Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

London Is Still Bent on Influencing India’s Independent Policy Trajectory

By Anvar Azimov – New Eastern Outlook – October 16, 2025

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited India to promote previously reached trade agreements; however, the negotiations have laid bare the extremely limited reach of London’s influence on New Delhi.

During the latest UK-India summit held on October 8-9 in Mumbai, London once again made an unsuccessful bid to affect New Delhi’s course regarding Russia, to secure its support for the Euro-Atlanticists’ plans for settling the Ukrainian conflict and for continuing anti-Russian sanctions policy.

Nevertheless, the two countries managed to make progress in expanding cooperation in trade, investments, defense, and security.

The official visit of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India aimed at cementing the agreements reached during the stay of the head of the Indian government, Narendra Modi, in London this July, and, first and foremost, at signing a far-reaching free trade agreement. The pact would open vast prospects for achieving the ambitious goal set by the parties to increase trade turnover by 2030 from the current $35 billion to $120 billion.

Starmer Urged Modi to Stop Purchasing Russian Oil

Simultaneously, the British guest made another attempt to talk New Delhi into abandoning substantial purchases of Russian energy resources, which currently account for up to 40 percent of India’s oil imports. Furthermore, the trade turnover between India and Russia, taking into account petroleum product supplies, has reached an unprecedented $70 billion, a fact that London and the West as a whole are also seriously apprehensive about. However, despite these British exertions, Prime Minister N. Modi made it clear that this matter is no exception to the rule; hence, here, India would also be guided by its own national and economic interests.

Nor has New Delhi veered from the path of distancing itself from anti-Russian Western sanctions, prioritising, once again, independent national interests. The Ukrainian conflict hasn’t evaded such a fate either, with Starmer failing to pull India completely to his side. While being committed to a peaceful settlement of the situation around Ukraine, India rejects anti-Russian rhetoric on the issue and maintains a measured, balanced stance. Even London’s various assurances of support for New Delhi’s aspirations to gain a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council did not spur India to alter its principled neutral position in the current struggle between the West and Russia.

Success evaded the British leader on this anti-Russian front, but he cancelled out his failure on the track of bilateral relations by means of signing a series of agreements in various fields, including defense, security, technology, trade, and education. Notably, the parties managed to conclude a military deal worth approximately $470 million for the supply of light multipurpose missiles to the Indian army. They also agreed on setting up a regional centre of excellence in maritime security and on developing marine electronic engines for Indian naval ships.

Further progress in trade, economic, and investment areas was also outlined. It is indicative that Starmer was accompanied by a representative delegation from the British business community (over 120 people), including heads of companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange, and British Airways. Within the framework of the joint forum held, the representatives signed commercial contracts.

India Dictates the Terms

All in all, British companies have invested about $40 billion in the Indian economy, and New Delhi traditionally remains one of London’s key trade and investment partners. And what further contributes to such a situation is the signed free trade agreement, which added up to a significant reduction in tariffs on a wide range of goods, and expanded market access for companies and Indian labour migrants.

In a nutshell, the latest meeting of the two countries’ leaders concluded with new agreements on enhancing multifaceted cooperation and increasing trade turnover to $120 billion by 2030. At the same time, Starmer was clearly frustrated that even his attempts to prompt India to weaken its ties with Russia ended up a failure, which once again confirms New Delhi’s determination to stick to its own guns on its foreign policy, providing for the development of partnerships with both the West and the East and drawing on the national interests of this major, now global, power.

Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Research Fellow at Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025

The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.

But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”

The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”

A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.

A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.

According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.

As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.

However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.

Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.

“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.

The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.

According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.

Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.

Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.

Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”

Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.

According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.

Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’

The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.

According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.

Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.

Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.

However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.

“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”

Bruner told The Defender :

“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.

“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”

Hinchliffe said:

“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”

Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.

The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.

According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”

Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.

“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”

Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’

London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.

“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.

“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”

Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.

According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:

“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”

Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.

U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.

Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.

“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”

The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.

Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy

In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.

According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.

Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.

Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”

“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.

In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.

In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.

According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.

In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.

The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”

Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.

The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.

“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.

Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?

Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.

In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.

Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.

Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”

Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.

Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.

“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian oil keeps flowing despite US pressure – Bloomberg

RT | September 30, 2025

Russia’s seaborne crude exports have remained near a 16-month high over the past four weeks, showing little impact from US President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure global buyers into halting imports from Moscow, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

According to vessel-tracking data through Saturday compiled by the outlet, average daily shipments held steady at 3.62 million barrels, matching the highest level since May 2024. The continued flow comes despite targeted US efforts to persuade countries to curb imports.

Trump has pressured the EU, India, and China to stop purchasing Russian oil, describing the move as an effort to advance a potential Ukraine peace settlement. Moscow has criticized Washington’s strong-arm tactics, saying that sovereign nations have the right to choose their trade partners.

New Delhi’s continued purchases of Russian oil have in particular drawn the ire of the US. In August, Washington imposed 25% punitive tariffs on India on top of the earlier 25% tariff imposed after the two countries failed to reach a trade deal. India has refused to scale back imports from Russia and described Washington’s policy as economic coercion.

China has taken an even firmer stance, with its Ministry of Commerce reaffirming intentions to deepen energy cooperation with Russia. The ministry says Beijing will defend its interests as the US pushes G7 nations to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.

European buyers are also resisting. Hungary and Slovakia, which are both reliant on pipeline shipments, have cited economic and logistical obstacles to ending Russian oil imports. Turkish imports have remained steady as well, averaging around 300,000 barrels per day.

Meanwhile, the redirection of oil from Russian refineries damaged by Ukrainian drone strikes may be contributing to the continued export volumes, according to Bloomberg. Export terminal capacity, however, could become a limiting factor if strikes intensify, the outlet adds.

In the most recent week, 36 tankers carried 26.75 million barrels of Russian crude, a rise from the previous week’s 23.69 million, Bloomberg data shows. The total value of exports in the week to September 28 rose by $240 million to $1.57 billion.

October 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why the US has sanctioned the Chabahar Port in Iran

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 27, 2025

US sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port may look like just another chapter in Washington’s “maximum pressure” playbook, but they are far more ambitious and dangerous.

The move simultaneously aims to discipline India, ratchet up economic warfare against Tehran, and force Afghanistan into a position where ceding Bagram airbase seems unavoidable. In pursuing all three goals at once, the US may be setting the stage for strategic overreach.

US axe falls on Chabahar

On September 16, the US announced that it was reimposing sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port that it co-developed with India. Revoking “the sanctions exception issued in 2018 under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) for Afghanistan reconstruction assistance and economic development,” the announcement further said that any “persons who operate the Chabahar Port or engage in other activities described in IFCA may expose themselves to sanctions under IFCA”.

The reference to any “persons” operating the port is to India, which has invested millions of dollars in the port in the last few years. India began to develop this port in a certain geopolitical context. Back then, New Delhi, supported by Washington, used this port to counter China’s Gwadar port in Pakistan. Accordingly, the US granted this port an exemption from sanctions. That exemption has now been taken away. Another imperative at that time was to allow India to use the port to provide supplies to Kabul to support the Karzai and Ghani administrations. Bypassing Pakistan—which Washington understood was supporting the Taliban—the US co-opted India to support the US-backed civilian regime. That geopolitical context, as it stands, no longer exists. The US no longer needs to support avenues to support the regime in Kabul that is no longer a Washington ally. In fact, Washington now prefers using the Chabahar Port issue to equally punish Kabul.

The Geopolitics of Sanctions

By sanctioning Iran’s Chabahar Port, Washington is pursuing more than just another chapter in its “maximum pressure” campaign. It has three critical objectives in mind, the first of which is to punish India. The Trump administration’s ongoing trade war with New Delhi has already seen tariffs climb as high as 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US, dramatically undercutting India’s competitiveness. The withdrawal of the 2018 sanctions waiver on Chabahar effectively expands this economic conflict into the strategic realm. Not only are Indian goods 50 per cent more expensive in the US market, but now Indian exports to Central Asia through Chabahar are threatened by US sanctions as well. The message is blunt: New Delhi cannot expect privileged access to either American markets or regional transit corridors if it resists Washington’s terms.

Yet the dispute is not only about tariffs or trade balances. Chabahar has long symbolised a broader geopolitical opening—an India–Iran–Afghanistan transport corridor that could eventually link New Delhi to Russian and Central Asian energy markets. For India, the project promises a vital alternative to reliance on Persian Gulf suppliers or US-aligned routes. For Washington, this is precisely the problem. By crippling Chabahar, the US seeks to stymie the emergence of an energy corridor outside its sphere of influence and to foreclose India’s access to Iranian and Russian hydrocarbons. The ultimate goal is not simply to weaken Tehran but to pressure India into diverting its purchases toward US liquefied natural gas and crude exports.

The sanctions also reflect a deliberate attempt to recalibrate India’s relationship with Iran. If New Delhi is forced to retreat from Chabahar, Washington calculates, Iran’s isolation will deepen. The State Department’s September 16 statement left little ambiguity, identifying the “networks” that generate “millions for the Iranian military” as key targets of the new restrictions. Chabahar, as Iran’s flagship connectivity project with India and Afghanistan, sits squarely within those crosshairs. Unsurprisingly, the port will dominate the agenda when Ali Larijani, Tehran’s national security adviser and one of the most influential figures in the Iranian establishment, arrives in Delhi in the coming weeks.

The third objective at play is Afghanistan. In recent months, President Trump has openly pressed Kabul to hand back the Bagram airbase to American control, a demand the Taliban leadership has flatly rejected. For the Taliban, acquiescence would be politically ruinous, signaling subservience to the very power they fought for two decades to expel. By sanctioning Chabahar, Washington is attempting to narrow Afghanistan’s options, undermining its role as a vital overland bridge that could connect India and other South Asian states—excluding Pakistan—to Central Asian markets. This is not a trivial calculation. With relations between Kabul and Islamabad deteriorating, the Taliban regime has been cautiously exploring new partnerships in the region, and India has emerged as an obvious candidate. Earlier this year, the Taliban went so far as to call India a “significant regional partner.” Washington’s sanctions strategy is designed precisely to choke this opening, shrinking the diplomatic and economic space available to Kabul as it manoeuvres for new allies.

The US risks a massive backfire

Yet Washington’s gambit carries the risk of a serious backlash. Kabul has little incentive to heed American preferences, particularly after the Biden administration’s refusal to release Afghanistan’s frozen financial assets. The Taliban leadership, already charting its course independently, is unlikely to view US sanctions as anything more than another act of hostility. More consequential, however, is the potential fallout with India. By undermining New Delhi’s flagship connectivity project, Washington risks inflicting lasting damage on a relationship it has spent years cultivating. Alienated, India may lean more heavily on alternative partnerships with Russia and even China, eroding the very strategic alignment the US has sought to build through the Indo-Pacific framework. And if New Delhi ultimately withdraws from Chabahar under sanctions pressure, Washington may not secure the energy dominance it envisions. Instead, the vacuum could invite Beijing to step in, transforming Chabahar into a Chinese-controlled gateway for Central Asian energy, a scenario that would decisively undercut American aims.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | 1 Comment

West’s grip slips with Saudi–Pakistan security deal

Riyadh’s pact with Islamabad redraws alliances, weakens Indian leverage, and hints at a new Muslim deterrence framework beyond western control.

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | September 23, 2025

On 17 September, Riyadh rolled out the rare royal purple carpet for Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – an honor previously reserved for global power players like US President Donald Trump.

Accompanying him on the trip was Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. His presence highlighted that Riyadh values its defense pact with a nuclear power that, despite economic challenges, remains militarily strong.

Nuclear umbrella over Riyadh

The centerpiece of their visit was the signing of a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” (SMDA), which declares that an attack on either country will be considered an attack on both.

Described by a senior Saudi official to Reuters as covering “all military means,” the pact has triggered speculation that it includes a nuclear umbrella, which would be a game-changing development in the military balance of West Asia.

With 81 percent of Pakistan’s weapon imports coming from China, the agreement implicitly aligns Saudi Arabia with the Chinese military-industrial orbit, whether by design or default. The kingdom has long been reliant on US arms, training, and security guarantees.

The pact was signed just two days after an extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was called, following the 9 September Israeli airstrikes on Qatar – a major non-NATO ally and Gulf neighbor – with no substantial response from Washington, reinforcing perceptions that western security commitments are both selective and expendable.

Mushahid Hussain Syed, a former information minister and chairman of Pakistan’s Senate Defense Committee, tells The Cradle that the US has pivoted away from Arab allies toward Tel Aviv, leaving the region disillusioned and increasingly leaning toward alternatives.

“The strategy of ‘Greater Israel,’ spearheaded by Netanyahu, has involved military actions against five more Muslim nations. Pakistan’s recent triumph against India has demonstrated its capacity to contest Israel’s significant ally, India, and establish itself as a strategic alternative for Gulf nations.”

Toward an Islamic NATO?

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani recently called for an Islamic military alliance, akin to NATO, in response to Israel’s airstrike on Doha. His proposal echoed Egypt’s earlier attempt to revive a joint Arab defense force under the 1950 treaty – an initiative blocked by Qatar and the UAE, reportedly under US pressure.

A similar proposal has also come from Islamabad when Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, urged Muslim countries to band together in a NATO-like military alliance in light of the Israeli aggression in Doha.

During an appearance on Geo TV last week, Asif drove home the point that a united Muslim military front is essential to tackle common security issues and fend off outside dangers. Asif invoked the wider role of the west in instigating instability in West Asia, emphasizing the intricate network of US support for Al-Qaeda and the CIA’s covert actions that led to Osama bin Laden’s relocation to Sudan or the regime change war in Syria.

Is nuclear deterrence a part of the Pact?

The nuclear dimension of the Riyadh–Islamabad pact remains opaque, but highly significant. While no official statement from either side confirms the presence of a nuclear component, Asif hinted that Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could be shared with Saudi Arabia as part of the agreement.

Syed, however, clarifies to The Cradle that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-centric and that its deterrence posture is South Asia-specific and does not extend to the Persian Gulf.

“A novel security framework for the region appears to be taking shape, focusing on Global South nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whereas the Indo-Israeli Axis, previously supported by the US, now finds itself significantly diminished.”

The defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he says, represents a notable achievement for Pakistan, establishing it as a pivotal entity within the geopolitical framework of West Asia, particularly among Muslim countries.

“The agreement is shaped by three significant elements: the perceived neglect of Arab allies by the United States, Israel’s proactive maneuvers in areas such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and Pakistan’s recent triumph over India in May.”

New Delhi, Tel Aviv on alert

Foreign media and analysts are already warning that the pact may have unintended consequences for India and Israel, despite claims that it targets neither. Others predict that this pact is really about Riyadh’s ambitions to counter Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in the region.

Dr Abdul Rauf Iqbal, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at Islamabad’s National Defence University (NDU), tells The Cradle that New Delhi views the pact with unease as it formalizes Saudi–Pakistani security ties that could entangle Riyadh in South Asian rivalries, especially the India–Pakistan border tensions over Jammu and Kashmir:

“It represents a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, potentially leading to Saudi involvement in a prospective Indo–Pak conflict. Furthermore, future Saudi investments in Pakistan’s Gwadar port and economic corridors would challenge India’s regional influence and initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC).”

He adds that Saudi Arabia’s pivot toward Pakistan reflects a broader alignment of Muslim powers and could push Tel Aviv to recalibrate its war on Gaza. It also pressures Tel Aviv by placing Pakistan – a vocal opponent of Israeli expansionism – into West Asian affairs.

“This agreement is not meant to counterbalance Iran’s regional influence, but rather to promote the Saudi Iranian reconciliation, as Pakistan maintains friendly relations with both nations. By formalizing ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh secures a credible deterrent as US security guarantees weaken. While western think tanks view it as an effort to contain Iran, the Arab world emphasizes it as strengthening Gulf deterrence independently of Washington.”

Indian concerns also stem from fears that the pact’s NATO-style clause could complicate ongoing operations like Sindoor, which remains active in a limited capacity following the skirmish between the two nuclear powers in May, especially given that the Gulf states’ swift mediation to resolve the crisis reflects their own interests with India and makes any military action against it unlikely.

Secondly, India is strategically analyzing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which could see a boost if Saudi Arabia, having no such capacity, begins channeling funds to share Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

A post-western Gulf order?

While Tel Aviv and New Delhi remain publicly silent, both capitals are undoubtedly scrutinizing the fallout. Israel’s failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and India’s pressure campaign along the Line of Control, suggest that the axis is nervous about the consequences of a Saudi–Pakistani alliance. Israeli media downplayed the Saudi–Pakistan defense deal, seeing it as a show of force after Riyadh failed to influence Trump or West Asian policy.

As Syed notes, “The traditional ‘Oil for Security’ framework, which once defined US relations with the Middle East [West Asia], now serves as a remnant of a bygone era. As Saudi economic power increasingly reinforces China’s backing of Pakistan, India may feel vulnerable and isolated.”

Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst with a focus on Pakistan and Balochistan, tells The Cradle that this development holds particular significance for India. New Delhi, he argues, has sustained robust economic and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for many years, and the influx of Saudi investments in India continues to expand:

“India will be meticulously observing the progression of this agreement, particularly given that its specific terms are not publicly available. Any alteration in the regional security equilibrium may influence India’s strategic assessments, energy security, and diplomatic relations.”

As Washington’s selective security guarantees falter and Israel escalates unchecked, Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are looking eastward for credible deterrents and strategic autonomy.

By aligning with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh is asserting greater independence from the western military order. It also signals the emergence of a multipolar Persian Gulf security architecture –one increasingly shaped by Global South coordination, not western diktats.

September 23, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan says ‘door open’ for more Arab states to join mutual-defense pact

The Cradle | September 20, 2025

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on 18 September that “the doors are not closed” for other Arab states to join the new defense pact signed with Saudi Arabia.

Asif emphasized that there was no clause preventing Pakistan from extending similar arrangements to other nations.

The agreement was signed in Riyadh by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) during Sharif’s day-long visit, and declares that aggression against one country will be considered aggression against both.

A joint statement said the deal “reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieve security and peace in the region and the world.”

Asif also confirmed that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is included within the framework of the pact, describing it as a joint shield that leaves “no doubt” either side would respond if attacked.

“What we have, our capabilities, will absolutely be available under this pact,” Asif told Pakistani broadcaster Geo News.

He stressed that Pakistan had always placed its nuclear facilities under inspection and had “never committed any violation.”

“This agreement will not be a hegemonic arrangement but a defensive arrangement,” Asif emphasized.

“We don’t have any plans to conquer territory or attack anyone. But our fundamental right can’t be denied to us and we exercised that yesterday,” he added.

The minister drew comparisons with NATO, saying Muslim states had the same right to collective defense. “I think it is a fundamental right of the countries and people here, particularly the Muslim population, to together defend their region, countries, and nations.”

Pakistan has long stationed troops and air force units in Saudi Arabia, training Saudi forces and providing advisory support.

“I think that relationship has been more defined now and that understanding has been given the form of a defense agreement,” Asif explained.

Pakistani External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India would assess the implications for its national security, adding that the government remained committed to “ensuring comprehensive national security in all domains.”

Asif also tied the pact to Pakistan’s longstanding role in protecting Islamic holy sites in the kingdom, describing it as a “sacred duty.”

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Cranks Up Pressure on India for Refusing to Kneel

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – September 19, 2025

The US has announced it will withdraw the sanctions waiver granted for Iran’s Chabahar Port, which is being developed by India. The port holds strategic importance for both Tehran and New Delhi. Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi explains the move.

The US is pursuing two objectives by imposing sanctions related to India’s involvement in Chabahar Port, Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi tells Sputnik.

  • First, it seeks to cut off the North-South Transport Corridor and break the link between India and Russia that goes through Iran.
  • Second, it cannot reconcile with the fact that Indian PM Narendra Modi didn’t cave in despite tariffs and is now raising the stakes.

“They are trying to force the Indian government to do as they wish. And this is part of that process.”

The US’ intimidation of Russia, Iran, and India is pushing them to unite on solutions beyond US control, according to Marandi.

“They create an incentive for countries to work together and exclude the United States. It is US policy that has effectively made BRICS what it is today. It is US policy that has made the Shanghai Cooperation Organization what it is today. It is their behavior, their lawless behavior, using sanctions as a weapon, using tariffs as a weapon, using financial institutions and the US dollar as a weapon.”

The US wants full control, and they see the Global South on the rise, and they increasingly become irritated, and they behave increasingly irrational in order to preserve that control, according to the pundit.

So what’s the smart play for Russia, Iran, and India now? “To speed in the process of developing the North-South Transport Corridor and developing the Chabahar Port,” Marandi believes.

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

US withdraws waiver for Iran’s Chabahar port, hitting India’s investment

Press TV – September 19, 2025

The United States has revoked the sanctions waiver for Iran’s Chabahar port, threatening India’s multi-million-dollar investment in the strategic project amid straining ties between Washington and New Delhi.

The White House announced on Thursday that the exemption, in place since 2018, will end on September 29.

The waiver had allowed India to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar, seen as a key gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. With its withdrawal, entities involved in the project may now face penalties.

US State Department spokesperson Thomas Pigott said the decision was consistent with the Trump administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” policy. He said that the revocation means any person or company engaged in the port’s operation could be exposed to sanctions.

Located in Chabahar, the port gives India access to Afghanistan and beyond, while also feeding into larger connectivity schemes such as the International North-South Transport Corridor.

India has already provided equipment worth $25 million, shipped food supplies through the port, and, in May 2024, signed a 10-year agreement to operate it. Under that deal, India pledged $120 million in investment and offered an additional $250 million credit line for infrastructure upgrades.

The waiver was originally granted in recognition of the port’s importance for stabilizing Afghanistan and facilitating humanitarian shipments.

Iran, meanwhile, has long slammed Washington’s reliance on sanctions. Officials in Tehran describe the approach as an “addiction” that has persisted since the 1979 revolution, with various Iranian entities repeatedly targeted under shifting pretexts.

Meanwhile, the sanction comes as tensions between New Delhi and Washington have already been rising under the Trump administration. Earlier this year, the White House imposed 50 percent tariffs on Indian goods, doubling an earlier rate.

Trump justified the move by accusing India of indirectly financing Russia’s war in Ukraine through oil purchases. The tariffs, which came into force in August, now cover most Indian exports to the US.

The measures hit at a time when bilateral trade stood at more than $87 billion, making India one of America’s largest partners. Experts warn the duties could shrink India’s exports to the US to nearly half within two years.

New Delhi has condemned the tariffs as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” and signaled a stronger tilt toward Moscow and Beijing.

September 19, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Gaza Inc: Where genocide is battle-tested and market-ready

A scalable model of industrial genocide sold to allies across the globe

By Aymun Moosavi | The Cradle | September 12, 2025

The Israeli occupation state has turned its war on Palestinians into a privatized killing industry. Gaza is where tech firms, mercenaries, and consultancy giants orchestrate surveillance, displacement, and mass death for profit. Apart from being colonial warfare, it is also a prototype for the global export of industrial-scale extermination, repackaged as security innovation. Data-driven and profit-focused, this model, being tested on Palestinians today, will be deployed elsewhere tomorrow. A growing list of private firms now operate as the invisible hand of genocide. Their services range from identifying targets for airstrikes to engineering famine and facilitating mass displacement.

Gaza is where genocide meets capitalism

Since the early 2000s, private military companies (PMCs) have wedged themselves deeply into the economy of war. Firms like Blackwater (now Academi) and Dyncorp International marked a pivotal shift, stepping into roles traditionally held by national militaries.

Initially focused on security and logistics in Iraq and Afghanistan, these companies have expanded their operations, providing combat support and acting as key players in warzones worldwide, including in parts of Africa, Yemen, and Haiti. The irony is evident: The UAE has become a new hub for these private military companies, which find refuge in the Gulf state, where mercenaries receive special privileges from local authorities.

Private companies evolved from distant contractors to active agents of war, operating with impunity. This laid the groundwork for the current model, where non-military personnel influence political outcomes without limits or regulation. Another layer of support comes from private nonprofits. A recent Drop Site News report reveals how US organizations like American Friends of Judea and Samaria (AFJS) and Friends of Israel leverage their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to funnel donations directly to Israeli military operations and settlements. These groups supply equipment such as thermal drones, helmets, vests, and first aid kits to units like the 646 Paratrooper Brigade, even inside Gaza. Beyond logistics, they back settlement projects, lobby for the annexation of the occupied West Bank, run educational campaigns promoting Israeli sovereignty, and support military efforts in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) broadened the scope of acceptable actors of war, opening new, lucrative opportunities in surveillance and intelligence gathering. Israel has embraced this model but applied it with chilling precision. Its elite Unit 8200, the digital brain of the occupation state, has fused military surveillance with corporate tech to create the world’s first AI-assisted genocide. Tools like Lavender and The Gospel now scan Palestinian communications, using dialect recognition and metadata to auto-generate kill lists.

These tools, primarily focused on Arabic dialects, were designed to monitor Palestinians and other Arabic-speaking populations. Companies like Palantir, Google, Meta, and Microsoft Azure have reportedly facilitated these projects, assisting in the development of Lavender and other surveillance systems. Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, invest in global surveillance tech firms that fuel the machinery of genocide.

With AI systems deciding who lives and dies, the line between military command and corporate algorithm has all but vanished. The very infrastructure of Israel’s occupation, from surveillance to assassination, has been outsourced, streamlined, and sold.

From battle-tested weapons to algorithmic apartheid

Israel’s economy is built on militarized capitalism. Its $14.8 billion in weapons sales this year alone are propped up by a marketing line as cynical as it is effective: “battle-tested” on Palestinians. A prime example is Smartshooter’s weaponry, an Israeli firm, being stocked by the UK military since June 2023 in a £4.6-million ($5.7 million) deal. Smartshooter’s technology has been used by the occupation army’s elite Maglan Unit and Golani Brigade during the assault on Gaza.

Journalist Antony Loewenstein was quoted by Declassified as saying:

“Smartshooter is just one of many Israeli companies testing equipment on occupied Palestinians. It’s a highly profitable business and the slaughter in Gaza isn’t slowing down the trade. If anything, it’s increasing due to many nations attracted to the Israeli model of subjugation and control.”

Today, Israel’s arms and tech sectors are indistinguishable. Surveillance software, AI-driven kill lists, and automated targeting systems are packaged alongside rifles and drones. Warfare has become a sandbox for tech innovation, turning Gaza into a lab where privatized genocide is perfected. This fusion has allowed Tel Aviv to industrialize its occupation, creating a modular system of subjugation that can be exported globally. What began as the militarization of tech has become something far more dangerous: the technologization of genocide.

McGenocide 

Israel’s model for genocide has international buyers. A recent headline in Haaretz, “Why the future of Israeli defense lies in India,” highlighted the mutual benefits of the Israel–India defense partnership. For Tel Aviv, it reduces reliance on the west, while India gains some strategic leverage in West Asia. Between 2001 and 2021, India imported $4.2 billion worth of Israeli defense technology, including advanced drones and military components.

More recently, Europe became Israel’s biggest arms purchaser, making up to 54 percent of total exports in 2024. In the wake of Brexit and the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump’s administration, Britain, in particular, has strengthened its defense coordination with Israel in an attempt to reposition itself as a key, relevant player in a multipolar order. Reports indicate London is preparing a $2.69-billion deal with Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, to train 60,000 British soldiers annually.

This relationship deepened earlier this year when it was revealed that a British military academy was training occupation army soldiers, many of whom have been implicated in war crimes during the Gaza and Lebanon conflicts. That same Elbit provides 85 percent of the occupation army’s drones and has been repeatedly targeted by the proscribed Palestine Action for its direct role in war crimes. London has not only shielded the company but also ramped up joint operations.

Britain also produces 15 percent of all F-35 fighter jet components. These jets have been used relentlessly in the Gaza genocide, yet their manufacture continues, upheld by British courts despite protests. Far from neutrality, Britain is a stakeholder in Tel Aviv’s genocidal infrastructure. The arms industry has now become a global business, intertwining defense, technology, and systemic oppression. Israel’s model for genocide, which profits directly from this intersection, has spread beyond its borders, with international partners complicit in its success.

Weaponizing aid, redesigning Gaza

Private contractors are now embedded in every layer of Israel’s war machine, including its cynical manipulation of humanitarian aid. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), allegedly set up to facilitate aid, has been exposed for colluding with occupation forces, storing intelligence, and deploying private security firms with zero humanitarian credentials. The role of private companies extends far beyond distant surveillance assistance, infiltrating the mechanisms of humanitarian aid. The GHF has repeatedly come under fire for violating the core principles of aid delivery, such as impartiality and independence. It has been found to fire into crowds, store intelligence, and collaborate with Israeli authorities, while outsourcing private security firms like Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) and UG Solutions (UGS), two private security firms led by personnel with no humanitarian expertise. UGS has recently been exposed as having recruited members of a notorious anti-Islam biker gang from the US. In total, 2,465 Palestinians have been killed and over 17,948 injured while waiting for humanitarian aid in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

The key issue lies in the fact that private companies are not bound by the same ethical standards as traditional humanitarian organisations. This lack of regulation enables them to function as extensions of the occupation, advancing Israel’s goals under the guise of aid with little to no accountability. Privatized aid is therefore not a secondary detail, but a central component of Israel’s genocide model, which transforms humanitarian aid to another tool of occupation.

Scorching the Earth 

US President Donald Trump’s ‘Gaza Riviera’ plan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of mass expulsion both hinge on a complete reimagining of Gaza. Trump’s post-war plan requires a population willing to turn into subjects of an economic hub, while Netanyahu envisions a land cleansed of Palestinians, on which he can erect new illegal settlements. Unlike the imperial model, the genocide model requires the cleansing of a population, as it is easier – and more efficient – to eliminate a population than to make it servile. This makes the privatization of a post-war Gaza not just an option, but a necessity.

According to the Financial Times (FT), Boston Consulting Group (BCG), the US consultancy partly responsible for the establishment of GHF, was reportedly tasked with estimating the cost of Gazan relocation as part of a wider post-war reconstruction plan. Reports also point to the greater reliance on US mercenaries to manage the post-war environment and control the movement of arms, showing how both the imperial model and Israel’s genocide model rely on each other to sustain themselves.

Humanitarian aid has been instrumental in realizing this vision. The four ‘aid distribution’ sites, described by the UN officials as “death traps,” have become militarized zones, driving Palestinians into even smaller enclaves in southern Gaza, directly contributing to Israel’s displacement objective. This is not the future of war. It is the present. And it is being built, tested, and sold in Gaza.

September 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

India defies US pressure, doubles down on Russian oil purchases

The Cradle | September 5, 2025

Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated on 5 September that New Delhi will continue importing Russian oil, in defiance of US tariffs and repeated demands from President Donald Trump to halt these purchases.

“Where do we buy our oil from, especially since it’s a very expensive commodity, we pay a very high price for it and it’s the highest import, so we’ll have to decide what suits us best,” Sitharaman told News18 TV. “We will definitely buy it,” she stressed.

According to Bloomberg, her remarks indicate that New Delhi views the energy issue as a purely economic decision, with purchases of Russian crude to continue as long as they benefit the country financially.

Earlier in the day, industry sources told Reuters that Indian Oil Corporation, the country’s largest refiner, excluded US crude from its latest tender. Instead, it purchased two million barrels of West African oil and one million barrels from West Asia.

In the past months, Trump has escalated his trade war with New Delhi, raising tariffs on Indian imports from an initial 25 percent in August to 50 percent the same month, after accusing India of bankrolling Moscow through energy purchases.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that India “buys most of its oil and military products from Russia, very little from the U.S.” He added that New Delhi had offered to cut its tariffs “to nothing, but it’s getting late.”

India rejected accusations of war profiteering, highlighting the hypocrisy of the US and EU, both of which continue commercial exchanges with Russia.

Russian oil accounted for 38 percent of India’s imports in 2023 and 2024, and remains at 36 percent in 2025. In 2024 alone, New Delhi spent more than $47 billion on Russian crude, making it the largest buyer of Moscow’s seaborne oil.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | 1 Comment

India disavows ‘Tianjin spirit’, turns to EU

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | September 5, 2025 

India found itself in an uncomfortable situation like a cat on a hot roof at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation event in Tianjin, China, with the Western media hyping up its unlikely role in a troika with Russia and China to chariot the world order toward a brave new era of multipolarity. 

The plain truth is, the real obsession of the Western media was to vilify the US President Donald Trump for having “lost” India by caricaturing a three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing partnership as an attempt to conspire against the United States. The target was Trump’s insecure ego, and the intention to call out his punitive trade tariffs that caused mayhem in the US-Indian relationship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi savoured momentarily in Tianjin the role of a key player at the high table, which plays well before his domestic audience of hardcore nationalists, but a confrontation with the US was the last thing on his mind.

In Tianjin, Modi took a hour-long limo ride in Putin’s custom-made armoured vehicle that created a misperception that the two strongmen were up to something really sinister big. The extravagant display of “Russia collusion” Modi could have done without. 

To be fair to Putin, he later made ample amends (after Modi returned to Delhi) to make sure Trump was not put out. In front of camera, when asked about an acerbic aside by Trump in a Truth Social post on September 3 wondering whether Putin was “conspiring against the United States of America,” Putin gave this extraordinary explanation: 

“The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.

“I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration.

“Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony. 

“Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.” 

Modi has something to learn from Putin. But instead, no sooner than Modi returned to Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had lined up the most hawkish anti-Russia gang of European politicians to consort with in an ostentatious display of distancing from the Russia-India-China troika. 

In the entire collective West, there is no country today to beat Germany in its hostility toward Russia. All the pent-up hatred toward Russia for inflicting the crushing defeat on Nazi Germany that has been lying dormant for decades in the German subconscious has welled up in the most recent years. 

The German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said Putin “might be one of the worst war criminals of our era. That is now plain to see. We must be clear on how to deal with war criminals. There is no room for leniency.” 

Merz whose family was associated with Hitler’s Nazi party, has been repeatedly flagging that a war between Germany and Russia is inevitable. He is threatening to hand over long-range Taurus missiles to the Ukrainian military to hit deep inside Russia. 

But all this anti-Russian record of Germany didn’t deter Jaishankar from inviting Merz’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul to come to India on a 3-day visit on Monday. Wadephul seized the opportunity to rubbish both Russia and China. He was particularly harsh on China during his joint press conference with Jaishankar. 

Wadephul said in Jaishankar’s presence, “We agree with India and many other countries that we need to defend the international rules-based order, and that we also have to defend it against China. At least that is our clear analysis… But we also see China as a systemic rival. We don’t want that rivalry. We increasingly note that the number of areas is increasing where China has chosen this approach.” 

Wadephul flouted protocol norms and violated diplomatic decorum by making such harsh remarks from Indian soil so soon after Modi and Xi decided to stop viewing each other as adversaries and instead work in partnership. But Jaishankar didn’t seem to mind and Modi received the outspoken German diplomat. 

The sequence of events suggest that Delhi is in panic that Modi went overboard in Tianjin. Trump’s close aide Peter Navarro actually used a crude metaphor that Modi “got into bed” with Putin and Xi in Tianjin. Apparently, the poisoned arrow went home. 

Meanwhile, Trump continues to pile pressure on Modi to terminate oil trade with Russia and has threatened that a third and fourth tranche of secondary level tariffs could be expected. He is also putting pressure on the European Union to move in tandem to bring India down on its knees. 

Possibly, Wadephul carried some message from Brussels. At any rate, after receiving Wadephul, Modi made a joint call with the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday to emphasise his government’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict. 

Jaishankar himself called his Ukrainian counterpart Andrii Sybih also to discuss “our bilateral cooperation as well as the Ukraine conflict.” 

Dumping the “Tianjin spirit” so soon is a huge loss of face for India. But the blowback from the West unnerves the government. The point is, the future is still being written. The Global South whose mantle of leadership India claims is also watching. Governments in Asia, Europe and elsewhere still have choices to make, and those will be shaped by India’s actions as much as China’s. 

Why is India’s diplomacy so clumsy-footed? In medical parlance, such clumsiness and foot drop could actually be a nerve condition. So it could be in the practice of strategic autonomy where nerves of steel are required. The Modi government freely interprets national interests to suit the exigencies of politics. And it takes ambivalent attitudes without conviction or due deliberation that are unsustainable over a period of time. 

The Indian policymakers do not seem to have the foggiest idea where exactly the country’s long-term interests lie at the present  juncture when an epochal transition is under way in the world order, as five centuries of western hegemony are drawing to a close. The great lesson of history for us is that resolve brings peace and order, and vacillation invites chaos and conflict.

September 5, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shifting Sands of Asian Geopolitics

By Pranay Kumar Shome – New Eastern Outlook – August 31, 2025

The rapprochement between India and China represents a significant reset in the geopolitics of Asia.

Change is the explicit rule of human nature. Changes affect every aspect of human societies, it shapes our ideas, beliefs and perceptions of how one looks at the world. Change is an integral part of politics as well, particularly global politics. While the prospect of radical change in the strategic perceptions of two state actors may not take place quickly, what, however, happens is that the concerned state actors reach a sort of understanding to pursue their shared interests by setting aside differences and work on improving bilateral ties.

This is exactly what is happening between India and China. China and India, the world’s second and fourth largest economies and in possession of some of the world’s strongest armed forces backed by formidable nuclear arsenals have had an interesting relationship since the 1950s.

The bilateral relationship underwent a rough patch when Indian and Chinese troops clashed along the LAC or Line of Actual Control in the Pangong Lake in eastern Ladakh in June 2020. The clash resulted in a number of troop casualties on both sides. The incident led to a precipitously decline in ties with New Delhi undertaking a slew of steps to protect its national interests and China retaliating in kind.

In addition to that, the situation along the border was tense with New Delhi and Beijing amassing more than 50,000 troops on both sides backed by artillery and other military assets. It seemed that India’s ties with China were back to the phase of the post 1962 period.

However, the thaw in the tense relationship started with the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia in October 2024. The Indian and Chinese sides have held a number of bilateral discussions at the diplomatic and military level to defuse the crisis at the border and restore the status quo.

American Blunder

The restructuration of the Sino-India ties really picked up when USA, which enjoyed a warm and strong relationship with India committed a Himalayan blunder by deciding to indulge in brinksmanship. Washington’s decision to impose 50% tariffs on India, 25% for failure to negotiate a trade deal that is favorable to Washington and 25% as penalty for buying crude oil from Moscow and directly financing the ‘Russian war machine’ in Ukraine.

Foreign policy of a country is always framed behind closed doors with a trusted group of experienced advisors. This is the de-facto norm in most countries of the world. However, the second Trump presidency has upended decades of American foreign policy making by taking decisions on important global issues and partnerships in a highly public manner. This makes a complete mockery of the long standing conventions of international politics.

The economic warfare waged by Trump against India is a direct manifestation of this mercurial style. However, the American attempt to strong arm India into submission, did not work in the past, and won’t work now.

Caveats Remain

Notwithstanding the ongoing thaw in ties with Beijing, there exist caveats that hinder the full recovery and development of the relationship.  The first problem is the massive imbalance in the India-China trade relationship. With bilateral trade standing at over $100 billion, China enjoys a gargantuan trade surplus over India. Apart from this, China hasn’t provided market access to Indian companies and government in the manner India has demands. Lack of transparency in market access creates an asymmetry in the economic aspect of the relationship.

The second issue is the unsettled nature of the LAC. History is filled with incidents where major disputes flare up due to disputed nature of borders. With a 3,488 km border, resolution of pressing border issues, especially along the Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh sectors are the need of the hour. A consensus on patrolling and demarcation of the contested areas must be carried out keeping in mind the mutual sensitivities of both sides. In this context, more power must be given to the special representatives appointed for this purpose. Further, more Confidence Building Measures (CBM) at the diplomatic and military levels must be formulated to ensure timely resolution of the outstanding territorial disputes. In that context, the de-escalation in the Ladakh sector must be done expeditiously as troops of both sides continue to be stationed, undermining the prospects of normalcy.

Going forward, it is essential that the goodwill and trust between the two sides is restored so as to claim the 21st century as the Asian century.

Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India

August 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »