By Farzad Bonesh – New Eastern Outlook – April 24, 2025
Although TAPI has now taken on more of a bilateral partnership between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, its earlier implementation will certainly have greater domestic consequences for Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s approach to the TAPI pipeline: challenges, and obstacles
The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, a combination of the first letters of the Latin names of the countries participating in the regional project, runs from Turkmenistan to India. The length of the 1,814-kilometer line is 214 kilometers in Turkmenistan and 816 kilometers in Afghanistan.
The TAPI project is intended to transport 33 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Turkmenistan’s The Galkynysh gas field to India.
In 2015, the leaders of the four TAPI participating countries celebrated the groundbreaking ceremony for the gas pipeline in the city of Merv. But apart from the laying of the Turkmen section, virtually no major activity took place.
After the Taliban returned to power, international financial institutions either refused to directly support the project due to legal and political considerations or showed no interest in investing.
The Afghan Taliban is not officially recognized, and international sanctions against the Taliban, political differences between India and Pakistan, and tense relations between Kabul and Islamabad have slowed down the implementation of the project.
However, in September 2024, former President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov and Taliban Prime Minister Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhund jointly launched the TAPI project in 2024 at a ceremony on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan border.
Recently, Hedayatullah Badri, Minister of Mines and Petroleum, and a high-ranking delegation from Turkmenistan, visited the progress of the TAPI gas transmission project in Herat province and emphasized the acceleration of the work process.
Although Pakistan and India have not been involved much in the recent developments of the TAPI gas pipeline, the Taliban, adopting a pragmatic approach, have decided to take this energy transmission project step by step with the cooperation of Turkmenistan.
Political and geopolitical goals and interests of the Afghan Taliban:
From the perspective of TAPI, it is an opportunity to solve the security problem within the country, and Kabul hopes that the opposition will also agree to the construction of this pipeline, considering national interests. During the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan , the Taliban, in a statement, while supporting the TAPI project, saw TAPI as an important economic project and an important element in the country’s economic infrastructure.
Gaining greater regional and global support for this pipeline will further link Afghanistan’s security with regional and global partners. The passage of the TAPI gas pipeline through Afghanistan will link the tangible and real interests of several regional and global countries, and the neighboring countries will also ensure Afghanistan’s security.
The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project has helped increase Afghanistan’s geopolitical position and strengthen relations and mutual interests among partner countries. Taliban leaders seem to believe that TAPI has the potential to expand relations between member countries and strengthen common interests. Also, from the perspective of many in Kabul, the pipeline’s passage through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India will reduce Pakistan’s incentive to play a negative role in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Kabul expects the TAPI project to encourage countries’ interests to move away from confrontation with each other in Afghanistan to a policy of tolerance.
In this approach, accurate and efficient management of the TAPI can have important effects on the public opinion of the people, show government efficiency, deal with the opposition, and satisfy nationalist feelings.
Economic goals and benefits:
Of course, this plan cannot pave the way for an economic revolution in Afghanistan, but it can be very useful for other major construction projects, reconstruction, economic development and production, trade, and transit in Afghanistan.
It will also employ about ten thousand people for the next few decades, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs and reducing some of the unemployment problem.
Over the past few years, the Taliban have focused on several projects such as the TAP-500 energy system, the revival of important energy transmission and transit projects, including CASA-1000.
In addition, the Taliban have planned and inaugurated some infrastructure and economic projects, such as solar power generation over the past two years. The Taliban consider energy projects important in the development and self-sufficiency of the country, saving Afghanistan from poverty and dependence on expanding energy production, and managing water resources.
The implementation of TAPI can help transform Afghanistan’s energy consumption infrastructure from oil and coal to natural gas, and help increase the country’s production and economic growth.
For the first time, Afghanistan can achieve reliable natural gas for domestic and industrial use. For example, the TAPI pipeline passing through Herat province (the economic hub of Afghanistan) could be a driving force for other local industries.
Afghanistan could be an actor in a major transit route for Central Asia and a bridge between Central Asian energy-consuming and exporting countries. South Asian countries are in great need of energy, and Central Asian countries have abundant gas and electricity resources. Afghanistan has the potential to connect the two sides.
Success in this project could accelerate the construction of power transmission lines, railways, fiber optics, etc., in the field of regional cooperation. If TAPI is completed at a cost of more than $7-10 billion, it could also help attract foreign investment to the country. In addition to meeting the gas needs of its growing economy, Afghanistan could also receive $1 billion in gas transit rights annually. This amount could be a major contribution to the economy.
TAPI could be an important step towards strengthening the economic diplomacy of the Kabul government. Apart from the main role of Turkmen Gas Company, with an 85% stake, in July 2024, Pakistan and Turkmenistan agreed to accelerate the progress of the TAPI gas pipeline project.
Kazakhstan also seems to be willing to join the project. Russian companies may participate in the TAPI project, “as soon as the situation in Afghanistan stabilizes”.
Challenges and Outlook
TAPI suffers from major challenges, from insecurity to political complications, regional instability, the international isolation of the Taliban, and doubts about the investment capacity.
The TAPI project in the Turkmen section has been completed. The Taliban also plan four phases for construction from the Turkmenistan border to the city of Herat; Herat to Helmand; Helmand to Kandahar; and Kandahar to the Pakistani border. But as of April 2025, just 11 kilometers of pipeline have been laid in Afghanistan.
Large investments require security and stability, and major extremist groups such as ISIS can be a significant threat in Afghanistan.
The Afghan section of TAPI (in Herat, Farah, Nimroz, Helmand, and Kandahar provinces) passes through some of the most unstable parts of the country. The Taliban is not yet a legitimate government, with legal standing as an economic contracting party and a reliable partner. Critics have warned that the Taliban government does not have national legitimacy and international and legal recognition.
Pakistan and India appear to be cautiously refraining from immediately participating in the TAPI gas pipeline, waiting for conditions in Afghanistan to change.
While the Taliban has not been recognized yet, it is also not possible to secure financial assistance or loans from international institutions.
In addition, the full and successful construction and operation of the pipeline requires the political will of the leaders of the four countries and serious bilateral and multilateral discussions with all partners.
However, although TAPI has now taken on more of a bilateral partnership between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, its earlier implementation will certainly have greater domestic consequences for Afghanistan.
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 6, 2025
President Donald Trump restated his desire to abolish nuclear weapons during a White House presser on Thursday.
“It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons. [I know] Russia and us have by far the most,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “China will have an equal amount within four to five years. It would be great if we could all de-nuclearize because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”
Currently, nine countries – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons. With global tensions on the rise, several nations, including the US, are adding to their strategic capability.
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Beijing is working to ramp up its production of nuclear weapons. Last year, the agency predicted that China could have over 1,000 nuclear weapons. However, that would still give Beijing a far smaller arsenal than Washington and Moscow, which each have around 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and thousands more in storage.
Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump said he spoke with President Vladimir Putin about denuclearization during his first term, and that the Russian leader was receptive to the idea. “We were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China right now has a much smaller nuclear armament than us, or field, than us, but they’re going to be catching [up] at some point,” Trump said.
“I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of cutting back on nuclear, and I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too. China also liked it,” he added. “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about. It’s too depressing.”
Trump has also discussed negotiating a deal with Moscow and Beijing that would see all three countries drastically cut military spending.
However, while Trump has at times voiced support for demilitarization and denuclearization, during his first term in office he scrapped two major arms control agreements, the Open Skies and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force treaties.
Additionally, Trump refused to engage in bilateral discussions with Russia on extending the last nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, the New Start Treaty. He insisted that Moscow must pressure Beijing to make it a trilateral deal, a demand that almost led to the downfall of the landmark deal.
Though President Joe Biden was able to reach an agreement with Putin to extend the treaty for five more years in 2021, it is set to expire next year without another extension.
Glenn Diesen | March 6, 2025
We had the pleasure of speaking with Ambassador Bhadrakumar about India’s status as a great power. As the world has become multipolar, India will undoubtedly be an important centre of power. Yet, Ambassador Bhadrakumar is sceptical about India’s ability to assert itself on the international stage in terms of both capabilities and intentions. While India has been a source for peace as a non-aligned power that mitigated bloc politics, its neutral position often results in the inability to take a clear position on critical issues.
RT | February 14, 2025
The Group of Eight (G8) has become obsolete because it no longer represents the world’s economic growth engines, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Friday, in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposal to readmit Russia.
Under the proposal, Russia would rejoin the group currently consisting of the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. However, three of the top-10 global economic powers in terms of GDP and PPP – China, India and Brazil – aren’t in the club.
Peskov pointed out that the group has “lost its relevance” because economic growth centers have shifted to other parts of the world and are not represented in the current configuration.
“The G7 does not represent the world’s leading economic and social development centers,” Peskov said.
He emphasized Russia’s preference for the G20 format, which includes China, India, and Brazil alongside the G7 members. “The G20 better reflects the economic locomotives of the world,” Peskov added.
Trump suggested on Thursday that Russia should be reinstated in the G8, calling its 2014 exclusion a mistake. “I’d love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out,” the US president stated at the White House.
Russia joined the group in 1997 as a “non-enumerated member.” However, its membership was suspended in 2014 following the country’s reunification with Crimea, after which the G8 reverted to the G7. Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia through a referendum after the Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.
By Hua Bin | February 9, 2025
It’s a widely held truism that the US has the best universities in the world despite a mediocre secondary education system. Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale and U Penn are marque brands that are admired worldwide. They attract students from every country and enjoy enormous financial resources from tuitions, endowments, and grants.
On the other hand, Chinese universities are generally considered by the west as diploma mills with unrecognizable and generic names – who can remember the Southern University of Technology.
While Chinese universities may not graduate many students that command astronomical starting salaries or hotly sought after by high flying hedge funds, they seem to be progressing quite nicely in one of the core missions of academic research institutions, i.e. conducing world class research in science and technology.
The prestigious Nature Magazine published its annual Nature Index ranking of the world’s top research institutions and universities in 2024. The Index is illuminating.
– The ranking was based on 75,000 high impact papers in the Nature Index 2024 Global Research Leaders from Nov 2023 to Oct 2024
– It ranked 18,588 research institutes and universities worldwide
– China Academy of Sciences (CAS) is ranked No. 1 global research institute, with 8881 counts of top research output, more than double of No. 2 ranked Harvard University (3830 counts). I wrote about the research prowess of CAS in an earlier Substack article.
– 8 out of top 10 research institutes are Chinese. They include the University of Science and Technology of China, Peking University, Zhejiang University (where the DeepSeek founder graduated from), and Tsinghua University. The other non-Chinese institutes are Harvard University and Max Planck Society in Germany.
– 12 out of top 20 research universities are Chinese. 3 are American (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT). Sichuan University (No. 15), a regional university in Southwest China, is ranked higher than Stanford (No. 16), MIT (No. 17), Oxford (No. 18) and University of Tokyo (No. 19).
– 26 out of top 50 are Chinese. 14 are American. Soochow University (No. 30), decidedly not considered a top tier school by Chinese high schoolers, outranks Yale (No. 31). Xiamen University (No. 37) is ranked higher than Berkeley (No. 38), Columbia (No. 39), Cornell (No. 44), and University of Chicago (No. 49).
– Roughly half of top 100 are Chinese. Hunan University (No. 51) outranks Princeton (No. 52). You get the drift. Interestingly, Russia Academy of Sciences (RAS) made a cameo at No. 98. No universities from India or Australia made it to the top 100 list.
Westerners look at Chinese technological breakthroughs like DeepSeek or Huawei in disbelief and sour envy. Once you dig into the foundational causes of the emergence of these tech successes, you will understand they only represent the tip of the iceberg. Soon enough, you will see the Bummock, i.e. the bulk of the iceberg. Many upsets waiting ahead.
By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – January 29, 2025
All participants in the current phase of the “Great Global Game”, especially the major players, face certain challenges in their relationships with neighboring countries. However, our focus is on India, which has recently found new reasons to pay closer attention to developments in the territories of its neighbors: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and others.
China Announces Construction of a Hydropower Plant in Tibet
At the end of last year, Xinhua reported that the Chinese government had approved the construction of a hydropower plant on the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River. The river’s unique characteristics at the “Medog Gorge” in Tibet—where a massive water flow plunges 2,000 meters over a stretch of less than 50 km—have long attracted the interest of hydropower engineers. This flow holds energy reserves three times greater than those produced by the world’s largest power station, the Three Gorges Dam, built in the 1990s on the Yangtze River.
Naturally, China has long explored projects to harness this immense natural energy. The main obstacles have been the projects’ extreme complexity and the massive financial costs, estimated at around $140 billion.
But why should this internal Chinese matter concern India? Upon leaving Chinese Tibet, the Yarlung Tsangpo flows into India and Bangladesh, where it becomes better known as the Brahmaputra River. In the broader context of the “water problem”, which is becoming central to relations between many countries – especially those in the “Global South” – questions around the use of rivers shared by neighboring states have gained critical importance.
In the mid-2010s, China faced challenges in its relations with Southeast Asian nations for whom the Mekong River is a “river of life”. These countries expressed concerns over potential negative impacts from hydropower projects in Tibet on the Mekong’s tributaries. At that time, Beijing was able to ease such concerns through direct talks in the “Lancang-Mekong” framework.
Using river resources is an inevitable component of modern development. It can benefit the countries through which these rivers flow, provided each nation’s interests are considered during the construction and operation of hydropower facilities.
It all comes down to the overall state of relations between neighbors. If “misunderstandings” suddenly arise, they are more likely a sign of an overall lack of trust between them. Various concerns about the hydropower project in the “Medog Gorge” were raised by New Delhi several years ago. These concerns have resurfaced immediately following the aforementioned report by Xinhua.
Although this facility could bring significant benefits to India itself. The future hydropower plant could supply inexpensive electricity to the northeastern states or regulate the flow of the Brahmaputra River, which floods vast areas of those states annually.
Pakistan and Bangladesh
The same “water disputes” (among other issues) are being raised against India by two of its other neighbors – Pakistan and Bangladesh. This also reflects the poor state of India’s relations with Pakistan. Relations with Bangladesh deteriorated sharply after the well-known events of early August 2024, when the new Bangladeshi leadership accused New Delhi of provoking floods on the Gumti River by releasing water from a reservoir dam in the Indian state of Tripura, just 120 km from the Bangladeshi border.
As for Pakistan, relations in the mid-2010s reached the point of nuclear threats after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hinted at the possibility of blocking the upper reaches of the Indus River in response to a series of violent incidents in the then-state of Jammu and Kashmir. Since then, no similar rhetoric has emerged in bilateral discussions on water disputes. However, the issue remains embedded in the framework of Indo-Pakistani relations and has been repeatedly emphasized in recent months by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
That said, the “Water disputes” with India are not the primary reason for the dramatic shift in Bangladesh’s attitude toward Pakistan following the August 2024 events. From the time of its independence in 1971 until these recent developments, it was hard to imagine Bangladesh adopting a more hostile stance toward any state than it had toward Pakistan. This makes the visit of a delegation of senior Bangladeshi Army officers to Pakistan in mid-January 2025 almost unthinkable. For India, this is a deeply concerning and alarming signal.
Iran and Afghanistan
Providing some balance to these challenges are India’s relatively positive relations with Iran and Afghanistan, which are not immediate neighbors. Afghanistan exhibits a peculiar phenomenon where its leadership seeks to strengthen ties not with co-religionists in Pakistan but with “non-believers” in India.
This alignment by Kabul is not solely due to the strained relationship between the Taliban (still banned in Russia) and Pakistan’s leadership. Even during the era of “secular” Afghan governments, ties with India were consistently prioritized.
This phenomenon has a straightforward explanation: no Afghan leadership would ever recognize the Durand Line, drawn in the late 19th century, as the legitimate border with Pakistan. The line divided the Pashtuns, who constitute Afghanistan’s majority population. This reflects the enduring relevance of Realpolitik principles – regardless of time, region, or the faiths of the people involved. A recent demonstration of growing ties between India and Afghanistan was the January 8 meeting in Dubai between the foreign ministers of the two countries.
Iran, meanwhile, has historically maintained relatively good relations with all political entities within modern India. Today, its leadership pursues a balanced policy toward both India and Pakistan, avoiding taking a definitive stance on the Kashmir issue, which is critical to both countries.
A landmark moment in Iran-India relations was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in May 2016 during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Tehran. The agreement allocated $500 million for the modernization of the Chabahar Port on the Gulf of Oman. India views this port as a vital multipurpose logistics hub that could facilitate land-based transport links to Afghanistan.
These agreements were reaffirmed during Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to New Delhi in February 2018. In May 2024, the agreements were extended for another 10 years. A wide range of bilateral issues was discussed during the January 2025 visit of Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi to New Delhi.
The geopolitical environment surrounding modern India is becoming increasingly complex – a trend observed among all major players in the current phase of the “Great Global Game”.
But then again, who in today’s world has it easy?
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region
Press TV – January 2, 2025
The toxic waste at India’s 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy site has been removed after 40 years.
Local authorities said on Thursday that all the toxic waste from the site had been removed.
The Indian authorities added that the waste had been transferred to a disposal facility where it would take three to nine months to incinerate.
Twelve tankers carried the 337 metric tons of toxic waste 230km to the Pithampur incineration plant amid heavy security, Swatantra Kumar Singh, the director of the Bhopal gas tragedy relief and rehabilitation department, told media.
A trial run for the disposal of 10 metric tons of waste was conducted in 2015 and the disposal of the remaining 337 metric tons will be completed within three to nine months, the state government said in a statement.
Singh said the trial run for waste disposal conducted by the Federal Pollution Control Agency found emission standards under prescribed national standards.
He added that the disposal process is environmentally safe and will be done in a manner that cannot harm the environment of the local ecosystem.
Critics, however, opposed the plan, claiming it would be hazardous to the environment. Bhopal-based environment activist, Rachna Dhingra, who has worked with survivors of the Union Carbide pesticide factory tragedy, said the solid waste remaining after the incineration would be buried in a landfill and this will cause water contamination and result in environmental concerns.
He said the perpetrators of the disaster need to be held responsible for cleaning up the mess. “Why is the polluter Union Carbide and Dow Chemical not being compelled to clean up its toxic waste in Bhopal,” Dhingra said.
Built in 1969, the Union Carbide plant, which is now owned by Dow Chemical, was seen as a symbol of industrialization in India, generating thousands of jobs for the poor and, at the same time, manufacturing cheap pesticides for millions of farmers.
However, during the early hours of Dec. 3, 1984, a deadly gas, methyl isocyanate, leaked from the pesticide factory then owned by American Union Carbide Corporation, killing an estimated 5,000 to 22,000 people as a direct result of exposure to the leak.
Also, the leaked gas has led to more than half a million people suffering some degree of permanent injury from gas poisoning in Bhopal, the capital city of the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
Instead of selecting for the “best and brightest,'” the program facilitates the interests of a power cartel of middleman agencies.
By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | December 30, 2024
Proponents of the H-1B program argue it’s an essential opportunity to import workers with underrepresented occupational skills into America. Detractors say it serves to undermine and displace the American worker.
But before we even engage in an ideological debate between conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and socialists about the merits of H-1B, we must first recognize that the program, in its current 2024 form, is corrupt and fraudulent beyond recognition. Over the last 35 years, massive bureaucratic institutions and middlemen have formed to hijack H-1B, establishing a monopoly that wildly overrepresents certain groups of people over the rest of the world.
First, a bit of history:
The H-1B visa program was established under the Immigration Act of 1990. It was designed to enable U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialized occupations requiring at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. Initially, the program was intended to fill skill gaps in the U.S. workforce, particularly in sectors like technology, engineering, medicine, and education, where there was a perceived shortage of American talent.
The annual cap for H-1B visas started at 65,000, but the program evolved significantly over the years. In 1998, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act increased the cap to 115,000 visas, responding to the booming tech industry’s demand for skilled labor. This was followed by further adjustments; for instance, the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 added 20,000 visas for foreign nationals holding a master’s or higher degree from U.S. universities.
Over the years, various legislative efforts have ostensibly aimed to reform the program. The H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2009 increased fees to fund retraining programs for American workers, but critics say it failed in its implementation.
The H-1B program saw its cap reached almost immediately after applications opened in the early 2000s due to high demand, leading to a lottery system for allocation. One well-known lottery-busting tactic from middleman hiring companies in India, which continues to this day, involves submitting multiple applications under different aliases for the same individual to increase their chances of selection.
Today, the H-1B visa allows holders to work in the U.S. for up to three years, extendable to six and has provisions for “dual intent,” allowing visa holders to pursue permanent residency.
According to recent data and analyses, the breakdown of H-1B visas by country of origin shows a significant concentration among two nations, with India and China leading the numbers:
India dominates the H-1B approvals list, accounting for almost three-quarters of all H-1B visa recipients.

With a billion and a half people, India is still wildly overrepresented in the “talent pool,” especially because the H-1B pipeline in India tends to exclude 95 percent of the country.
India’s caste system is a complex social structure that has shaped the country’s society for millennia. Rooted in ancient Hindu scriptures, the system originally divided people into four social classes: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers). In 2024, India remains a highly stratified society where one’s caste determines not only occupation but also social status, marriage prospects, and even dietary habits.
Brahmins, the elite caste Indians, only amount to about four percent of India’s population, but H-1B caters almost exclusively to Brahmins, especially when it comes to managerial roles.
The issues begin in the American university system, which continues to accommodate foreign students as an increasing percentage of total enrollment, forcing Americans to compete with the entire world for admission into elite STEM programs. The State Department hands out around half a million student visas each year, and there is seemingly no plan to roll back student visas.
Based on available data, there’s a large discrepancy between student visa holders and H-1B holders. Here’s a breakdown of student visas by country of origin in terms of percentage, focusing on the academic year 2022-2023, based on available data:
Around one-third of H-1B holders are U.S. university graduates, and about half come into the American workforce directly from their country of origin.
Because of the massive corruption and fraud in the talent pipeline, many current H-1B workers lack the social, cultural, and technical aptitude to mesh into an American workplace despite their claimed qualifications, leading to a major headache for their employer and the prospective American applicant who was left behind in the process.
Massive corporations like Infosys, Tata, Cognizant, Wipro, and HCL Technologies exist to facilitate this “talent” pipeline, and they have enormous influence on U.S. foreign labor policy. With a pooled value of hundreds of billions of dollars in market capitalization, they monopolized the H-1B program into a centralized cartel that recruits, hires, and fills roles in major American companies, freezing out applicants outside of the pipeline.
So, instead of finding the “best and brightest” in tech, three-quarters of all of America’s H-1B imports are likely to come from a social caste of around 50 million people, leaving behind 1.35 billion Indians in the process. In a world of 8 billion, the centralization of three-quarters of the H-1B program does no favors to Americans on either side of the debate.
RT | December 11, 2024
US President Joe Biden’s administration is preparing harsher sanctions against Russian oil just weeks before Donald Trump returns to the White House, Bloomberg has reported.
The details of the new restrictions are yet to be finalized, but Washington is looking to target some Russian oil exports, the outlet said on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
While the US has already banned imports of Russian oil, Biden had long been reluctant to take a more aggressive action against the country’s crude due to fear of energy costs skyrocketing, especially during the run-up to the presidential election, the report said. However, with oil prices falling amid an expected surplus next year and uncertainty about Donald Trump’s commitment to further support for Kiev, the White House could resort to harsher measures, the outlet noted.
The call for new sanctions underscores the departing administration’s willingness to confront Russia before the end of Biden’s term, especially since despite attempts to cripple the Russian economy, Moscow’s GDP is projected to rise by 3.5% this year.
One of the methods that the US could reportedly use to sanction Russian oil exports is to target potential buyers. In this model, purchasers would face punishment by the US. However, such a move would carry significant risks, as major powers such as India and China are Russia’s top customers, the outlet warned, and such limits could also trigger a spike in global oil prices.
The sanctions will also be aimed at Russia’s oil tanker fleet, often described in the West as a ‘Shadow Fleet’, and could be unveiled in the coming weeks, the source told the outlet.
Western governments have introduced a price cap, along with an embargo on Russian seaborne oil, in an attempt to hurt the country’s economy, while at the same time keeping Russian crude flowing to global markets so as not to trigger price hikes.
The Ukraine conflict-related measures were imposed in December 2022, and were followed in February 2023 by similar restrictions on exports of Russian petroleum products. They ban Western companies from providing insurance and other services for shipments of Russian crude, unless the cargo is purchased at or below $60 per barrel.
In response, Moscow banned Russian enterprises from complying with the cap and rerouted most of its energy exports to Asia, particularly India and China.
RT | November 14, 2024
Friendly relations between Moscow and New Delhi are an important element of international stability, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told Sky News Australia in an interview published this week. According to the diplomat, the West should be less concerned about countries enjoying good relationships with Russia and more about diplomacy and ending the Ukraine conflict.
The minister defended New Delhi’s decision to increase oil purchases from Russia after the US and its allies slapped Moscow with unprecedented sanctions over the Ukraine conflict, which targeted Russia’s financial sector and international trade.
“If we had not made the moves we had, let me tell you the energy markets would have taken a completely different turn and actually would have precipitated a global energy crisis. It would have caused inflation across the world as a consequence,” Jaishankar said.
Imports of crude oil from Russia currently constitute nearly 40% of India’s total oil purchases, up from less than 1% before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Earlier this week, the foreign minister said that he expected bilateral trade between the two nations to reach a target volume of $100 billion before 2030.
The minister was responding to Sky News host Sharri Markson, who said that New Delhi’s close ties to Moscow were causing “angst” in Australia. Jaishankar hit back by saying that “countries don’t have exclusive relationships” nowadays. Using the same logic, India should be worried about any country who has a relationship with its regional rival, Pakistan.
“What India has done and is doing with Russia is actually… helpful to the international community as a whole,” the minister said. He said that not only had India’s actions helped to avert a potential global energy crisis, but may also contribute to ending the fighting between Moscow and Kiev.
New Delhi can talk to both parties and “try to find some intersection in those conversations” to eventually find a way to get them both to the negotiating table, according to the top diplomat.
“I think the world, including Australia, needs such a country that will help bring this conflict back to the conference table,” he stated, adding that “conflicts rarely ends on the battlefield, mostly they end [through] negotiations.”
When further pressed by Markson on whether India is concerned about growing cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, Jaishankar replied that such developments, which were further encouraged by the Ukraine conflict, show that the West should also be primarily interested in ending the hostilities.
”It’s in everybody’s interest that the sooner the conflict ends the better,” the minister said. “The longer the conflict drags out… all sorts of things are going to happen. Not all those things could necessarily be to Australia’s advantage or… that of Western countries.”
The predictable consequences of stealing Russia’s sovereign funds
By Glenn Diesen | November 13, 2024
The West’s decision to freeze and legalise the theft of Russian sovereign funds predictably diminished trust in the Western financial system, resulting in a huge demand for gold and other precious metals as a safe haven. Gold is not a yield-bearing asset, yet it preserves its value during turbulent times. There are some more twists to the story: There is a rise in demand for physical gold and a push to store it in their home countries due to the lack of trust it can be stored safely in the West.

What was done to Russia could happen to anyone. An adversary like China is obviously next in line as the economic coercion to prevent its continued development intensifies. The EU demands China must pay a “higher cost” for supporting Russia, linking Russia and China seemingly for the purpose of convincing Trump to continue the war in Ukraine. Even friendly countries such as India could be targeted anytime with secondary sanctions for failing to bow to the demands of Washington.
From the US seizure of Afghanistan’s sovereign funds to Britain confiscating Venezuela’s gold, there is evidently reason for distrust. The main shock to the system was nonetheless the legalisation of the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds, which was justified by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The moral premise is dubious at best as it would obviously not be considered acceptable if countries around the world seized the funds of the US and its NATO allies to pay reparations to the countries they have invaded.

Even within Western countries, predictability diminishes as the rules of law weaken. A British journalist reporting from Donbas had his bank account frozen without a day in court.[1] In Canda, hundreds of people had their bank accounts frozen for organising or attending the trucker protest.[2] Even the British opposition politician, Nigel Farage (“Mr. Brexit”), had his account suspended for political reasons.[3] Metro Bank used access to its financial services to punish opposition to its gender ideology as it denied banking services to an organisation opposed to the medical transitioning of children.[4] With many similar cases emerging, the term “de-banking” has entered the vocabulary.
Inflation and weaponisation of the dollar, coupled with growing political instability, are compelling large powers to take their money out of the Western financial system. China is still making dollars with its great trade surplus, but there is a growing reluctance to buy Western bonds or even leave the money in the Western financial system. China lends these dollars to other countries around the world rather than reinvesting it into the US market.

BRICS countries also prefer buying physical gold and they are also moving it to their own countries. Central banks and investors are not interested in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as a cheap and easy way to own gold. Paper gold is not trusted, and investors demand physical gold. The gold is not even trusted to be stored in Western vaults anymore. China is having hundreds of tonnes of gold shipped from the West to China. Switzerland alone sent 524 tonnes of gold to China in 2022.[5] India brought home 100 tonnes of gold from the UK in 2024, the first large shipment since 1991. The transfer and storage of these metals are neither convenient nor cheap, yet the collapse in trust demands drastic actions. Bloomberg reports on Singapore constructing a six-story warehouse “designed to hold 10,000 tons of silver, more than a third of global annual supply, and 500 tons of gold”.[6]

There are many reasons not to store assets in rogue states: Risk of seizure or confiscation, lack of transparency, economic volatility, political instability etc. Unfortunately, all of these symptoms are becoming associated with the G7 countries as the financial system was weaponised. A key lesson of sanctions is that severe and prolonged sanctions result in the rest of the world adapting by learning to live without the belligerent actors.
Large gold reserves safely protected within national borders can also become important as new trade and reserve currencies are promoted. Fiat currencies will lose much trust in the financial turmoil that awaits, and future alternatives may need to yet again be backed by gold. Gold will certainly play a greater role as BRICS prepares a post-American financial system.
[1] PETER HITCHENS: Freedom for all means freedom for nasty people – Mail Online – Peter Hitchens blog
[2] Canada Ends Its Freeze on Hundreds of Accounts Tied to Protests – The New York Times
[3] Debanking: How Nigel Farage’s Banking Woes Have Raised Serious Concerns Over Account Closures
[4] The terrifying rise of ‘debanking’ – spiked
[5] Switzerland sent 524 tonnes of gold to China last year, the most since 2018 | Euronews
[6] As the Rich Snap Up Gold Bars, Storage Vaults Brace for Business – Bloomberg
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR – Indian Punchline – November 10, 2024
The working visit of Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov to Mumbai and Delhi on November 11-12 has been in the cards for sometime. It assumes added interest today as, in a delightful coincidence, it overlaps with the beginning of the end of Pax Americana in international politics.
Manturov, 55, is one of the brightest stars of the new generation of leaders in the Russian political firmament with a brilliant record as an economist and technocrat in the energy and military-industrial complex, two key sectors of the economy.
President Vladimir Putin has entrusted him with responsibilities that go far beyond the portfolio of Minister of Trade and Industry, a position he held for 12 years until May 2024 when he was elevated as First Deputy Prime Minister. Manturov is now a familiar face at the high table when Putin takes meetings on Ukraine war, which shows he wears many hats.
Manturov is the co-chairman of Russian-Indian joint commission, alongside External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. To be sure, Jaishankar will have wide-ranging discussions with Manturov. Who else Manturov is meeting in Delhi will be an indication of the stirrings in the air in the Russian-Indian cooperation.
The timing of the visit is notable since the neoconservatives who dominated the Biden administration — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA director William Burns, et al — are on their way out and a brave new world is taking shape in Washington, DC.
The influential CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder, who was the US ambassador to Nato, succinctly captured the imminent power shift in DC when he wrote in Politico in the weekend, “Trump won in a landslide. He helped Republicans take control of the Senate and may well help them keep the House (by the way, Republicans have flipped the House as well) — ensuring single-party control across all three branches of government. He can rightly claim a mandate to implement all the policies he touted… All the while, he’ll be shielded by a Supreme Court.”
Of course, Ambassador Daalder is an acolyte of the “rules-based order” and a firm believer in America’s manifest destiny to lead the world. He wrote in his column titled The end of Pax Americana: “I also worry about what this means for the rest of the world. In his first term, Trump made clear he doesn’t buy into Washington’s global leadership role as his predecessors have done. He doesn’t believe in leading — he believes in winning…
“Moscow and Beijing have long chafed at Washington’s leadership, and for the past decade, they’ve sought to counter and undermine it. They may now get their wish. Trump isn’t interested in sustaining the Pax Americana in the ways his 14 predecessors were… The end of the Pax Americana will have profound consequences…The Pax America will officially end on Jan. 20, 2025, when the US inaugurates Donald J. Trump as its 47th president. The country and world will be very different because of it.”
Suffice to say, we are getting a preview of this historic juncture. Although, taking place in the conditions under sanctions, Manturov’s agenda of discussions in Delhi will have a futuristic dimension. The point is, while the sanctions against Russia may take some time to be scrapped, their cutting edge — the fanaticism and the sound and fury with which Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen applied that intrusive diplomatic tool to dictate other countries’ economic and military relations with Russia — may now become blunt, what with all signs already pointing toward a Russian-American engagement.
The Indian side should be mindful of this transition to accelerate the economic and military-technical cooperation with Russia with a medium and long-term term perspective. This is one thing.
Second, we are edging toward a conversation between Trump and Putin. Do not be surprised if they decide to meet at an early date. Historically speaking, there is nothing like summitry to energise political systems with top-down culture as the US and Russia have.
Suffice to say, we are nearing a point when the International Criminal Court which has an arrest warrant against Putin won’t know where to hide itself. From our perspective, that opens the door leading to the rose garden for a state visit by Putin to India — perhaps, as the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the Indian Republic on January 26, 2025.
Putin is a great friend of India’s. Only two days ago, he described India as unparalleled in the global arena and went on to say Russia is strengthening its relationship with India on multiple fronts, with a high level of trust underpinning their bilateral ties. Putin paid fulsome praise to India’s rise saying, “India should undoubtedly be added to the list of superpowers, with its billion-and-a-half population, the fastest growth among all economies in the world, ancient culture, and very good prospects for further growth.”
To be sure, India finds itself in a truly privileged position in the international political arena with the consolidation of the Indian-Russian partnership, prospects opening for a spurt to take the US-Indian ties to new heights taking advantage of Trump’s goodwill, and, indeed, the nascent signs of a thaw in the troubled Sino-Indian relationship — and as the fastest growing major economy in the world.
India’s optimal aim should be to create synergy out of all three relationships running on parallel tracks — with Russia, US and China respectively. No matter the complexities of their mutual relationships, India should aspire for a confluence of the three streams for advancing its development.
There is a whiff of hope in the air for a warming of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington under Trump, which have been in a free fall. But Russophobia is deeply entrenched in the American elites and Russia will remain a toxic issue. Yet, Trump has repeatedly stressed good relations with Putin, as well as mutual respect. And Putin is a very talented politician who understands Trump.
As for Russia-China relationship, Moscow and Beijing are at a high noon of partnership unparalleled in their history. That relationship is anchored in the great camaraderie between Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping, is rock solid and will remain so despite the fluidity in the international environment.
Of course, there are misgivings about the trajectory of the US-China relationship going forward. But, here again, the crux of the matter is the US’ economic rivalry with China in the American mindset. Per se, China does not hold any threat to the US. And China, unlike Russia, does not challenge American power, influence and interests directly or by design.
A military confrontation between the US and China will not happen under Trump’s watch. Besides, the Indo-Pacific strategy is floundering, the latest sign being Indonesia, the largest country in southeast Asia, turning its back on US-led alliance systems. and seeking BRICS membership.
The presence of Tesla CEO Elon Musk as an influencer in Trump’s inner circle can be seen as a stabilising factor for US-China relations. Above all, only China can be a meaningful interlocutor to help Trump realise the ambitious MAGA project.