M.K Bhadrakumar: India Turns to China as U.S. Bullying Backfires
Glenn Diesen | August 27, 2025
M. K. Bhadrakumar was an Indian ambassador and diplomat for decades. Ambassador Bhadrakumar discusses Trump’s pressure and threats against India, and how this blunder has pushed India toward China and Russia.
China decouples from US energy as key exports crash to zero
Inside China Business | August 25, 2025
Resources and links:
EU shows ‘outdated worldview’ as von der Leyen uses China, Russia as excuse to defend trade deal with US
By Wang Qi | Global Times | August 25, 2025
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the EU’s trade deal with the US. By invoking Russia and China, she suggested that the failure to strike a deal would have been a gift to Europe’s rivals, according to media reports.
Chinese analysts have observed that von der Leyen’s remarks reveal a tendency among certain European politicians to politicize trade matters. Their emphasis on alliance with the US underscores Europe’s anxiety over American pressure, especially as Washington prioritizes its own interests and fails to treat Europe as an equal partner.
A trade war between the EU and the US would have been “celebrated” by Russia and China, von der Leyen wrote in a guest commentary for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on Sunday, per the Bloomberg report.
“Instead, we agreed on a strong, if not perfect deal,” she added, warning that retaliatory tariffs could fuel a costly trade conflict with “negative consequences for our workers, consumers, and our industry,” Bloomberg reported.
Similarly, von der Leyen wrote in an op-ed for Spain’s El Mundo on Saturday, “Imagine for a moment that the two largest democratic economies had not managed to reach an agreement and instead launched a trade war — only Moscow and Beijing would be celebrating,” the Politico reported.
Von der Leyen’s remarks came after the release of EU-US joint statement on Thursday, which confirmed that the EU will accept tariffs of 15 percent on 70 percent of its exports to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. In return, the bloc will expand market access for US agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market, according to media reports.
Although von der Leyen described the move as a choice for “stability and predictability over escalation and confrontation,” the controversial trade deal with the US has drawn criticism. Former director-general Pascal Lamy has warned the accord risks undermining Europe’s credibility as a defender of rules-based trade, the Politico reported
Cui Hongjian, director and professor of the Center for European Union and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday that von der Leyen’s comments primarily serve to justify her compromises, as the US-EU trade agreement has substantially undermined European interests.
“Ironically, when the US imposes tariffs on Europe, it prioritizes its own interests, clearly not treating Europe as an equal partner,” Cui said, “Yet, Europe is willing to endure losses in its dealings with the US to maintain ongoing cooperation, in order to counter what it perceives as a greater ‘threat’ from non-Western economies, an approach [that] blatantly politicizes trade matters.”
Cui said such actions reveal that some European politicians cling to an outdated worldview, unwilling to face the reality of the US gradually distancing itself from its traditional alliance with Europe. “Their emphasis on the alliance only underscores their anxiety over the losses and economic shocks inflicted by the US, not by China and Russia.”
The South China Morning Post said the Thursday deal did not explicitly mentioned China, however, “veiled references appeared throughout” in terms of AI chips, as EU pledged to purchase $40 billion of AI chips from the US, and that it would adopt US security standards to “avoid technology leakage to destinations of concern.”
According to Cui, China and the EU are scheduled to engage in high-level interactions in the latter half of the year, which requires fostering a constructive atmosphere, adding that China will judge Europe more by its actions than its words.
If Europe takes actions that harm China’s interests, China will undoubtedly respond with countermeasures. However, when EU politicians exploit criticism of China for political gain, it sows discord in China-EU relations and even risks creating conflict, which would in turn affect China’s relationships with individual member states. This is a situation China cannot accept as well, said the expert.
Europe lacks strategy to break snapback ‘deadlock’: Russia envoy
Press TV – August 23, 2025
A senior Russian diplomat says the European troika—Britain, France, and Germany—lack a clear strategy to break the “deadlock” they are poised to create if they follow through on their threat to invoke the “snapback” mechanism against Iran.
Russia’s permanent envoy to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, made the remarks in a post on his X account on Saturday.
He proposed to put aside legal and procedural issues which definitely do not give the E3 the right to trigger the snapback mechanism and to address the issue from a purely political viewpoint.
The Russian diplomat asked whether the trio has an exit strategy and a vision of how to find a way out of the deadlock they are going to create.
“The answers to these questions seem to be negative,” Ulyanov emphasized.
Snapback would bring into force six previous Iran-related Security Council resolutions adopted between 2006 and 2010. It would reinstate the expired UN arms embargo that barred countries from supplying, selling, or transferring most military equipment to Iran and prohibited Tehran from exporting any weapons.
It would also impose export controls, travel bans, asset freezes, and other restrictions on individuals, entities, and banks.
In a Friday phone conversation with the EU high representative for foreign and security policy and his British, French, and German counterparts, whose countries are the European signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that triggering the snapback would have consequences.
The top Iranian negotiator once again emphasized that the European countries lack the legal and moral authority to resort to the mechanism.
China’s mission to the United Nations on Wednesday declared the country’s firm opposition to threats by European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal to activate the snapback mechanism within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
The mission at the UN headquarters in New York distributed an explanatory note to the Security Council, stating that the difficult situation in implementing the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 is not the result of Iran’s actions but the disruption of the JCPOA’s implementation by the United States and the three European countries.
China and Russia’s backing plays a critical role in Iran’s diplomatic efforts to counter the snapback threat. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have veto power over resolutions, including those related to Iran’s nuclear program.
Ukraine ‘doesn’t need’ China – Zelensky
RT | August 21, 2025
Ukraine does not need security guarantees from China because Beijing failed to prevent or stop the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky has said.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, the Ukrainian leader commented on potential security guarantees Kiev could receive from its partners once the hostilities with Russia are over. He noted, however, that he does not want to see China as one of the guarantors upholding peace.
“First, China did not help us stop this war from the very beginning,” Zelensky said, adding that Beijing “did nothing” to prevent the secession of Crimea, which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in a public referendum in 2014. He went on to accuse China of sitting back when the conflict escalated in 2022.
“That is why we do not need guarantors who did not help Ukraine then, when it was truly necessary after February 24 [2022],” he said.
His remarks came after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that Moscow supported robust security guarantees for Ukraine while not ruling out that they could be provided by members of the UN Security Council, including Western countries, as well as China. He stressed, however, that these guarantees should be “equal” and never be aimed against Russia.
China has positioned itself as a neutral party in the Ukraine conflict and has refused to join sanctions against Russia. It has called on both sides to hold peace talks while suggesting that one of the reasons for hostilities has been NATO expansion. In 2023, Beijing released a 12-point memorandum calling for a ceasefire, resumption of peace talks, protection of civilians, nuclear safety, and an end to unilateral sanctions.
Following the summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, in Alaska last week, China said it “supports all efforts conducive to the peaceful resolution of the [Ukraine] crisis,” adding that it “is glad to see Russia and the United States maintaining contact, [and] improving relations.”
China says there’s no justification for JCPOA snapback activation
Press TV – August 20, 2025
China’s mission to the United Nations has declared the country’s firm opposition to threats by European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal to activate the “snapback” mechanism within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
The mission at the UN headquarters in New York distributed an explanatory note to the Security Council, stating that the difficult situation in implementing the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 is not the result of Iran’s actions but the disruption of the JCPOA’s implementation by the United States and the three European countries.
The statement said this cannot be an excuse to restore the anti-Iran sanctions that had been lifted under the 2015 deal.
In the note, China warned that attempts to activate the snapback could have “unpredictable and catastrophic” consequences, destroying all the diplomatic achievements of recent years.
The document said any attempt by some countries to activate the “snapback” without following the legal process would be an abuse of the Security Council’s powers and duties and would be invalid.
The note underscored Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as a member of the NPT, calling on all parties to adhere to dialogue, mutual respect, and finding solutions that address the legitimate concerns of the international community.
China concluded by stating that it will continue to play an active role in the negotiation process and called on the Security Council to, instead of creating obstacles, pave the way for a new and lasting agreement.
As the 2015 nuclear deal nears its official end, Iran is preparing for the removal of confidence-building curbs on its nuclear program.
However, the European signatories have threatened to invoke the “snapback” mechanism, which would restore all UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the deal.
Western media reports indicate that three European nations have agreed to activate the snapback by the end of August if a new nuclear deal is not reached.
This move would disrupt the successful conclusion of the current agreement.
The United States and Iran had been in talks to find a replacement for the 2015 deal, but these negotiations were halted following a surprise US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
In a show of support for Iran, Russia has also publicly opposed Europe’s activation of the snapback, distributing an explanatory note to declare its position.
New Chinese drones scramble naval power in Pacific, and maybe everywhere else
Inside China Business | August 17, 2025
Lin: China opposes invocation of UN Security Council ‘snapback’ sanctions against Iran

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian
Press TV – August 15, 2025
China reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue and opposes the invocation of the UN Security Council’s “snapback” mechanism.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin issued the statement on Friday in response to the European troika’s warning to reimpose sanctions if a diplomatic solution is not achieved by the end of August.
“China stays committed to peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through political and diplomatic means, opposes invoking Security Council ‘snapback’ sanctions,” Lin said.
He argued that reimposing sanctions on Iran would not foster trust or bridge differences among parties and would hinder diplomatic efforts to resume talks promptly.
Lin emphasized that any actions taken by the Security Council should facilitate the achievement of new agreements rather than undermine the negotiation process.
The Chinese diplomat reiterated that China is committed to maintaining an objective and fair stance, continuing to promote conversations aimed at peace, and playing a constructive role in bringing the Iranian nuclear issue back to diplomatic negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
He also highlighted Beijing’s intention to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and to promote peace and stability in the region.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday that the country is actively collaborating with China and Russia to prevent the reactivation of UN sanctions through the so-called “snapback” mechanism.
“We are working with China and Russia to stop it. If this does not work and they apply it, we have tools to respond. We will discuss them in due course,” he added.
The snapback mechanism, embedded in the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allows the automatic reinstatement of UN Security Council sanctions that had been lifted under the agreement. The deal terminates in October.
Iran, however, disputes the legitimacy of the European powers’ efforts to trigger the provision.
In a joint letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the UN Security Council on Wednesday, the European troika — France, Germany and the United Kingdom – said they were “committed to us(ing) all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon” unless Tehran meets a deadline to speak with them.
“We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, the E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism,” the ministers wrote.
In a detailed letter to the UN Security Council last month, Iran laid out its position, asserting that Britain, France, and Germany are no longer legitimate JCPOA participants with the authority to reinstate sanctions through snapback. This position is supported by China and Russia, who share Tehran’s view on the matter.
China and Russia’s backing plays a critical role in Iran’s diplomatic efforts to counter the snapback threat. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have veto power over resolutions, including those related to Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran overcomes heavy US sanctions and war with Israel, takes over key energy export markets
Inside China Business | August 12, 2025
China is a top buyer of Iranian crude, taking 90% of its crude exports. But Iran has recently passed Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar as the top producer and exporter of NG products, bringing in billions more. Ambitious expansions of their petrochemical industry are also ongoing. Iranians report little difficulty in business operations among different currencies, despite the US Treasury Department’s blacklisting of key energy suppliers, and firm control over the SWIFT systems.
Closing scene, Beihai, Guangxi
Resources and links: Iran Defies US Sanctions With Surging Exports of Liquefied Petroleum Gas https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
Bloomberg, Iranian Oil Production Booms Amid the Bombs https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art…
S&P Global, Iran’s petrochemicals defy sanctions as exports, output on the rise https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-in…
Iran announces 15 petrochemical projects to expand domestic production to nearly 80 MMtpy https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com…
Foreign investors disappear from US Treasury auctions, as China borrows at the lowest rates ever
Inside China Business | August 10, 2025
A staggering $11 trillion in US government debt needs to be borrowed or refinanced over the next 12 months.
Treasury Department officials are faced with painful choices, whether to borrow at very high rates, locked in for ten years or longer? Or instead borrow for one year or less, but at massive volumes?
Foreign governments and pension funds are also showing far less interest in absorbing new US government bonds, and are demanding ever-higher yields to compensate for inflation and policy risk.
China’s government, however, can borrow at far below half the rate Washington pays, across all maturities. And Chinese companies are paying the lowest interest rates in their history to access new capital. That represents a long-term structural advantage to Chinese policymakers and industry.
Closing scene, Hong Kong South China Morning Post, China cuts US Treasury holdings for third month amid trade war, debt ceiling fears https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec…
Zerohedge, Yields Spike After Very Ugly, Tailing 30Y Auction Sparks Steepening Fears https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/yie…
ZH, Very Ugly, Tailing 10Y Auction Sees Slide In Foreign Demand, Plunge In Bid To Cover https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ver…
ZH, Ugly, Tailing 3Y Auction Sees Worst Foreign Demand Since 2023 https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ugl…
Managing Risk in the Face of Historic U.S. Debt Refinancing https://www.tradingcentral.com/market…
What Is Happening with Mortgage Interest Rates? https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/wh…
How the Federal Reserve Actually Affects Mortgage Rates https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance…
Wall Street Journal, Trump and Bessent Bring New Style to Managing America’s Debt https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing…
Banking on the Belt and Road: Insights from a new global dataset of 13,427 Chinese development projects https://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/Ban…
China 10-Year Government Bond Yield https://tradingeconomics.com/china/go…
What do falling Chinese yields tell us? https://www.dws.com/insights/cio-view…
X, Corporate borrowing costs in the US have never been lower than China’s today https://x.com/UnHedgedChatter/status/…
The geopolitics of India-US ‘trade war’
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 10, 2025
By slapping tariffs on India and linking them to its ties with Russia, the Trump administration exposed its willingness to strong-arm New Delhi into submission.
Unless India pulls off a dramatic reset with China—and thus reduce its dependence on the US for military support—it will remain caught between appeasing Washington and defending its strategic autonomy.
When the US President announced sweeping 25% tariffs on Indian goods in late July, his tone marked a jarring departure from the warmth once displayed toward New Delhi. Only months earlier, he had welcomed Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Oval Office, hailing him as a “great friend” and celebrating the US-India relationship as a partnership destined for global leadership. Now, with the stroke of a Truth Social post, India is recast not as an ally, but as an economic adversary.
This abrupt reversal speaks volumes. The President’s social media declarations—accusing India of being a “dead economy”—ignored not only diplomatic decorum but economic reality. India is the world’s most populous nation and the fifth-largest economy, a critical player in global markets and geopolitics alike. To dismiss it so flippantly is to misunderstand the arc of global power.
But beyond the bluster lies a deeper provocation. Washington’s veiled threat—imposing additional, unspecified penalties on India over its continued oil trade with Russia—underscores a troubling shift in US foreign policy: coercion in place of collaboration. The implicit bargain offered to New Delhi is clear—cut ties with Moscow, and the US may relent on tariffs and even entertain a trade deal. Refuse and face economic punishment.
Why Trump Wants India to Submit
When Donald Trump referenced oil in the context of US-India relations, it wasn’t his only focus. A quieter, yet strategically significant, concern involved India’s long-standing defense ties with Russia. For decades, New Delhi has been one of Moscow’s most reliable customers in the global arms market. While India’s reliance on Russian military hardware has declined—from 55% of total imports in 2016 to an estimated 36% in 2025—Russia remains India’s top defense supplier.
To the Trump administration, however, this decline is an opening that must be exploited for American gains. A shrinking Russian share in India’s defense market presents the perfect opportunity to push more US-made military systems as replacements. In doing so, Washington hopes to edge out Moscow and deepen strategic ties with New Delhi in the process.
Signs suggest India may already be leaning toward such a transition. According to Indian defense media reports, the Indian Air Force (IAF) recently advised the government to prioritize acquiring US-made F-35 fighter jets instead of the fifth-generation aircraft offered by Russia earlier this year. Until now, India had remained undecided, caught between its historical ties with Russia and its evolving strategic calculus. However, should New Delhi proceed with the F-35 acquisition, it would mark a significant shift—not just symbolically, but financially and strategically. The Indian government reportedly plans to induct over 100 F-35s by 2035, an investment expected to run into billions of dollars, directly boosting the US defense sector. More importantly, such an investment will lock India as a firm US ally. As far as the Trump administration is concerned, this would also lend substance to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda by channeling substantial foreign capital into the American economy.
As far as New Delhi is concerned, inducting F-35s could help bolster its regional standing vis-à-vis China and the latter’s continuous injection of its state-of-the-art defence technology into Pakistan, including its air-force. Indian defence analysts claim that this induction will allow India to avoid any more loses in aerial battles like the ones it suffered in its war with Pakistan in May.
What India Can Do
Yet, New Delhi’s strategic choices are far more complex than they might initially appear. Even if India opts to procure the F-35 fighter jets, it is far from certain that the US would permit their use in an offensive capacity against Pakistan—especially considering Washington’s increasingly cooperative ties with Islamabad. For context, Pakistan itself is restricted from employing its US-supplied F-16s for offensive operations against India. This raises a critical question for Indian policymakers: will a deepening defense relationship with the US genuinely enhance India’s air power posture vis-à-vis Pakistan, its principal adversary in South Asia?
The timing of New Delhi’s public disclosure of the Indian Air Force’s interest in F-35s—just days before a crucial deadline—was no accident. It seemed designed to sway the Trump administration’s position on trade tariffs. But the gambit failed to yield any concrete concessions. The episode underscores a deeper and more troubling question: should India continue to allow the US to exert disproportionate influence over its defense procurement and broader foreign policy?
This incident should prompt serious introspection among Indian policymakers. Rather than leaving its strategic vulnerabilities open to manipulation, India could take steps to insulate its foreign policy from external pressure. One pragmatic approach would be to normalize and even strengthen ties with regional competitors like China—an idea already gaining quiet traction. New Delhi has recently revived visa services with Beijing, and bilateral trade talks are beginning to show signs of momentum.
Interestingly, President Donald Trump’s remarks about “not doing much business with India” were widely interpreted as a thinly veiled reference to India’s growing economic engagement with China. In essence, Washington seeks to mold India’s foreign policy—particularly its relationships with China and Russia—to align more closely with American strategic interests. Should India capitulate to that pressure, it risks downgrading its role from an emerging regional power to a junior partner dependent on Washington for strategic direction.
India’s foreign policy establishment is now at a pivotal juncture. The choices made in the coming years will not just determine the shape of the country’s defense acquisitions or trade policies—they will define India’s role on the world stage for decades to come. If New Delhi is to maintain its claim to strategic autonomy, it must resist the temptation to shape its policies in reaction to US expectations.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
New Delhi between sanctions and sovereignty
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 8, 2025
In a world where the international order is increasingly shaped by the struggle between a declining unipolarity and an emerging multipolarity, sanctions have become the main weapon of a superpower that can no longer dictate the course of global affairs by consensus. What was once an exception — economic punishment against states clearly involved in illegal activities or blatant violations of international norms — has become a systemic, arbitrary, and politically motivated practice. And India is now the latest target of this coercive apparatus that defines the foreign policy of the United States.
The repeated use of sanctions by Washington reveals, above all, the exhaustion of its diplomatic capacity. Instead of building bridges with strategic partners, the U.S. chooses to punish, isolate, and sabotage any country that dares to follow an autonomous path.
Sanctions policy as a mechanism of domination
U.S. unilateral sanctions — almost always imposed outside the UN Security Council and in defiance of international law — have become a systematic policy of intimidation. Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and China have been the most well-known targets. But the list keeps growing. And India, previously seen as a potential Western ally in the Indo-Pacific, is now beginning to feel the weight of this punitive system.
The logic is simple: the U.S. identifies an “unacceptable” behavior — such as India’s refusal to join the sanctions against Russia — and from there constructs a narrative to justify pressure measures. It could be the defense of “human rights,” the “fight against terrorism,” or, as is now being done with India, the “war on drugs.” The content of the narrative is secondary; what matters is the effect: to break the sovereignty of the targeted country and force it to align with Washington’s foreign policy.
India: the new frontier of coercion
In recent days, Donald Trump has announced sanction packages of up to 50% against India, citing the “need” to punish trade partners of the Russian Federation. These coercive measures came after months of open threats toward India — some directly referencing the Indo-Russian partnership, others hiding behind the mask of the “fight against fentanyl.”
Although the recently announced sanctions are explicitly directed at Indo-Russian energy trade, there’s no guarantee that the U.S. will abandon the fentanyl rhetoric altogether. The “drug control” excuse may easily be revived at any moment to impose further sanctions on New Delhi, especially considering that this was Washington’s initial justification before Trump finally admitted the real motive: punishing India for its ties with Russia.
It must be emphasized that what brought India into Washington’s sanction crosshairs was not any real connection to fentanyl trafficking, but rather its strategic resilience in the face of Western efforts to isolate Russia. Since 2022, India has maintained firm energy and military cooperation with Moscow, refusing to take part in the U.S. and EU-led anti-Russian crusade. This pragmatic position — based on Indian national interests rather than ideological dogma — deeply irritated the Washington establishment.
In response, the U.S. began floating the idea that chemical exports from India could be diverted for fentanyl production — a claim made without solid evidence, but politically convenient. In a classic move, they attempt to turn a country with no proven role in fentanyl trafficking into part of the “drug problem,” paving the way for tariffs and trade restrictions.
This is Washington’s new modus operandi: transform internal crises — in this case, the collapse of the U.S. healthcare system and the opioid epidemic — into diplomatic weapons to force other nations to serve its strategic interests.
Rapprochement with Russia and China: India’s geopolitical response
In the face of this escalation, India appears to have understood the game — and is beginning to react astutely. Not only has it maintained and expanded its agreements with Russia, but it has also signaled a renewed openness to dialogue with China, having Prime Minister Modi announced a visit to Beijing.
This is a geopolitically significant move. India and China have long had a tense relationship, especially concerning the Himalayan border. But in the face of a common enemy — the global regime of unilateral sanctions that threatens the sovereignty of both — realism is starting to prevail. India already plays an active role in forums such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the G20, but now signals a willingness to deepen its coordination with both Beijing and Moscow.
This marks the emergence of a “new” strategic triangle in the Global South — not based on ideological affinity, but on a shared need to resist the economic coercion promoted by the West. India is not becoming an automatic ally of China, but rather a situational partner in building a multipolar order, where the right to chart one’s own path is no longer subject to Washington’s approval.
Fragmentation of the global system and alternatives to the dollar
This strategic reconfiguration is happening in parallel with the fragmentation of the global financial system. As more countries begin operating outside the SWIFT system, pursue bilateral trade agreements in local currencies, and strengthen alternative development banks, the power of unilateral sanctions is beginning to erode. India has already signed agreements with Russia, Iran, and the UAE to trade in rupees, bypassing the U.S. dollar. BRICS+, with the potential creation of a common currency, is moving in the same direction.
By abusing sanctions as a tool, Washington is accelerating this process. In its attempt to maintain control, it ends up stimulating the formation of new centers of economic and diplomatic power — exactly the opposite of its intended outcome.
The end of the American consensus
The attempt to punish India over a crisis that is, above all, the result of domestic failure in the U.S., is not only an act of hypocrisy but also a major strategic miscalculation. Instead of isolating India, the U.S. is driving it deeper into multilateral frameworks that challenge Western hegemony.
New Delhi has made it clear it will not be turned into a geopolitical vassal. India is a civilizational power with its own interests and will not hesitate to forge partnerships — even with historical rivals — if it means securing strategic autonomy.
Sanctions, once presented as instruments of international justice, have become the primary mechanism for imposing a failed global order — one that seeks to preserve historical privileges at the expense of national sovereignty. The economic attacks on India over its strategic ties with Russia are just one example of this broader reality.
But a new world is taking shape. A world where countries like India, Russia, and China are building bridges over ruins — converging not out of ideological alignment, but from the urgent need to resist the systemic coercion of a declining empire. National sovereignty, more and more, will be asserted not through submission, but through coordinated resistance to the language of sanctions.
India understands this. And by responding with dignity and pragmatism, it shows that the path to strategic independence necessarily involves rejecting the arbitrary use of sanctions as a weapon of economic warfare. The multipolar world is under construction — and there is no room in it for domination disguised as moralism.
