed the two-state solution for Israel and supported Palestine's self-determination. But Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel and hasn’t been a genuine representative of Palestinian aspirations.

Though Hamas has created an illusion of a messiah of Palestinian aspirations, it is inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic resistance movement. Hamas Charter openly calls for the destruction of Israel and weaponises terrorism. By sharing the stage with Pakistani terrorist commanders, Hamas openly backed the Kashmir cause.

Hamas representative Khalid Qaddoumi also met hardline Islamist leader, Maulana Fazlur Rahman leader of Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam, who played the role of Pakistani ambassador to Palestine and met Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar after the October 7 terror attack.

In his conversation, Haniyeh said, “The Palestine and Kashmir issues had been a litmus test for advocates of human rights” and indicated that all the Islamists must unite in support of Palestine and Kashmir. The Pan-Islamist terrorist congregation at POK is thus a “convergence of terrorist groups with differing but overlapping agendas”.

Firmly backing the event staged by ISI, Pakistan's Prime Minister also travelled to POK to address a special session of assembly at Muzaffarabad where he racked up the Kashmir issue. “India should come out of the thinking of August 5, 2019, and fulfil promises made to the UN and launch a dialogue” and added, “We want all issues, including Kashmir, to be resolved through talks.” But the pretence of peace overture fell flat with reports emerging that Indian security forces had foiled an ambush by Pakistani infiltrators along the LoC on February 5. This operation resulted in the elimination of seven Pakistani infiltrators and three Pakistan Border Action Team (BAT) personnel.

The Director Generals of Military Operations of India and Pakistan have reached an understanding on a ceasefire in February 2021. But there was no respite for India from cross-border escalations as Pakistan violated the ceasefire with impunity. However, there was a noticeable improvement in the security situation in J&K after the abrogation of Article 370 as local recruitment almost dried up. With India stepping up vigilance, Pakistani jihadists had to infiltrate to disrupt the peace in the valley.

While J&K is returning to the path of development, Pakistan is facing stiff protests in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, insurgent attacks intensified in Balochistan and its frontier provinces are severely caught up in the cross-border fighting with TTP. Indeed, to counter the TTP, Pakistan is shifting its machinery from LoC to the Northern frontier to take on TTP.

The presence of Hamas representatives is an attempt to reactivate cadres and boost the radicalisation and recruitment cycle, the cannon fodder of Pakistan’s terrorism machinery. India is closely monitoring Pakistan’s attempts to revive the terrorist network. By bringing Hamas into its fold, Pakistan intends to internationalise the Kashmir issue once again.

As a matter of temporal coincidence, Home Minister Amit Shah in line with India’s zero-tolerance stance to combat terrorism held a high-level meeting in Srinagar and launched a two-pronged strategy. This includes- economically suppressing the terror network through an effective crackdown on drug trafficking through total disassembly of the narcotic distribution system and intensifying cooperation between multiple security agencies. Modi government adopted an uncompromising stance- talks and terror can’t go together and resolutely adhered to it.

Colluding with the Islamist network in Bangladesh while Pakistan is creating unrest on India’s eastern frontier, India upped the game by resetting ties with Afghanistan and stepping up bilateral engagement with the Afghan Taliban. But the Hamas presence is something New Delhi can’t ignore considering Trump’s plan to ‘clean out Gaza’. Trump’s latest proposal to take over Gaza and Netanyahu’s acquiescence to the same has huge indirect ramifications for India as well.

Pakistan has been a natural magnet for the Islamic terrorists and jihadi groups. As a state sponsor of terror, Pakistan allied with different terrorist organisations including ISIS for its national interests. US takeover of Gaza will force eviction of the highly radicalised Hamas cadres. Keen on utilising Hamas' terror warfare skills, Pakistan might be more than willing to shelter the Palestine mujahideen.

Besides, some radical Islamic groups in India have their sympathies with Hamas. Indeed, the Solidarity Youth Movement, the youth wing of Jamaat-e-Islami organised a rally which had a tagline of “Uproot Bulldozer Hindutva and Apartheid Zionism”. Former Hamas chief, Khaled Mashaal virtually attended the rally. The event glorified terrorists under the guise of Saving Palestine.

Pakistan and terrorism are inseparable. With an undeniable record of nurturing, funding and leveraging terrorism, Pakistan has positioned itself as a global fount of terrorism. Hamas’ entry into South Asia will certainly change the security dynamics of the region and India must adeptly pull out yet another surgical strike if the situation so warrants. Simultaneously, India must also build a case to designate Hamas as a terror organisation should things come to bear.

Soros-Yunus Dhaka Meet: An Ominous Sign for India?

All the attempts to legitimise the “people’s revolution” in Bangladesh fell flat with official hobnobbing between Alex Soros, the successor of George Soros and Muhammad Yunus, adviser to the interim government. The liberal ecosystem defended tooth and nail the infamous coup that toppled the democratically elected Sheikh Hasina regime deeming her an authoritarian. Indeed, the prospect of India facing a similar fate wasn’t ruled out either. Moreover, the Indian political dispensation was warned of similar consequences after the successful ouster of Hasina and her exit from Dhaka.

The insidious activities of the Open Society Foundation (OSF) of Soros became more pronounced after the French agency Mediapart blew the link between the OSF and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which has been at the forefront in the indictment of Gautam Adani. The whole episode even blew the lid off the closely guarded link between the Indian political dynasty and Soros. It is thus, no brainer to decipher the mastermind behind the blizzard of misinformation propaganda that dominated the Indian political discourse ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

George Soros openly pledged $1 billion to establish a global university to ‘fight nationalists’ at the 2020 Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). Unequivocal about his target, in his address, Soros stated, “Nationalism, far from being reversed, made further headway. The biggest and most frightening setback occurred in India where a democratically elected Narendra Modi is creating a Hindu nationalist state, imposing punitive measures on Kashmir, a semi-autonomous Muslim region, and threatening to deprive millions of Muslims of their citizenship”. Modi government has been on OSF’s radar and the intense civil society activity and its nexus with the Indian ecosystem is not a figment of imagination given the seasoned expertise of OSF in toppling regimes across the world.

Infamous as an “agent of chaos” for his alleged attempts to oust Russian President Putin, stoke unrest in the European Union through mass immigration, and support the Arab Spring protests, George Soros fashioned the Asian financial crisis as early as 1997. To insulate Hungary from the Open Society Foundation started in 1984, Viktor Orban passed the ‘Stop Soros’ law.

As Bangladesh’s interim leader, Yunus held his first official meeting with Alex Soros in October. Yunus's close links with George Soros date back to 1999 when he secured a $11 million loan from the Soros Economic Development Fund managed by the Open Society Foundation through which he acquired 35% stakes in Bangladesh’s largest telecom operator Grameen Ltd. The profits obtained from the loan were used to expand the social and welfare projects of Yunus’s Grameen Bank.

In recognition of the social inclusion programs of Grameen Bank, Yunus was conferred the Nobel Prize in 2006. Alex Soros became the chairman of the $25 billion Open Society Foundation in 2023, the organisation which has strongly supported independent Kashmir.

The current meeting between Yunus and Jr Soros at Dhaka in the wake of Trump’s executive order halting US financial assistance to Bangladesh has raised several eyebrows both in the US and India. Soros is avowedly anti-Modi. Jr Soros engaged to Huma Abedin former top aide of Hillary Clinton is deeply antagonistic to Trump and is making fervent attempts to jeopardise his regime. Yunus is equally miffed with Trump for his outright condemnation of barbaric attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh under his watch.

Making the details public, Yunus’s office posted that the meeting was held, “to discuss Bangladesh's efforts to rebuild the economy, trace siphoned-off assets, combat misinformation, and carry out vital economic reforms” on the social media. Post-meeting, Alex Soros echoed, “(this is) a crucial time of transition for Bangladesh and we explored ways to deepen collaboration on critical reforms and investment”.

With this high-profile meeting, Yunus challenged Trump’s authority and showcased his heft and deep connections with the US establishment. This has reaffirmed the popular belief in the sub-continent of a strong foreign hand in the collapse of Hasina’s regime.

Yunus one of the top donors of Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation has extremely cordial relations with the Biden administration and Kamla Harris. The iconic chummy photograph of Yunus with President Biden on his visit to New York after the democratic coup in Bangladesh is a testimony to his inside connections with Democrats. His daughter Monica Yunus was part of President Biden’s Committee on Arts and the Humanities (PCAH).

Though Yunus extended his congratulatory message to Trump, his contemptuous remarks in 2016, raised doubts about his ability to deal with him. He said, “Trump's win has hit us so hard that this morning I could hardly speak. I lost all strength. Should I even come here? Of course, I should, we must not allow this lapse into depression, we will overcome these dark clouds."

Meted with great honour at Dhaka as a state guest, the strong connections between Yunus and Alex Soros confirmed India’s worst fears of Yunus as his trusted lieutenant. Keen on dismantling the left-liberal ecosystem, while Trump’s return to the White House is a welcome relief to India, the brazen chumming between Yunus and Alex Soros warrants caution.

Hasina openly disclosed threats to her regime from the US. But stopped short of naming the real actors. The coup in Bangladesh that was legitimised by the liberal ecosystem as a “student revolution” was orchestrated by students of the BRAC University in Dhaka funded by OSF¹.

At the felicitation organised by the Clinton Foundation for the “meticulously planned campaign to oust Hasina” Yunus introduced the three student leaders of the revolution². One of the leaders, in fact, was identified as Mahfuz Alam, leader of the terror outfit Hizb ut-Tahrir. Alam is currently the press advisor of Yunus. The so-called ‘revolution’ was orchestrated by the US establishment and the Islamo-left liberal ecosystem. Alex Soros’s focus on Bangladesh should alert India as OSF would always want to pursue its unfinished task in India.

Yunus always harboured strong political ambitions. In 2007 when an army-backed interim government came to power, Hillary Clinton made frantic efforts to install Yunus as the head. But it failed. Yunus who never favoured Hasina and Awami League completely fell out with her after she instituted a probe into his financial crimes. The meeting is thus a vindication of popular perception in the sub-continent of an orchestrated regime change in Bangladesh.

While Trump is taking the Ultra left-liberal ecosystem to task in the US, the Soros ecosystem with its extensive network of elements within India is awaiting an opportunity to execute its plot. Determinedly anti-India, since August, Yunus has firmed up his collaboration with radical Islamist elements in Bangladesh. The sharp departure in the Bangladesh foreign policy contours with Yunus at the helm was reflected in his destabilising actions such as the release of thousands of terror operatives including those who stoked secessionist movements in India’s North East. Taking a rabid anti-India and anti-minority stance, Yunus resurrected ties with Pakistan. Yunus met Pakistan Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif in Cairo, restored maritime linkages with Islamabad, removed visa restrictions for Pakistanis, imported ammunition from Pakistan and commenced joint naval exercises with Pakistani forces.

Eroding mutual trust, Bangladesh deployed Turkish drones along the long Indo-Bangla border and welcomed a delegation of Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) to institute an intelligence collaboration network. Above all, despite India’s concerns about the safety of Hindus and other Indic minorities, Yunus turned a blind eye to increasing religious attacks.

Bangladesh’s Home Affairs adviser has renewed calls for reviewing ‘unequal and skewed’ agreements made with India during Hasina’s regime.  At the time of writing, the tensions across Indo-Bangladesh have escalated due to increased illegal construction on the Bangladesh side of the border.

Suspension of US funds would make Yunus more reliant on the money flowing from OSF and Soros-backed groups. Expectedly, he would be more compliant to carry out Soros’s anti-India agenda. India can’t afford to disregard Yunus’s ‘muscular posturing’ and the inimical strategies of the Soros ecosystem.