Connexion
Au menu cette semaine: 00:00 Géopolitique profonde 07:05 Économie 12:30 Politico-diplomatique 25:30 Terrorisme 27:00 Armement 30:10 Empire du mensonge 41:54
L’article Bulletin STRATPOL N°290: Trump à Pékin, la guerre bientôt finie ? SARMAT en force. 15.05.2026. est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Quatre ans après son lancement, l’opération militaire spéciale (SMO) semble être une opération dans laquelle la Russie atteint lentement mais
L’article L’élite européenne vaincue et le coup de désespoir (par Pepe Escobar) est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Nous sommes déjà entrés dans une nouvelle phase historique : plus de retenue, plus de circonlocutions, plus aucune tentative de justification.
L’article L’Iran reflète l’affrontement décisif (par Pepe Escobar) est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Le général Zhang Youxia, secrétaire adjoint de la Commission militaire centrale (CMC), et le général Liu Zhenli, chef d’état-major interarmées,
L’article Pour bien comprendre les dernières purges chinoises, il faut se pencher sur la biographie de Xi Jinping ! est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Les ambitions américaines concernant le Groenland s’intensifient, et le mercredi 14 janvier sera une date cruciale pour déterminer si elles
L’article Sommet du Groenland avec le Danemark à Washington. Rubio et Vance tentent de réaliser le rêve de Trump ! est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Par Pepe Escobar – Culture stratégique [Traduction : Paolo Hamidouche] Le tableau d’ensemble du secteur pétrolier vénézuélien est donc bien plus
L’article Pepe Escobar – Comment les rêves pétroliers de Trump pourraient s’effondrer dans un gouffre vénézuélien obscur ! est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
La nouvelle réalité du monde multipolaire adviendra-t-elle sous de pacifiques auspices ? Investiture de Donald Trump pour un second mandat
L’article ICI MOSCOU ! Bilan 2025 est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
“Major hostilities erupted once again in early to mid-December in Southeast Asia along the borders of Thailand and Cambodia following a troubled “ceasefire” that included incidents and provocations for months since the last round of major fighting took place in July 2025.
Despite any resulting ceasefire, the fundamental issues driving the conflict remain entirely unresolved, primarily because these issues stem from foreign interests using regional conflict to complicate both Asia’s rise in general and China’s rise specifically.”
References:
Nation – Second Army Area suspects English-speaking foreigners flying suicide drones for Cambodian troops (Dec. 11, 2025): https://www.nationthailand.com/news/a… Reuters – Ukrainian operatives aided Syrian rebels with drones, Washington Post reports (Dec. 2024): https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraini… Nation – Three leaders’ statements diverge: US, Thai and Cambodian tones don’t match (Dec. 13, 2025): https://www.nationthailand.com/news/g… RAND Corporation – Extending Russia (2019): https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand… Reagan Presidential Foundation – Fireside Chat with General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Dec. 7, 2025): • Fireside Chat with General Dan Caine, Chai… Irrawaddy – China-Backed Pipeline Facility Damaged in Myanmar Resistance Attack (2022): https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/… Naval War College Review – A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China (2018): https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi… CSIS – How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?: https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trad… NEO – US Sows Chaos Across Asia as it Aims for China (Sep. 2025): https://journal-neo.su/2025/09/30/269… Bloomberg – Thailand Needs Hyperloop, Not China-Built High-Speed Rail, Junta Critic Says (2018): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl… Move Forward Party – Hyperloop Presentation (2019): • \7 ไฮเปอร์ลูป hyperloop คุณธนาธร ตอบคำถามน… iLaw – About: https://www.ilaw.or.th/en/about-us Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity (Thailand): https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/explore… China MFA – President Xi Jinping Meets with King Maha Vajiralongkorn Phra Vajiraklaochaoyuhua of Thailand (Nov. 2025): https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/z… China MFA – Wang Yi Meets with Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand (Apr. 2025): https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/2… New Atlas – The Complete Guide: US Government Role in Thailand’s “Student Protests” (2020): https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20… Harvard AEC (Cambodia): https://atlas.hks.harvard.edu/explore… Phnom Penh Post – The dominance of the dollar in Cambodia: Causes, effects, solutions (Jan. 2025): https://www.phnompenhpost.com/opinion… AP – Cambodian leader’s son, a West Point grad, set to take reins of power — but will he bring change? (2023): https://apnews.com/article/cambodia-e… CBS News – U.S. warship docks in Cambodia, a top Chinese ally, for first time in 8 years (Dec. 2024): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-warsh… Diplomat – US Defense Secretary to Visit China-Linked Cambodian Naval Base (Jun. 2025): https://thediplomat.com/2025/06/us-de… Thai PBS – ‘Angkor Sentinel’ military exercises to return as US-Cambodia links thaw (Nov. 2025): https://world.thaipbs.or.th/detail/an… US PACOM – Royal Cambodian Armed Forces delegation visits USINDOPACOM for Bilateral Defense Dialogue (Jul. 2025): https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/News…
https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/News…
Deputy Foreign Minister and Russia’s Sherpa for BRICS Sergey Ryabkov took part (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2065247/) in the end-of-year sherpa/sous-sherpa meeting of BRICS countries under the Brazilian chairmanship in Brasília on December 11-12.
The participants reviewed this year’s cooperation outcomes. More than 260 political, economic, and humanitarian events, including the #BRICS Summit and nearly 20 ministerial meetings, took place this year.
The contribution of the Brazilian chairmanship to ensuring continuity of the BRICS strategic partnership was noted, along with progress achieved across all key areas such as politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian exchanges.
The launch of the BRICS Partnership for the Elimination of Socially Determined Diseases, the adoption of leadership statements on climate finance and global governance in the field of artificial intelligence are among the year’s achievements.
Additional momentum was observed in cooperation in energy, healthcare, transport, science, and innovation.
Dialogue continued on the Russian chairmanship’s initiatives in 2024, including the creation of an independent settlement infrastructure, an investment platform, and a BRICS grain exchange.
Special emphasis was placed on the institutional development of the association and on enhancing the cooperation mechanisms’ effectiveness.
Our Indian partners outlined the key priorities of their chairmanship in 2026. In particular, they plan to focus on:
• promoting multilateralism, reforming global governance institutions,
•ensuring energy and food security,
• fostering innovation and technological cooperation,
• combatting terrorism, transnational crime, poverty, and climate change.
The meeting also featured a separate session with delegations from BRICS partner states, during which prospects for cooperation in expanded BRICS formats were discussed, as well as opportunities to strengthen solidarity on international platforms to enhance the role of the World Majority in decision-making on key international issues, including sustainable development and improvement of multilateral institutions.
Quick Telegram Update
Just like any other “peace deal” the US brokers (amid conflicts of its own engineering) the “peace” between Thailand and Cambodia collapsed (and really didn’t exist to begin with).
There have been constant skirmishes and incidents along the border all throughout the “peace,” and now open hostilities are escalating once again.
This includes mortars, grenades, small arms, warplanes, and the repositioning of rocket launchers and tanks.
It should be noted that at the time of the first round of fighting, there was a US-backed regime running both Cambodia and Thailand. The US-backed Thai administration was removed from power because of its involvement in the border conflict – Thailand now has a sort of interim government in place.
Unfortunately, Cambodia has over the last 1-2 years pivoted hard toward the US, its new PM (the former PM’s son) is a West Point grad and has signed a raft of military cooperation agreements with the US.
As the National Security Strategy has made clear – the US seeks to expand its containment of China in Asia-Pacific and will do so by enlisting its existing proxies and “expand” available proxies through “soft power” (proxy conflict, coercion, and regime change).
Keep ALL of this in mind as hostilities unfold along the Thai-Cambodian border.
Brian Berletic: More on the US National Security Strategy paper…
Here are Sputnik’s questions and my complete answers regarding the recently released US National Security Strategy document below – I will also be doing an article/video this coming week…
Question 1: In the recently published National Security Strategy of the US, NATO’s expansion is criticized, and Russia is no longer presented as a threat, but as a country with which strategic stability is important for stability in Europe.
What prompted the US to make such changes in the Strategy? Why now?
Answer: Upon reading the entire National Security Strategy, it is clear there is no fundamental change. The very first sentence of the introduction is a declaration of continued pursuit of global primacy. The paper lays out plans of continued war and preparations for war against all of America’s “adversaries” both directly and through “burden sharing,” by proxy.
While it briefly mentions “preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance,” the same paper also boasts of the vast sums of NATO spending that the US coerced European member states into committing to.
Regarding the paper’s characterization of Russia, it should be pointed out that the US desperately seeks to freeze the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, not end it. As suggested in the paper and explicitly stated by US Secretary of War Pete Hegesth in February of this year, Europe will assume more costs and risks in forcing a freeze while the US focuses on containing China.
In other words, this is merely a narrative to implement “burden sharing” and “strategic sequencing,” focusing on China’s containment now and circling back around to containing Russia later.
Question 2) The Ukraine settlement is mentioned as the US’s core interest. The document says that the peace process is crucial for reestablishing strategic stability with Russia. How could it influence the ongoing peace talks?
Answer: The US began this proxy war by overthrowing the Ukrainian government in 2014, leading efforts to train and reorganize Ukraine’s armed forces from 2014 to 2022, while the CIA assumed control over Ukraine’s intelligence services. The US began arming Ukraine with lethal aid (under the previous Trump administration), and now admittedly directs Ukraine’s armed forces from a military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, including overseeing attacks on targets deep within Russian territory itself – all while posing as an impartial mediator in a war the US itself started and is driving.
This is wholly a US proxy war on Russia; the US, and the US alone, can bring to an end. It simply doesn’t want to. What it wants instead is a “Minsk 3.0” freeze, to rebuild both Ukraine and Europe’s military capacity, all by offering Russia the same empty promises of peace, stability, and even economic cooperation that have been repeatedly betrayed since the end of the Cold War. An added bonus would be driving a wedge between Russia and China during this temporary freezing of the conflict to weaken China, so that when the US turns its attention back to Russia, China will no longer be able to offer significant support.
Question 3) The Strategy criticizes NATO expansion, which Russia had been calling a critical issue and a key reason for the Ukraine conflict. What are the realistic chances of the alliance’s expansion being limited in the future, now that the issue has been acknowledged by the US?
Answer: Even though the US ambiguously acknowledged NATO’s expansion in the paper, it also bragged about the vast sums of money the US has coerced European member states into spending on NATO – spending specifically vis-à-vis Russia – as NATO and its various member states face no actual national security threats requiring such vast sums of expenditures.
In other words, the US is telling Russia what it wants to hear in the hopes of appealing to both Russia’s and the rest of the world’s desperate desire for peace and stability and luring Russia into a ceasefire the US even says it will use in the paper to advance its primary foreign policy objective, “to ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come,” or simply, “primacy.”
Question 4) What signal does this move send to warmongers in the US and especially in Europe?
Answer: Considering the paper begins with US President Donald Trump boasting about vastly expanding US military spending (up to $1 trillion), the unprovoked, unjustified war of aggression the US launched on Iran under the current Trump administration, and the growing threat of military aggression against Venezuela, it would seem the paper itself was authored by warmongers.
The paper outlines an unprecedented military build-up and containment strategy targeting China, which is at the top of the list of US-European warmongers. The outlined strategy is simply trying to put the proxy war with Russia on hold, considering how poorly it is going for the US and its proxies at the moment, until a time later when the US once again has the advantage, just as it did with its proxy war in Syria, which it finally, successfully won late last year.
Unfortunately, wishful thinking will only play into Washington’s hands, hands that – without exception – are bloodied by decades of military aggression, aggression that sees no signs of slowing any time in the foreseeable future.
Taking all information from Pepe Escobar’s post: Pepe Escobar: How the BRICS+ Unit Can Save Global Trade
I mention that I am convinced Pepe’s work was absolutely correct as provided to him. I also know that without a deep technical and background in this field, and with deep respect for our longstanding friend Pepe, he may not have had the in-depth knowledge to ask some necessary questions.
So, I will ask these questions. Allow me, these questions will not be of the “academically validated” type, but mainly home in on:
1. This looks like a commercial project. You may think so too by the end of this.
2. This project has so many Atlanticist and Western technologies that it is questionable if this is BRICS. You may think so too by the end, but feel free to prove me wrong, or even partially wrong.
3. If this is really where BRICS stand in their development of a tokenized project, it is deeply disappointing. We have a whole lot of packaging that does not convince a person schooled in cryptographic methodologies. BRICS needs its own blockchain and should not plan to run on a commercial blockchain as a token. This is not the environment BRICS should be. It is cheap and nasty, and tokens (handled later in the nomenclature section) are generally like vanity number plates.
4. There is no top-level technical expertise, and projects of this nature need heavyweight and visionary technologists with a deep knowledge of the industry at the top. There are, in the main, two aspects: the technology and governance of the blockchain, which will include cost management. It is a critical aspect. I am not using the word critical here lightly. If one does not have that in balance, one will fail, as the many failed blockchain projects attest to in the short history of this technology. Do we really want all BRICS countries to come to a screeching halt if Cardano suddenly falls apart? How on earth can we put our trust in an external blockchain? This is like banking at Citibank.
Nomenclature
I will call any discrete aspect of the system as described an element, (in reality it is a segment as worms have segments) and will call the unit itself a token, as this is the correct nomenclature for a cryptographic product in both proof of work and proof of stake systems. The correct nomenclature helps us avoid the esoteric and marketing hype. In fact, the Unit foundation calls it a token.
What is the Unit?
As described, this is neither a stablecoin nor a cryptocurrency. It is understandable why this is said that way, and it is meant to overcome bias and distrust in the general community. The distrust in the word stablecoin exists in the Western community, in the main. Why do we feel it necessary to specifically mention that? Are we writing for Westerners? I am sure China’s E-CNY does not have that connotation of distrust and the Unit is not a ‘post-stablecoin. In fact, it is exactly that in a true definition, a stablecoin where the price is arrived at by utilizing the gold price at the moment and the currency exchange rate of a currency or basket involved at the moment. A stablecoin in the traditional, is a coin that has a value exactly the same as your currency. A Dollar stablecoin is tethered to the US Dollar. The E.CNY is tethered to the Chinese Renminbi. So, we’re adding gold. It is trivial.
But the Unit is not a stablecoin as it is a token. A different price discovery mechanism does not make it what it is not. What are we messing around with Tokens?
Just as China’s E-CNY is a peer-to-peer electronic cash, an analogue to the renminbi. Token fits with the mining or minting process on the blockchain. If this is not correct, perhaps we should have a name that describes it technically.
I mean, according to the description, we are going to mint tokens and run piggy-back on the Cardano Blockchain, no? Why is Ada specifically mentioned? Is there interplay? Costwise perhaps? Yes is the answer and the problem. We’re now developing the Cardano Blockchain and paying for transactions in Cardano.
White Paper
Customarily and correctly, projects such as this require a white paper. Only the very fact that we do not have a white paper, front and center, tells me that we are dealing with economists and bankers, and this does not a technical blockchain make. There is no technical competence in this project as described. We see it here as well: 100 Units have been minted (in a test form), and if one is at this stage of development, these questions must already have answers. Some of the information we were supplied is questionable. I will steer clear of the more technical aspects to make this as understandable as possible for those without a technical background in this sphere.
So, I found a white paper, but it is called a light paper, and indeed, it’s feather-light. https://wp.unitfoundation.org/assets/lightpaper_v17102025.pdf
Let’s stay with The Unit Foundation and its three members. The first one they called BRICS+, the second is the Eurasian Economic Union, and the third is West and Central Africa. But, these are possible future use cases and certainly not real. It then has an AI director and a real director (I think). AI does not substitute for smart and visionary technical expertise with deep knowledge in the industry and in this field. One has to roll up one’s sleeves.
Stepping back to the light paper that was apparently produced by the International Research Institute for Advanced Systems (Irias). Where do they fit? What have they done? A few publications, a few events. There is no top-level technical smarts on blockchains, cryptos, or tokens. They’ve been around since 1976 and consist of ;
There is zero top-level technological expertise, and the paper is light. In fact, it is transparent for what it does not say.
The How.
The Unit Foundation (https://unitfoundation.org/) states: We leverage BRICS+ Currencies and Gold into a Unit Ecosystem. Apparently, according to these bright sparks, it has never been done. To my knowledge the part with currencies has not been done, excepting it has, with existing stablecoins Here is a simple ad for 10 Gold backed cryptocurrencies: The https://primexbt.com/for-traders/gold-backed-cryptocurrency/ To do the sums is for a good programmer designer trivial. But let’s remember that a country such as El Salvador has made Bitcoin an official currency and offered incentives to adopt it. So did the CAR. Where is that currency number now?
It is statements like this that tell me clearly there is no technical expertise of the required weight here.
Let’s go and look for the gold price and for the currency value at the time.
The Unit, in order to make a price for a commercial transaction, needs a current gold price. They state they get it from here:
https://www.bullion-rates.com/
The Corporate Headquarters is listed as 800 N. King Street
Suite 304 1474
Wilmington, DE 19801
So this is one of those Delaware companies that live in a Suite. It is what a virtual company looks like. Have these Unit designers heard about Hong Kong?
They also need a currency value.
So BRICS will be using XE, which is listed on the Nasdex and headquartered in Canada, and is in essence a money transferer. (Have your IBAN (International Bank Account Number ready to make sure your transfer is sent to the right destination.) More western one cannot get.
A comment such as this does not fit BRICS: Even JP Morgan admitted The Unit is “perhaps the most thoroughly fleshed-out of de-dollarization proposals that exist in the cross-border transactions space for BRICS+.” May I ask, who in JP Morgan, and where is the technological expertise to even make that statement?
So, the Chairman of the Launch Committee is Bilderberg. And one of the organizations that they are working with is in Brussels.
I cannot even comment.
How will this Unit affect the whole of the BRICS infrastructure. I mean, what will it do?
Once the UNIT tokens are minted and the nodes of the network are synchronized, they are completely fungible and can be used as any fiat currency: a simple account-to-account transfer using existing banking infrastructure should suffice.
Let us look at that a little deeper.
Nodes of the network – which network? Cardano?
Existing banking infrastructure – I can guarantee you the banks where I am will not touch this thing with a barge pole. It is also a wrong statement which I don’t even want to go into. I repeat, technical expertise with vision and deep knowledge of the industry is lacking and it shows.
Then I hear you say: It’s only a couple of lookups – trivial. Well, what happens if the lookups disappear? All commerce in all BRICS countries comes to a screeching halt?
Let me also not comment too deeply on fungibility at this stage. This is correct. A token, a coin must be fungible. But what happens if Blackrock swoops in and buys every Unit available?
Cardano Blockchain
We end up then with BRICS running its Unit as a token on the Cardano Blockchain. When I saw that at first my response was: WHAT? What happens if the Unit loses its friendship with Cardano? What is going to ensure that Cardano blockchain does not act like a Volkswagon vs a rocketship. Will Cardano scale in its token environment? Is there a realization that scalability is one of the most difficult technical problems to solve? What is the biggest token transaction that Cardono ever processed? What are the benchmarks vs the current Russia, China, Iran trade to start with? Is this even approaching Visa and Mastercard trade worldwide? We are working with Russia and China trade, completely in local currencies, and the numbers are huge. We are working with the Russian and Indian trade, which is over 90% in local currencies. I will forecast that Cardano will fail spectacularly if a smart contract and one of the big transactions multiply by a number of countries must be processed. To give you an idea, China carried out its first smart contract years ago, buying copper from Australia. Why are we using Western technology that has not proven itself in terms of massive transactions while China has the technology? I have nothing against Cardano, but Brazil runs PIX very successfully. Have we even considered PIX as a basis? It belongs to the Brazilian State, and not to a Delaware company. Cardano has over $1 billion in volume per day. So, that is the volume of transactions it is able to process because we cannot say it can do more, if we have not seen or tested or benchmarked it. What happens if you need to put through triple that in a few significant transactions?. Why, when we have the technologies in-house in the BRICS countries?
Following on from this question: Are any of the elements, as explained, proprietary, or are we working in open source? I hope so, but if not, who owns the proprietary elements? Further, who is developing and programming those elements and for who?
Strong recommendation
Do the work and develop a blockchain for BRICS. Position it in a BRICS technology company in a BRICS country. Blockchains are all open source and are an easy start, given the number of iterations already through the few years. Get the technological expertise to the level that is needed. Let the foundation do some work. Raise alternate exchanges in Eurasia. Then build a blockchain that is bereft of any Western influence. Then and only then do technical interfaces with Western countries, as interfaces, and not as determinative technology. Then only BRICS and SCO and Global South and Global East can truly trade with independence. Do not depend on Western banking systems because ‘one day the West will come to its senses’. This cannot be an Atlanticist effort.
There is more, and I’ve touched only what stood out in the first article, focusing on governance issues. I am convinced the Michael Hudsons of this world can tear this apart from an economic standpoint. The Unit, as envisaged, will fail if it is not rescued now, given the information we have. I say that with absolute confidence, as the required level of technological expertise is nowhere to be seen and neither is the governance. A white paper, and not a light paper please. The cost, and yes, there is one, is a black hole. Ownership is a black hole. Or is BRICS the Unit also going to register a virtual Delaware company?
I also want to know if this Unit is so fungible that I can trade it, where is the wallet? This is a test question that addresses custodial or non-custodial ownership and issues of Who Owns What and Where is it stored? This question will define where money, or rather Unit tokens, are kept. Have you spoken to the best block explorer, which is a Russian company? It is called Blockchair: https://blockchair.com/ Nikita, the designer and long-term developer, is a brilliant technologist and can immediately recommend who to work with.
Would you not abandon or re-vision your current effort because it does not use BRICS resources? I can give you some of the most incredibly talented technical resources on this planet. One is married to a Russian, lives in the East, knows the industry backwards and forwards, is a highly talented developer, can manage development teams, and is a committed Orthodox Christian. No, he won’t do it for you, but he will set you up and get the governance issues in shape. I know this Frenchman, and it is the same story. He won’t do it for you, but he can set you up. The talent is out there, but the truly visionary talent pool is limited, and you don’t have it.
This is a vast topic, and I’ve hardly scratched the surface. I’ve not looked at the composition of The Basket as it is not stated with clarity. How do you figure ‘equal portions of major BRICS currencies: BRL, CNY, INR, RUB and ZAR’? ZAR will thank the creators for that one. I also find a level of non-transparency. Those of us that took the trouble to learn this environment from inception, are intent on transparency. We are absolutely accustomed to diving into the code and assessing it on a granular level. This is how the technical resources of BRICS countries will start their analysis to decide whether they are in or not. It is perhaps a timing issue, but with a light paper, this level of transparency should be visible. It is not.
Pepe Escobar on Sputnik
The Unit project, first revealed by Sputnik in 2024, is emerging as the most viable option for breaking the US dollar’s stranglehold on global trade and investment.
In his book co-written with top economist Sergey Bodrunov, Regulations of the Noonomy (international edition published this year by Sandro Teti Editore in Rome), leading Russian economist Sergey Glazyev stresses the need to “ensure a full-fledged switch to national currencies in mutual trade and investment within the EAEU and the CIS, and further – within the BRICS and SCO, the withdrawal of joint development institutions from the dollar zone, the development of their own independent payment systems and interbank information exchange systems.”
When it comes to financial innovation – compared to the current structure of the international financial system – The Unit is in a class of its own.
The Unit is essentially a benchmark token – or an index token; a post-stablecoin, digital monetary tool; totally decentralized; and with intrinsic value anchored in real assets: gold and sovereign currencies.
The Unit can be used either as part of a new digital infrastructure – what most of the Global South is striving for; or as part of a traditional banking setup.
When it comes to fulfilling traditional money functions, The Unit is – pardon the pun – right on the money. It’s meant to be used as a quite convenient medium of exchange in cross-border trade and investments – a key plank of the diversification actively pursued by BRICS+.
It should also be seen as an independent, reliable measure for value and pricing, as well as a better store of value than fiat money.
The Unit is academically validated – including by Glazyev himself – and properly governed by IRIAS (International Research Institute for Advanced Systems), set up in 1976 in accordance with the UN statute.
And crucial at this next step, The Unit is to be launched early next year on the Cardano blockchain, which uses the digital currency Ada.
Ada has a fascinating background – named after Ada Lovelace, a 19th-century mathematician, daughter of none other than Lord Byron, and recognized as the first computer programmer in History.
Anyone, anywhere can use Ada as a secure exchange of value; and very important, without the need to ask a third party to mediate the exchange.
That means every Ada transaction is permanently secured and recorded on the Cardano blockchain. That also means that every Ada holder also holds a stake in the Cardano network.
Cardano has been around for 10 years now – and is a quite popular blockchain. It’s backed by some quite big venture capital firms such as IOHK, Emurgo and the Cardano Foundation. Essentially, Cardano is an excellent option for regular payments because transactions are cheap and fast.
Neither a crypto nor a stablecoin
Enter The Unit.
The Unit is neither a cryptocurrency nor a stablecoin – as it’s shown here.
A concise definition of The Unit would be a resilient reserve of value – backed by a structure of 60% gold and 40% diversified BRICS+ currencies.
The major appeal for the Global South is that such a unique mix provides stability and protection against inflation, especially under the current global financial landscape of wobbly macroeconomics and widespread uncertainty.
Using Cardano, The Unit is bound to become accessible to everyone, via a combination of centralized and decentralized exchanges.
So to enter this new market, individuals and companies will be able to acquire The Unit directly with fiat through regulated banking partners. That means a bridge between traditional finance and emerging decentralized ecosystems – in favor of liquidity, accessibility and reliability, opening the door to full adoption by the Global South.
The Unit can even evolve into a new form of digital cash for emerging economies.
Following exactly the path delineated by BRICS even before the ground-breaking annual summit in Kazan in 2024, The Unit may be the best solution currently available for cross-border payments: a new form of international currency, issued in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at a national level.
And that brings us to the top conceptual strenght of The Unit: it removes a direct dependency on the currency of other nations, and offers the Global South/Global Majority a new form of non-censored, apolitical money.
Better yet: apolitical money featuring an enormous potential for anchoring fair trade and multiple investments.
What the Global South really needs
A good next step for The Unit would also be to set up an Advisory Board, uniting world standard stars such as Prof. Michael Hudson, Jeffrey Sachs, Yannis Varoufakis and the co-founder of the NDB Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. (here at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai) .
When it comes to BRICs-emphasized de-dollarization – done with a hefty degree of sophistication, without having to spell it out – The Unit will be key. It’s also key that The Unit is not a cryptocurrency.
Wall Street behemoths – especially BlackRock – are big on cryptocurrencies, an enormously unstable set up which eschewed individual holders to the profit of massive institutional players. For example, it’s BlackRock that essentially shapes Bitcoin’s market.
US stablecoins essentially perpetuate US dollar dominance – aiming their firepower directly against possible, future digital currencies offered by BRICS+.
The Unit is the stark opposite, offering a reliable digital monetary tool for the fast advancing Multipolar World. It’s an evolution in itself, bridging the fiat and the crypto worlds; and last but not least, it is a solid foundation for the emerging post-Bretton Woods economy.
Of course the challenges ahead are huge – and The Unit will be fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects as a new concept offering borderless financial resilience for the Global South/Global Majority.
And here may lie the key takeaway: the only way BRICS+ as well as the Global Majority may be strengthened is by developing closer and closer geoeconomic, financial ties. For that, the toxic power of Western speculative capital must be contained – to the benefit of more intra-Global South commodity trading, and more investable capital for productive, sustainable development.
The potential is limitless. The Unit may well be able to unlock it. Even JP Morgan admitted The Unit is “perhaps the most thoroughly fleshed-out of de-dollarization proposals that exist in the cross-border transactions space for BRICS+.”
And there’s no other similarly effective plan anywhere in the world.
Speakers:
Pavel Knyazev, Ambassador-at-Large, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sous-Sherpa of Russia to the BRICS
Victoria Panova, Vice-Rector, HSE University, Head of the BRICS Expert Council–Russia
Anna Sytnik, Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State University, Expert, BRICS Expert Council, Managing Director of the INPO “Kolaboratorija”
Marco Fernandes, PhD in Social Psychology (University of São Paulo), Brazilian Representative at the BRICS Civil Council
Moderator:
Timofei Bordachev, Programme Director, Valdai Discussion Club
https://valdaiclub.com/multimedia/video/live-brics-2026-plateau-or-new-rise-an-expert-discussion/
This is Brian’s video accompanying his article on NEO: https://journal-neo.su/2025/11/18/al-qaeda-in-the-white-house-and-its-implications-far-beyond-it/
This comes with my recommendation. Brian again talks about the imperial Continuity of Agenda and connects far-flung events, and places these events where they fit in that agenda. If you think the imperial has given up on anything, you must please think again. This has never happened, and the agenda is in full swing. Brian also explains the imperial’s primary weapons and how they are deployed. He spends time on Syria and teases out how the neo-warrior cadres are being used. Empires fall and sometimes shrivel. They don’t just give up. Never has an empire given up, as it is its task and its life-force to maintain control and keep up its slavery.
Brian’s work isn’t the most romantic, and in general, he talks about the mundane and things that aren’t so exciting. His work is solid. We can always quibble about small details, but that would take us away from the overall description of how this river flows. His conclusions are accurate, and he is developing into an excellent investigative journalist in his chosen field.
Following is a controversial statement: currently, we see many useful idiots building their careers on convincing everyone how savvy they are regarding Russia, and how many ‘very important people’ they can have interviews with and which ‘important platforms’ they can be invited to. Think on that for a moment and ponder the real value, this bunch of westerners explaining to you and me how Russia thinks, as if they know. Do we really have to see Russia through a western lense? Where are the deep studies into how the empire is progressing? Of course, this is a controversial statement because these folks are setting themselves up as saviors. Allow me to ask a question. If all of these latest ‘Watch Me in Russia’ videos disappeared, what would we really lose? This is a serious question. Many years ago, in my previous job, I discussed with my boss an extension of his blog, and that would be the East and China. That direction was approved at the time, but only to a limited extent. I was early in my assessment that we need to look at the broader world.
Russia is currently seeking an identity. It may be as short as an identity statement. They are floundering in this search. China has found that identity and continually works on being equal to its own statement through good ‘ol communist self-examination. One interview or article with Professor Karaganov can tell us more about what Russia thinks, and what not, and a few Lavrov interviews can hammer that in. Yes I know – not as romantic as the Watch Me in Russia videos, but are we here for entertainment, or for understanding? (Yes yes, entertainment is fine of course.) It is of great necessity for all of us to understand the complete and whole movement to multipolarity in all of its aspects, the good, the bad and the ugly, and then, the complete and full resistance to the current war on the world. Initially, we thought it would be a war on BRICS, and it is, of course, but it is much broader than that.
Take a little time to understand all the hot spots and how they converge. You may also know on a more profound level why we are seeing the performance art around the so-called Gaza peace agreement, as well as the current performance art peace agreement for Russia and Ukraine. There is one Agenda, and the individual events all play in, sometimes by design, and sometimes as a result of years and decades-long persistence in working on Continuity of the Agenda. There is no change vis a vis Russia. The imperial still wants to break it apart and own it. There is no change vis a vis China. The imperial still wants to own and control it. We need to get the big picture and then work locally to resist. The barbarian crusades are in full swing.
Quietly unveiled:
BRICS Pay Latest News
Introduction
Evolution of BRICS Financial Cooperation
The BRICS Pay Initiative
Strategic Motivation and Political Context
Challenges in Implementing BRICS Pay
Global Implications
https://t.me/InessaFromYoutube/9103
There exists a BRICS Paymnent Task Force, but good luck to find them.
Verily, it is Victory or Martyrdom.
Venezuelans have a “true sense of belonging to a project worth saving.. This is a project of collective self-emancipation. .. Those who are committed to the Bolivarian revolution assume themselves as subjects of transformation, not as victims. And this is something to be reckoned with.”
Video Description:
“I’m joined by Cira Pasqual Marquina, author and educator at the Pluriversidad Patria Grande and co-host with Chris Gilbert of the Marxist education program and podcast Escuela de Cuadros.
I ask her:
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina interviews at Venezuelanalysis.
The Imperialist Offensive is Nothing New for the Bolivarian Revolution’: A Conversation with Ana Maldonado
A Chavista organizer examines the US militarization of the Caribbean and the Bolivarian Revolution’s enduring resistance to imperial aggression.
In recent months, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the Caribbean, sending warships, aircraft, and even a nuclear submarine to waters near Venezuela amid extrajudicial attacks on fishing vessels. For many, this new phase of aggression is all too familiar — part of a decades-long campaign of hybrid warfare designed to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty.
In this context, Cira Pascual Marquina spoke with Ana Maldonado, a sociologist, international relations coordinator for the Francisco de Miranda Front—a national Chavista movement—and member of the Venezuelan chapter of ALBA Movements. In this interview, Maldonado offers her perspective on how Venezuelans are experiencing the latest imperialist escalation, reflects on the country’s long resistance to hybrid war, and situates the current threat within the broader struggle for sovereignty in Latin America and the Caribbean.
How are the Venezuelan people experiencing this new imperialist escalation?
President Nicolás Maduro has said that in this scenario of maximum pressure, our response must be maximum preparation. At the same time, he has called on us to combine vigilance with calm, to continue our daily lives, and to defend the peace with social justice that has cost us so much to build and preserve.
You can see this clearly in the fact that, even amid the current military escalation, the new school year began normally across the country. More than 20,000 educational institutions opened their doors without disruption, and over six million children and youth returned to class, as they do every year around this time.
While we are indeed facing a serious threat of war, people are also carrying on with their everyday lives and that, in itself, is a victory, since the enemy seeks precisely to disrupt our life.
People abroad are often surprised to learn that daily routines here continue undisturbed and that Venezuelans are not living in a state of panic. How do you explain this?
This is far from our first encounter with imperialist aggression. The tactics may shift, but the strategy remains unchanged: hybrid warfare. For years, US imperialism and its allies have waged a relentless campaign against Venezuela, beginning in earnest in April 2002 with the coup d’état and the people’s heroic counteroffensive that restored democracy. That was followed by the oil sabotage, mercenary incursions, and global media campaigns against our democracy.
After Comandante Chávez passed in 2013, a new and sustained period of aggression began. Initially, they bet that we would fail to hold peaceful elections or that President Maduro would never be elected. The dominant narrative was “Maduro is not Chávez.” With that simplistic argument, they sought to demoralize the Chavista social base, implying that the Bolivarian project would not withstand the loss of the Comandante. Yet we won the elections and, even as we mourned Chávez, the project continued.
But the US and their local agents were determined not to let us go on with our revolution. In 2014, the opposition launched a violent campaign called “La Salida” [The Exit], led by Voluntad Popular and María Corina Machado, the same factions now openly calling for foreign intervention. The following year, the United States took another war-like step: Obama’s 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
That decree was followed by the 2016 economic strangulation, marked by deliberate shortages aimed at making everyday life unbearable. Ten years later, we remain under a blockade that has killed tens of thousands.
In 2017, the most extreme factions of the opposition returned to the streets with fascist violence, committing atrocities such as the burning alive of a young Black man, Orlando Figuera, targeted simply for looking like a Chavista. More than 100 people were killed during this period of intensified fascist terror.
President Maduro responded by calling for a National Constituent Assembly, once again raising the banner of peace and democracy in the face of fascist violence. People from all sectors, including residents of middle-class neighborhoods whose polling centers had been attacked, were able to vote in peace at the Poliedro de Caracas.
Since then, we’ve lived through multiple phases of hybrid war: Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as “interim president” in 2019 and the “Battle of the Bridges,” when the opposition attempted to stage a false-flag operation on the Colombian border under the guise of a humanitarian aid effort. That was followed by massive blackouts that left the country in darkness for days and the 2020 Operation Gideon, recently further exposed in a Max Blumenthal interview with its US organizer, Jordan Goudreau, a former Green Beret.
None of these were isolated incidents: they are coordinated fronts in a sustained hybrid war combining political, psychological, economic, and military aggression.
Yet, in each of these moments, the government and the organized pueblo have responded effectively. During the 2019 electrical sabotage, for example, communities mobilized to ensure access to water and basic needs, while Operation Gideon was defeated by the same fisherfolk who are now being attacked in the Southern Caribbean.
So, to return to your original question: yes, people are alert because the threat is real, but we are also seasoned and organized. We know we are capable of defending the Revolution with unity and discipline. We are in a phase of maximum preparation, with millions voluntarily enrolling in the militia and preparing for the defense of the Patria [homeland].
Indeed, people are not only enlisting in the Bolivarian Militia but also preparing collectively. You’ve given us a historical account of the attacks faced by the Bolivarian Revolution over the past 25 years. But as we know, the current military buildup in the Caribbean is not only against Venezuela: it is an attack on the continent. How do you understand its broader implications?
The imperialist onslaught on the Caribbean is nothing new. Haiti, still punished today for its revolution more than two centuries ago, remains under siege. Now, armed gangs tied to the Dominican Republic are also involved. Puerto Rico continues to endure capitalist dispossession, with five million Puerto Ricans now living in the US while barely three million remain on the island. All the while, revolutionary Cuba has faced a brutal blockade for many decades.
However, the recent imperialist military buildup should deeply concern the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, since it signals a shift in Washington’s military policy. Around 10,000 US troops are currently stationed in the Caribbean, mainly in Puerto Rico, to say nothing of the destroyers, nuclear submarine, and air force deployments.
They are not there only to threaten Venezuela; this is the revival of the Monroe Doctrine. As Trump once said, “Why pay for Venezuelan oil, if we can just take it?” That’s how they think about the resources of the continent.
When it comes to Venezuela, beyond seizing our resources, the US also aims to strip away our sovereignty and destroy the example that we represent. If our project succeeds, it will inspire the entire continent. From Canada to Patagonia, people are struggling for liberation, and the Bolivarian Revolution represents a living example of how that can be done.
Attacking Venezuela serves two purposes: to loot our resources and to extinguish the example of participatory democracy. Since 2021, Venezuela has experienced renewed economic growth and the strengthening of its communes and popular power.
That is precisely what Washington wants to halt: they fear that the peoples of Latin America, and even within the United States, will draw inspiration from our experience.
Why the military escalation at this particular moment?
Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is itself an admission of decline. The US is no longer what it once was, and its elites are desperate to recover lost ground. Yet even within those elites, fractures abound between the neoconservatives, the Zionist zealots, and the MAGA bloc. Their internal contradictions often produce erratic foreign policy decisions.
However, on one point they all agree: war is profitable. The military-industrial complex remains central to sustaining the US economy. So even amid domestic tensions, there is a bipartisan consensus around war as business.
Before the recent attacks on Venezuelan vessels, President Maduro warned that they might attempt to recreate a Gulf of Tonkin incident, because their hunger for war is insatiable. He was right: this aggression is ultimately driven by the economic imperative of feeding the war machine. In a post-Cold War world, it survives through perpetual “hot wars”—and what better front than Venezuela, which is rich in resources and defiant of imperial domination?
Let’s close with Chávez. He declared the Bolivarian Revolution anti-imperialist in 2004, but in truth, it always had a sovereign and anti-imperialist character. Could you reflect on Chávez’s anti-imperialism?
Indeed. The formal declaration came during a historic rally at the Botanical Garden in 2004, but the Revolution was Bolivarian from the start, and Bolívar himself was profoundly anti-imperialist. He warned that the United States seemed “destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.” That same spirit lives in our revolution since day one.
Chávez revived Bolívar’s anti-imperialist legacy as early as 1977, when he created the People’s Army for the Liberation of Venezuela, whose founding document enshrined Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism as guiding principles. Later, in The Blue Book [1991], he outlined the vision of sovereignty and dignity that still guides us. President Maduro calls that text a “historical compass” pointing us steadfastly, no matter how much we have to maneuver, toward our strategic goal: the defense of sovereignty and the rejection of imperial domination.
For us, being anti-imperialist means not only refusing to surrender our resources, but also defending our identity, our dignity, and our very being. The empire’s elites belong nowhere; they want the world to belong to them. We, by contrast, define ourselves by belonging to a land, to a pueblo, and to a history.
That is why even symbolic aggressions, such as the attempt to erase “Bolivarian” from the Republic’s name during the 2002 coup, or mocking us as “venecos” in an attempt to erase our identity, are part of the war.
Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism are also deeply rooted in your organization, the Frente Francisco de Miranda. Can you tell us about it?
Indeed. In 2003, Fidel and Chávez founded the Frente Francisco de Miranda as a movement of Bolivarian, anti-imperialist social workers. However, anti-imperialism isn’t limited to my organization; it’s in the bloodstream of millions of Venezuelans who have resisted International Monetary Fund impositions since 1989 and continue defending the Bolivarian project today.
To be Chavista is to be anti-imperialist. Chávez was the first Latin American president to recognize Palestine, to support the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and to speak of our historical debt to Haiti. His backing of these and other liberation struggles was not just a matter of words but also about material support. He also linked the defense of Haiti to a history that, for him, didn’t begin with Pétion and Dessalines, but with Hatuey, the first known hero of an anti-colonial Caribbean rebellion.
That is our Chávez—the anti-imperialist Chávez—whose legacy continues to guide us!
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina is a Political Science professor at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas. She is also co‐producer and co‐host (with Chris Gilbert) of the Marxist education program Escuela de Cuadros. She is actively engaged with grassroots organizations in Venezuela and abroad, and is dedicated, both as a militant and as an investigator, to communal initiatives.
Exactly.
Quick Tip: Using AI to Research Possible US Color Revolutions
How AI Works…
Western (and even some non-Western) AI models are all trained on and search through WESTERN media.
If you ask them, “Is the US behind the protests?”
AI will simply comb Western headlines which all unanimously claim the protests are “youth-led” and “decentralized” and in no way “US-backed.”
Now here’s the tip.
Ask that same AI telling you there is “no” US involvement the same question but in a different manner:
“Which pro-democracy media organizations and pro-democracy parties are supporting the current protests?”
It will often provide you a list of organizations, parties, and sometimes even people.
THEN you ask “which pro-democracy organizations in the West are supporting these media outlets, parties, people.”
Or “where do they receiving funding from?”
And often it will brag about NED, USAID, and Open Society funding.
It was the same fundamental question asked in 2 different ways – 2 completely contradictory answers were provided – one based on mainstream headlines (lies) AI combed through quickly and provided to you, the other based on actual funding and affiliations.
Better still…
Learn how to do this research yourself, and only use AI when you have a deep understanding of the topic and can determine what AI is telling you along the spectrum of simply repeating Western propaganda and actually returning fact-based conclusions.
This is a quick X post from Brian. He is correct.
Why Are there No Large Media Organizations Exposing US Political Interference and Regime Change???
Why doesn’t Russian and Chinese media – located in nations that understand and have successfully combated US political subversion and capture in their own countries – have at least a small team researching who is funding people involved in protests around the world so when they report on it at Sputnik, RT, CGTN, etc. – they can actually inform people of the truth behind this type of unrest rather than just repeating/amplifying what the BBC, CNN, or VOA says?
US political interference and regime change is Washington’s ultimate super weapon – one that has destroyed multiple nations over this 21st century alone and coercing many more nations to work against their own best interests and against that of multipolarism. US political interference and capture is surrounding Russia and China with dangerous US proxies like Ukraine, the Baltics – or in China’s case – Japan, the Philippines, and even China’s own island province of Taiwan.
No amount of arms production has or can be used to stop this – only exposing it and helping nations develop the means to successfully defend against it can stop it, just as Russia and China have done domestically.
Solutions:
1. Cut off US, European, Western foundation-funding to “NGOs,” opposition groups, parties, and programs targeting education and information space/media in a targeted nation/bloc of nations. Pass national security laws that ENFORCE already existing international law under the UN Charter regarding political independence and foreign interference;
2. Replace US-based and controlled social media platforms manipulating what people inside a country sees, believes, and aspires towards with social media platforms that reflect the best interests of that nation itself. Russia and China export weapons to help nations defend their borders, shores, and skies, why not versions of social media platforms they have themselves that allow others to defend their information space as well?;
3. Create academic/professional pipelines to create human resources for national media, foreign relations, political science, administrative roles, education/teaching, and business development INDEPENDENT of Western academic institutions, programs, scholarships/fellowships and agendas. A nation’s media, foreign ministry, universities and business community should be run by people educated by and reflecting the interests of their nation, not by or in the West at their own nation’s expense;
4. Create GLOBAL social media platforms beyond the manipulation and control of US information dominance – alternatives to YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram that constitute a majority of how people around the world currently “think” they are informing themselves. This includes creating supporting services that allow the public to support alternative media (alternatives to PayPal, Patreon etc) that are beyond the US’ ability to cut off to silence opposing narratives;
5. And as mentioned above, create research teams to actually RESEARCH global events like protests and conflict to determine what is really happening and report on it accurately, rather than echoing the lies of the West usually behind such protests/conflict;
US political interference is a global enterprise – it threatens peace, stability, development, and prosperity on every inhabited continent on Earth. Yet because it takes place over long periods of time, is done through boring programs, workshops, seminars, scholarships, fellowships etc., few are interested in researching it, and fewer still are interested in learning about it.
This leaves a tremendously powerful weapon in Washington’s hands – one that is hardly noticed, poorly understood, and almost entirely undefended against. By the time this long-term process reaches critical mass and attention-grabbing violence/conflict or worse erupts – IT IS TOO LATE TO STOP IT.
There are things that can be done – things that have stopped US interference and political capture – that can be and must be applied more widely.
Multipolarism cannot prevail if nations can be captured and redirected away from it and away from their best interests, toward Washington’s interests (at their own expense) which includes burying the very idea of multipolarism under continued US hegemony.
US NED-funded media like "Animal Politico" and US NED "Democracy Award" winner and former Mexican president/millionaire Vicente Fox are openly promoting the protests "organized" on mainly… pic.twitter.com/fLSJQyfp4T
— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) November 16, 2025
Takaichi: the Honeymooner. When will the divorce come?
with gratitude to Julian Macfarlane at News Forensics.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s poll numbers have risen to over 65%. I am not sure whether Takaichi is the Japanese Thatcher— or the Japanese Blair both of whom came into power with great numbers. .
She has already sparked controversy.
One is her work-life concept, where “work” IS “life” – as it used to be in the 60s in Japan. Her conservative values are not exactly female-friendly. Men are supposed to work – do overtime – and women stay home and have babies as they once did. They can’t make any money in the workplace anyway.
Not that young men aren’t willing to die trying either.
“Karoshi” – “death by overwork” – what’s that?
Takaichi thinks that its’ something positive.
In a speech after winning the party leadership race on Saturday, Takaichi said, “I will work, work, work, work and work.”
She also called on LDP lawmakers to “work like a horse.”
While such remarks seem to demonstrate her resolve to shoulder heavy responsibilities, they apparently came as a surprise to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.
“As she clearly said she would throw away her work-life balance, I can’t help but wonder if that’s okay. But I believe that is her expression of determination,” said Ishiba, who gave an address after Takaichi’s victory speech.
That appears to be how middle class Japanese women are taking the speech—determination. After all, they saw their mothers working around the clock, including part-time.
Takaichi grew up in a middle class family too.
But this is not the only example of her ultra right views.
Sinophobia, of course, has been a Japanese things since…forever… maybe because of a an unspoken, hidden suspicion that the Imperial Family is Chinese, or at least Korean. The average Japanese still has nothing much good to say about China – or Chinese people.
Takaichi has already angered the Chinese by suggesting Japanese intervention should the Chinese seek a military solution to Taiwan.
She cites reasons of “self defense” , saying Taiwan is only 60 miles from Japan, by which she means from the Diaoyu Islands which both China and Taiwan claim, with considerable reason.
Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands
Keep in mind that the Ryukyus were not part of Japan until 1879. The Ryukyus were an independent and prospered through trade with China. The Japanese took over, banned the language and culture.
Then there is Dokdo Island, which is occupied by South Korea and which the Japanese call Takeshima. She has said that a Cabinet Minister should attend the ceremony to mark “Takeshima Day,” held in Shimane every February to demonstrate Japan’s sovereignty over the islet — although this is a local rather than national event.
Dokdo / Takeshima Island
OK. Not exactly WWII again . But. .
Kurile Islands / Hokkaido
Let us keep in mind that Japan only took Hokkaido after the Boshin War of 1869. It was its first step towards emulating the colonialism and imperialism of the West. The Ainu peoples were to the Japanese what Native Americans were to Americans. Japan’s first attempt at genocide.
The Russians understand history only too well.
Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, in a speech last week, scolded Russia for its “aggression against Ukraine” but also said that Japan maintains “its policy of resolving the territorial issue and concluding a peace treaty.”
The territorial issue is of course the Kurils which Japan lost as a consequence of WWII, just as Russia lost the southern part of Sakhalin as a consequence of the Russo Japanese War fo 1904. What goes round, comes round.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she had not seen anything new in the remarks by Takaichi, and that for any progress Tokyo would have to change its tone.
“We have repeatedly stated before that the path to resuming dialogue with Japan will open only after Tokyo actively abandons its anti-Russian course aimed at harming our country and its citizens,” Zakharova told reporters when asked by Reuters about the prospects for a peace deal.
Zakharova said Tokyo’s “unfriendly” policy towards Russia had led relations towards a dead-end.
“This unfriendly dead-end approach was chosen by the Japanese side, not by us,” Zakharova added.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has sidestepped a commitment to maintain Japan’s decades-old pledge not to produce, possess or host nuclear weapons over apparent concerns about the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”
Formulated in 1967 and known formally as the country’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, the pledge has consistently been upheld by governments since.
Takaichi told opposition lawmakers in parliament Tuesday that, as her government gears up to revise the country’s key national security documents by the end of 2026, “it is not yet at the stage” where she could “definitively state” that the wording of the principles will remain the same.
Of course, the Three Principles is an excuse for permitting American bases all over the country. Do they have nuclear weapons? Japan allows nuclear armed American ships and aircraft to “transit” through Japan How long is the stopover? Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Without the three principles, things get complicated. Japan might want to develop its own weapons and reduce the number of American bases.
Let us remember, however, that this winging to the right is what that declining nations do.
We see this in Europe too. Beat the drums of war, build up a sense of threat and fear, so that people will invest their hopes for the future in a strong leader, who is somehow “different”, but adhering to traditional beliefs. Change but no change. Or as Obama said, “Change you can believe in”.
But Japan needs China —not just for its huge market but for its technologies ==for example the rare earth magnets that Japanese consumer electronics rely on.
Should China — Japan’s main trading partner — stop cooperating economically, Japan is in trouble. The G7 economies no longer represent viable markets for its products in the future.
Japan needs Russia and South Korea too. So alienating these countries is not a recipe for economic success.
In addition, Japan needs access to the vast resources of Russia— not just Russian gas and oil, but wood, minerals, and the like, including foodstuffs.
Economic cooperation with South Korea is important too. Again, technologies matter.
As for “work-life” balance, a grueling balance between men in the workplace, women in the home was an aspect of Japan’s reindustrialization in the 50s and 60s. Ironically Japanese society then was one of the most egalitarian in the world—except for women, of course. 90% of Japanese then thought themselves “middle class”.
It must be said also that in those days Japanese white collar workers at least rarely did much from 9 to 5 — everything was accomplished in overtime—which paid extra.
Now things have changed.
Wealth in Japan today is flowing upwards as it is in all financialized societies. It isn’t as bad as in the France or the UK or the US— but is that a valid comparison?
Japan is more and more unequal. Of course it was always unequal for women But with future money earning partners in short supply, things are worse.
Marriage rates have dropped. Birthrates too. Nobody has sex anymore.
How long before the Japanese population reaches 50,000,000?
This is Takaichi’s honeymoon but it will be over sooner or later. She might well win the next election but she has no new ideas, no solutions, just same-old, same-old. Yes, she’s a woman— an honorary member of the Old Boys Club.
Just like Thatcher was.
While some analysts have mistakenly concluded U.S. escalation toward Venezuela represents a “retreat” from Asia or even Eurasia, and a transition from pursuing global primacy toward carving out an American “sphere of influence,” the U.S. is much more likely attempting to complement its continued encirclement, containment and confrontation with both Russia and China by eliminating one of their more vulnerable allies—Venezuela—in a bid to escalate rather than withdraw from Washington’s ongoing war against multipolarism.
Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. at the Valdai Club
There are two sections to this.
First is the discussion at the Valdai club and second the following talk by Think-BRICS. This is not casual reading, but instead requires careful study.
—
The need to face up to the deficiencies of the Western-controlled monetary and financial system should lead the BRICS to better organize themselves going forward in order to remove at least in part the internal obstacles to change. Although some sensitive matters, such as the possibility of creating a new reserve currency, are only feasible in the longer term, the group should continue to work towards providing practical alternatives not only for themselves but for developing countries as a whole.
This paper discusses the topic of BRICS monetary and financial initiatives with a focus on Russia’s chairmanship of the group in 2024 and next steps. In so far as monetary and financial matters are concerned, the point of departure of the BRICS is the widely recognized dysfunctionality of the dollar-centered system, a consequence of two distinct factors: a) the weaponization of the US dollar and of the Western crossborder payment network; and b) the structural weaknesses of the economy of the United States, the country issuing the hegemonic international currency. The BRICS, rightly or wrongly, are often seen as the main potential source of alternatives to the current flawed international monetary and financial system.
Paradoxically, as we will see, the US wants to monopolize the role of undermining the dollar and the current international system. Among the countries of the BRICS, Russia is one of the most, if not the most interested country in promoting the discussion and implementation of alternatives to the current international monetary and financial system dominated by the United States and its allies.
The reason is well-known: Russia and Russian banks and firms have been a direct target of sanctions, including exclusion from the Western-sponsored cross-border payments framework and, most notably, the freezing of as much as half of the country’s international reserves, to the tune of US$ 300 billion, after the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. A number of other countries, including Iran, one of the new BRICS members, have also been targeted by the West in similar ways. Thus, it was to be expected that Russia would do its best to advance BRICS discussions of financial matters.
Kindly download the Valdai Club report here: https://valdaiclub.com/files/50206/
Think-BRICS was involved in starting the discussion with Batista and post Valdai discussion, picked up this report and continued the discussion. It was good to see that the proposals arriving from this track align in broad terms with Michael Hudson’s discussions on a new financial system and what is needed. The two accompanying videos are at the end.
The Storm and the Blueprint: Charting the BRICS’ Monetary Liberation
BRICS’ strategic move toward financial independence: Weaponization drives the push for parallel banks, the BCBPI, and a new non-Western reserve system.
The international financial landscape today resembles a high-stakes, unscripted drama, where the established world order, centered on the US dollar, is visibly cracking under the weight of its own political and fiscal pressures. At the heart of this unfolding story stands Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr., the Brazilian economist whose experience spans the highest echelons of global finance, from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the founding of the New Development Bank (NDB).
Batista Jr.’s proposal, famously titled ‘Beyond the Dollar,’ provides a comprehensive blueprint for the BRICS grouping to construct a new, independent monetary architecture. This vision, first previewed during an interview on ‘Think BRICS’ and subsequently subjected to intense scrutiny during a public debate at the Valdai Club in Moscow, does more than merely catalog the dollar system’s flaws; it maps a daring, two-track path toward global financial sovereignty.
Act I: The Crisis Defined—A Weaponized System on a Cracked Foundation
Batista Jr. grounds his call for a new system in the widely recognized dysfunctionality of the dollar-centered system. He argues this breakdown stems from two distinct, interconnected factors: the calculated weaponization of financial mechanisms and the structural weaknesses inherent in the U.S. economy.
The Financial Sword: Weaponization and the Loss of Confidence
The key driver forcing BRICS nations toward alternatives is the West’s tendency to use its currency and financial architecture as a geopolitical weapon to punish non-cooperative countries.
SWIFT and Exclusion: Cross-border payment systems like SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) have been transformed into tools of coercion. If a country “displease[s] western bosses,” it risks being “thrown out of the system,” as Russia experienced.
Institutional Capture: The dollar, the IMF, and the World Bank are all used as geopolitical weapons, ironically undermining the very institutions the U.S. helped create.
The NDB’s Shackles: This weaponization reaches even the heart of BRICS institutions. Batista Jr., having helped build the NDB, revealed that the bank stopped lending to Russia, a founding member, solely out of fear of sanctions. Had the NDB continued, it risked losing its credit rating, dictated by the “triopoly” of American credit rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch). Similarly, the bank fears accepting new members like Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela due to the potential negative impact on its credit rating.
Secondary Sanctions: This coercive environment affects not only targeted nations (such as Russia and Iran) but also trading partners. Countries like Brazil, for instance, bear the risk of potential secondary sanctions for trading with nations deemed “toxic” by the West.
As Dmitry Birichevsky, Director of the Department of Economic Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, observed during the Valdai debate, what happened to Russia can happen to any country, noting that Western nations “themselves force us to do that,” having “deprived” partners of the opportunity to use the dollar and euro through limitations.
The Rotting Foundation: Structural Weakness of the Hegemon
Confidence in a reserve currency rests on the health of the issuing country’s financial arrangements. Batista Jr. points out that U.S. macroeconomic fundamentals are no longer solid, noting that Americans “continue to preach but no longer practice solid economic policies.”
Fiscal Disarray: U.S. fiscal policy is in disarray, with public debt continuously increasing as a proportion of GDP, and the political system failing to deliver necessary surpluses.
Privilege and Resistance: The U.S. maintains its privilege of covering large deficits simply by issuing currency. This economic advantage explains America’s “determined resistance to any proposal or initiative that could weaken the status of the dollar”.
Batista Jr., drawing on his eight years as an IMF Executive Director, stresses the sobering reality: the West will not allow fundamental reform of the international monetary and financial system established since World War II. Therefore, the path forward for BRICS must be to “start off from scratch”.
Act II: The Blueprint Unveiled—A Fiduciary Alternative
Acknowledging that the existing system is unreformable and that reliance on bilateral settlements in national currencies is ultimately limited by imbalances, Batista Jr. sets the long-term goal: the creation of a new international reserve currency.
Dispelling False Solutions
Batista Jr. methodically dismisses two frequently discussed alternatives:
Commodity Backing (e.g., Gold): A trustworthy currency requires stability, but gold and other commodities are “intrinsically unstable.” Tying a new currency to a commodity anchor would make it “prone to instability” as prices fluctuate.
The Renminbi (RMB): Although the RMB is the only Global South currency large enough to potentially pick up the slack, its full internationalization would likely damage China’s successful export-led economic model, which relies on capital controls and stable exchange rates. Internationalization would require China to liberalize its capital account and allow currency appreciation, exposing it to the instability and “vagaries of international finance” that could threaten its industrial sector—a risk of de-industrialization similar to that seen in the United States. Batista Jr. argues that replacing US hegemony with Chinese hegemony would merely be “changing six for half a dozen”.
The New Fiduciary Currency (The IIB Model)
The proposed solution is a fiduciary currency inspired by Keynes’s concept of Bancor. Crucially, this would be an international currency with no domestic role; it would circulate alongside the national currencies of the participating countries, not replace them.
To implement this, three institutional steps are required:
International Issuing Bank (IIB): A new, “simple, lean” institution must be created, as existing structures like the NDB or CRA are “not fit for the job”.
Issuance: The IIB would issue two things: the new currency and new bonds.
Backing Mechanism: The new currency would be convertible into IIB bonds, and these IIB bonds, in turn, would be freely convertible into a basket of bonds of the participating countries. This structure ensures confidence, backed by the commitment of the sponsoring states.
The Necessary Transitional Steps
Recognizing that establishing a full reserve currency is a medium- to long-term endeavor, Batista Jr. prioritizes immediate transitional devices:
New Unit of Account: A simple, SDR-like basket of currencies from participating countries, weighted by relative economic size. This unit would fluctuate based on the weighted fluctuations of the currencies in the basket. It should be named the “new unit of account,” rather than BRICS-specific, to allow non-BRICS countries to join.
BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative (BCBPI): This proposal aims to create a more efficient, transparent, safe, and independent digital payment infrastructure based on national currencies. To overcome the BRICS’ internal consensus barriers, this initiative must be explicitly designated as voluntary and non-binding.
These steps are critical to solve the “very severe limitation” of bilateral settlements: the inability of participating countries to register large trade imbalances without accumulating currency that may not be convertible or may be subject to depreciation (e.g., Russia accumulating Indian Rupees).
Act III: The Confrontation—Voices from the Valdai Debate
The discussion at the Valdai Club served as a crucible, testing the feasibility and political realities of the ‘Beyond the Dollar’ proposal. The speakers offered layers of insight, revealing both fervent support and profound geopolitical hurdles.
The Supporters: Necessity and Sovereignty
Dmitry Birichevsky strongly endorsed the necessity of building separate channels. He agreed that replacing one center of domination with another is not the goal; rather, the BRICS are moving toward a multicentric world. He confirmed Russian leadership supports the BCBPI, emphasizing the need for closed circuits, special companies, and separate channels to avoid restrictions.
Marco Fernandes (BRICS Civil Council) reinforced the necessity of a reserve currency by highlighting the practical failures of bilateral settlements, noting Russia’s predicament of accumulating the equivalent of $40 billion in rupees from trade with India. Fernandez offered a strategic expansion to the proposal: leveraging BRICS’ deterrence power by de-dollarizing commodity markets (food, energy, and critical minerals). He noted that BRICS members control significant shares of global production (60% of gas reserves, 50% of oil reserves, and 85% of rare earth reserves), suggesting this leverage could shift trade away from the dollar, citing the Russian-led proposal for a BRICS grain exchange.
Most tellingly, Fernandes shared a conversation with a “pro-West liberal Iranian banker” who, despite initial criticism of his own government, concluded that the only viable path might be the formation of two distinct economic blocks: the West and the BRICS-led Global South. Batista Jr. responded that he agrees with this analysis, stating that “we already are in a situation of two blocks” and must adapt accordingly.
Rasigan Maharajh (Tshwane University of Technology), backed the geopolitical diagnosis, noting that U.S. power is maintained through the mobilization of “internal allies” (powerful domestic constituencies, or what Batista Jr. referred to as “fifth columns”) in other nations. Maharaj stressed that Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are political instruments, not neutral, reinforcing the need for BRICS to strive for multipolarity and polycentrism rather than attempting to reform institutions established under U.S. hegemony.
The Skeptics: Internal Obstacles and External Fury
The most penetrating criticisms focused on implementation feasibility and geopolitical pushback.
Radhika Desai (University of Manitoba) elaborated on the systemic flaw, arguing that the problem is rooted in the dollar system’s reliance on financialization (asset bubbles) to temporarily counteract the Triffin dilemma.
Desai insisted that the primary domestic obstacle is the “fifth column”—national elites in countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa who are attached to the dollar system because it serves as a tax and financial haven for their wealth. She emphasized that any viable alternative, like the Bancor model, requires substantial capital controls to ensure economic sovereignty, a measure highly resisted by these elites.
Desai predicted that the dollar system’s internal contradictions—the bind between fighting persistent inflation and preventing a crash of the “everything bubble”—may force a crisis that creates the necessary “aperture” for alternatives to succeed.
Anna Tsibulina (Integration Processes Department) raised doubts about the irreversibility of U.S. decline, recalling that the U.S. successfully navigated past crises (e.g., after Bretton Woods through the petrodollar agreement). Her core concern was the unprecedented resistance the U.S. would mount against a parallel monetary system. She questioned how the new currency could be shielded from this “ferocious” resistance, and worried that, given China’s inevitable economic weight, the new unit of account might become de facto China-centric. Batista Jr. conceded that the new currency would indeed be China-centric but suggested “compression factors” could mitigate excessive domination. He agreed that pursuing this direction requires political courage, given the certain U.S. opposition.
The Geopolitical Gauntlet: Consensus and Courage
The debate highlighted that external U.S. resistance is only half the battle; the BRICS grouping must overcome its own internal operational hurdles.
The Consensus Trap: The BRICS’ rigid practice of deciding by consensus, often interpreted as virtual unanimity, effectively grants veto power to any individual member. As the group expands (now 10 full members plus 13 partners), this consensus rule becomes a “recipe for paralysis”.
Working Around the Veto: The solution proposed by Batista Jr. and reflected in the Kazan declaration is crucial: explicitly defining new initiatives, like the BCBPI, as voluntary and non-binding. This allows a “coalition of willing and able nations,” including subsets of BRICS members and non-BRICS nations, to advance without being held hostage by members vulnerable to U.S. pressure or attached to the status quo (the “fifth column”).
Managing Expansion: Batista Jr. recommends that the BRICS freeze or slow down expansion, arguing that “strength does not necessarily lie in numbers”. While expansion increases prestige, multiplying participants increases the obstacles to practical progress and makes decision-making significantly harder.
The ultimate threat to this endeavor comes from the U.S., which has intensified its opposition, demonstrated vividly by Donald Trump’s threats during his 2024 campaign to impose 100% tariffs on countries engaging in activities that undermine the dollar’s status. Batista Jr. interprets these “arrogant statements and threats” as an ambiguous signal—a sign not just of traditional power, but of the weakness of a declining hegemon forced to maintain dominance through “admonitions and coercion” rather than natural acceptance. The U.S. decay, exemplified by political turbulence, is seen as deeper and less reversible than past crises.
The ambitious endeavor charted by Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. is not a short-term project, but a medium- to long-term endeavor requiring “strategic patience” and political courage. The ‘Beyond the Dollar’ proposal is, in essence, a recognition that the BRICS and the Global South have already been thrust into an environment of two separate economic blocks—and must build structures that guarantee their sovereignty and stability outside the orbit of the declining, weaponized dollar system.
The challenge of creating a fiduciary international currency and a payment architecture independent of the current system is immense. It is like trying to forge a new anchor for a global fleet while still navigating a financial storm. The builders (BRICS nations) must not only contend with the fury of the former flagship (the U.S.) but also manage deep divisions and inertia among their own crew members (the consensus rule and domestic elites) who prefer the dubious safety of the old port. Yet, as the internal contradictions of the existing system ripen toward crisis, having a prepared, credible alternative becomes the ultimate insurance policy for true economic liberation.
The discussion at the Valdai Club errors out for me.
Please find it here: https://vk.com/video-214192832_456239331
Accompanying article: Pepe Escobar: Taming the sound and fury of the Empire of Chaos
A roundabout of comments and solid on Nigeria. The bigger view …
La Russie continue de renforcer activement sa participation à une nouvelle alliance intercontinentale — les BRICS — qui réunit, en
L’article La France et les BRICS sur la même voie est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Les délégations chinoise et américaine sont parvenues à un accord. Ainsi, la rencontre entre Xi Jinping et Donald J. Trump
L’article Rencontre Trump – Xi et l’envoyé spécial de Poutine outre atlantique ! est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Ex-VP Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. exposes the untold truth about Western sanctions, IMF control, and dedollarization. Discover why the BRICS Bank, built to escape the dollar, remains trapped.
In this exclusive interview with Think BRICS, former vice president of the New Development Bank (NDB), Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr, takes us inside the creation and constraints of the BRICS Bank, a core institution designed to empower the global south and challenge U.S.-led financial dominance. Batista reveals how the NDB was meant to support dedollarization, facilitate alternative finance, and break dependence on the IMF, the dollar trap, and SWIFT. However, due to Western sanctions, credit rating agencies, and global market pressures, the bank struggles to maintain independence.
He explains how the BRICS founding vision is stifled by external limitations—such as the NDB’s inability to lend to Russia, despite its major shareholder status.
The video also covers China’s potential leadership in establishing a multipolar world through a new development bank under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, using yuan-denominated bonds and avoiding Western capital markets. Batista discusses the urgent need for a new reserve currency, the geopolitical implications of bypassing the dollar, and how emerging nations are navigating complex geopolitics under financial pressure.
This interview does not dive into detailed case studies of BRICS-funded projects, technical mechanisms behind SWIFT alternatives, or specifics of the new BRICS Pay system. It also does not explore the individual economic strategies of each BRICS member beyond China and Russia, nor does it address opposition within BRICS to rapid dedollarization. Additionally, the discussion doesn’t explore public-facing fintech implications or private-sector alignment with the BRICS Bank’s evolving mission.
The parables of Spain, Britain, USSR… USA Is At Stage 5
“…. Just economic implosion. The military couldn’t be paid, the government couldn’t function, the [dollar] became worthless. A superpower with 30,000 nuclear weapons collapsed from internal economic failure. The pattern [had] played out again:
note the rapidity of cycling by Pax America. It took the British until 1931 to concede and come off the Gold Standard. It took the next iteration only until 1971…. and here we are
https://t.me/EvPanina/17595 and translated with Telegram
Foreign Affairs: America needs to split BRICS into two parts
It is in the interest of the USA for BRICS to split into two factions, claim on the pages of the influential magazine by former advisor to extremist McCain, CEO of the Center for a New American Security Richard Fontaine, and another “meaning-maker” for the Republican Party Gibbs McKinley.
One part of BRICS, which includes China and Russia, opposes the USA, the authors explain, and this is unlikely to be fixed. The other part, which includes Brazil, India, and South Africa, is not in automatic opposition to Washington. It is this “split” that needs to be strengthened, the analysts imply, who can be considered representatives of the sentiments of at least part of the “red party.” When BRICS is split, it is less likely to act against US interests, they explain.
Admitting grudgingly that it is no longer possible to ignore BRICS as a geopolitical phenomenon and that the organization as a whole is antagonistic to the USA, Republican ideologists propose not to conflict at least with some of its members. McKinley and Fontaine name the US relations with India, spoiled by Trump, as the biggest mistake. They also consider the imposition of sanctions against Brazil and tensions with South Africa a problem: pushing this trio closer to Russia and China is impractical, the authors are convinced.
“From Washington’s side, it would be extremely unwise to push away these wavering states” — write Fontaine and McKinley. After all, if BRICS reaches consensus on Americanism, these countries “could undertake coordinated efforts to de-dollarize trade and create alternative payment systems that would undermine the global dominance of the US economic system, weakening the key pillar of American influence and the effectiveness of Washington’s sanctions”. And even worse, the IMF could lose influence!
So the analysts suggest throwing some tasty “bones” to individual BRICS countries. For example, fighting China in Latin America together with Brazil and developing the rare earth industry. Or, approving South Africa’s actions — penetrating Africa. As for India, it is clear: it must be directed against China!
Of course, the chances of success, McKinley and Fontaine admit, are slim. America is known worldwide as battered, and “even if the administration suddenly changes its policy, none of the mentioned countries will ally with the USA”. But, they write, this is no reason not to try. “If Washington fails to at least slightly improve relations with Brazil, India, and South Africa, Beijing and Moscow will only be glad”.
The “divide and conquer” strategy is perhaps the most fail-safe concept available to humanity. However, BRICS countries are generally quite capable of calculating the consequences of “gifts of the Danaans.” And the hegemonistic self-positioning of the USA contradicts the goals of any sovereign country in any case. Nevertheless, for Washington, “this is no reason not to try”.
It is also worth noting that the development of a financial system autonomous from America remains America’s main fear. Therefore, it is necessary to advance more actively in this area.
Peter Koenig
What we observe today in the Middle East, is Israel’s attempting expanding to the “great-greater Israel”, including Iran and possibly Iraq.
It is the Oded Yinon Plan, of the early 1980s, not known to most people, even Israelis. The plan goes way beyond the Greater Israel plan. Pursing this plan means endless war and bloodshed. Neither Israelis nor anybody else in the world wants this. So, its existence – let alone talking openly about – is mediately and politically silenced.
On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump is attempting reviving and imposing the 1823 Monroe Doctrine 2.0, beginning with Venezuela and now also Colombia. All under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.
He recently insulted Colombia’s President Petro, calling him a chief drug trafficker, and stopped all financial transaction with Colombia, including what he calls “aid” to Colombia.
The world however knows, or should know, that the US is by far the globe’s biggest drug (and human) trafficker. Even Trump, during his election campaign often referred to the US’s involvement in drug and human trafficking. That is one of the reasons why he was – and still is – so adamant in stopping immigration.
So, what you see in the Middle East and in the Caribbean is not what meets the eye.
The plan for “Greater-Greater Israel”, destruction of Iran (which in the original greater Israel was not included), which will also attempt blocking the Strait Hormuz, to cut off the rest of the western world of hydrocarbon energy, especially China (Israel does the dirty job for the US, supported with US weaponry and money).
Close to 35% of oil and gas – the main source of worldwide energy – is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.
China is clearly targeted. Number ONE for Trump and his handlers.
On the other hand, Trump is trying to take over Venezuela, with the world’s largest hydrocarbon resources, replacing those from the Gulf States, first for MAGA, of course, second for all those puppets who remain obedient to King Donald.
A perfect scenario.
To disguise his intentions, in his TrumpSocial platform, he is ramping against two oil-rich countries, US neighbors. He is now also accusing Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, as being a drug trafficker. As long as much of Latin America still largely depends on the US-Dollar, the notorious dollar-sanctioning is still a major issue for many, if not most, Latin American Countries (LAC).
Mr. Trump and his economic advisors believe this, coupled with Trump’s wild and incoherent tariff policy, will also reverse the international monetary and trade flow in favor of the US, away from and against China.
This is a wrong concept, because the monetary / trade flow in favor of China involves not just the yuan, but all those local currencies of the BRICS and BRICS associates, commanding a total of 40% to 50% or world GDP. Many of them are closely linked to the Yuan and keep distancing themselves from the US-Dollar and its sanction policies.
Even if the BRICS have little else in common, they all want to trade outside of the UD-Dollar stranglehold, and stick to their local currencies and to the YUAN.
China has no problem getting energy from Russia, Kazakhstan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and other Asian / ASEAN associates.
Once Trump realizes that there is nothing left but a hot war with China, which means also with Russia, and all the SCO members, plus other China associates, the end game may begin, or explode.
Not even his self-declared “grandeur” has a chance to survive such a WWIII-type aggression.
That might be the final demise of the US / Trump Kingdom.
—–
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Discover why middle powers are transforming global economics through BRICS+ and how the “middle power trap” is reshaping international relations forever.
[Note: What is called ‘middle powers΅ we may know better as ‘nodes’ as in multipolar and multinodal system. I also leave a short note here from Radhika Desai on a future conversation that will take place: “I don’t think multipolarity is an ideology. It’s a development. As for what should be done to advance it further, Russia and China are supporting multilateralism and the UN Charter and the various Chinese initiatives such as the GDI, GSI etc.”].
Middle powers like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia are breaking barriers in the current global order by turning to BRICS+ as their preferred platform. This video explores how BRICS+ Analytics expert Yaroslav Lissovolik, a friend of the Think BRICS channel, reveals the middle power trap constraining these emerging economies in traditional institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.
Learn how BRICS+ offers an inclusive platform for middle powers seeking a stronger geopolitical voice and strategic partnerships. We examine Ethiopia’s consistent 6%+ growth rates from 2020-2025 and Vietnam’s 5%+ annual economic growth, demonstrating why these regional integration leaders are driving global south cooperation.
Discover how BRICS+ accommodates diverse developing economies through multipolarity, enabling trade diversification and South-South cooperation. The video explains how middle powers face constraints in current governance structures where advanced economies hold disproportionate voting shares, while smaller countries dilute their influence in organizations like the United Nations.
This analysis covers how BRICS+ creates opportunities for small dynamic economies like UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Uruguay, and Singapore to form specialized platforms within the broader alliance. We explore regional integration arrangements and how middle powers are becoming vocal drivers of the transformation of emerging economies.
This video does not discuss specific development finance mechanisms, detailed New Development Bank operations, or comprehensive trade diversification statistics. We don’t cover individual BRICS+ application processes, bilateral agreements between member states, or governance reform timelines. The analysis excludes currency arrangements, infrastructure project specifics, or detailed economic policy comparisons between traditional institutions and BRICS+ alternatives for strategic partnerships development.
#BRICS #emergingeconomies #globaleconomy
00:00 – BRICS+ has transformed into a diverse alliance of developing and middle powers.
01:17 – Middle Powers are increasingly integrating through regional blocs like ASEAN and GCC.
02:20 – Middle powers like Vietnam are increasingly influential in the global economy.
03:30 – Middle powers are increasingly seeking cooperation within BRICS+ due to global economic limitations.
04:48 – Middle powers seek BRICS+ for better global representation and influence.
05:58 – Middle powers are fostering regional integration in the Global South through BRICS+.
07:13 – Small economies are exploring partnerships with BRICS+ for development cooperation.
08:34 – BRICS+ serves as an inclusive platform for developing economies’ global expression.
US division of labor for Ukraine, announced by US Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth in February this year, requires placing the illusion of distance between the US and both its Ukrainian AND European proxies.
Sec. Hegseth specifically tasked Europe with convincing the European public bigger sacrifices would be needed and part of that game is achieved by posing as if the US is drifting away or even divided against Ukraine and Europe.
But remember this key first principle: Ukraine was, is, and will continue to be a US proxy war, fought by and for US interests entirely at the expense of both Ukraine and Europe.
It is also part of a broader global strategy the US is pursuing to maintain worldwide primacy.
Until this fundamental reality changes, which will not be anytime in the near, intermediate or even distant future (barring the US being physically forced to) the US is negotiating in entirely, 100% bad faith.
US Presidents and Congress do not determine US foreign policy. Unelected corporate-financiers interests working through think tanks do. If they haven’t changed their minds on Ukraine (and they haven’t) no US president nor will Congress change this policy.
What ensues is merely theater to sell an already painfully predictable outcome of continuity of agenda, stringing the public along and attempting to paint Russia and its allies into a corner.
Russia, we can only hope, understands this, that this conflict can ONLY be resolved fully on the battlefield and that agreement to other pointless “talks” simply affords the US an exit ramp if and whenever it decides to use it while avoiding extending to the US or Europe a provocation that enables them to mobilize toward wider war.
Discussion between foreign affairs expert, Dr. Sreeram Chaulia, and the founder of the BRICS Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dr. Mihaela Papa, on the changes underway in BRICS and its future evolution.
Topics covered include whether BRICS is becoming more radical and anti-Western, how the arrival of five new member states is altering the agenda of BRICS, the role and purpose of ten partner countries of BRICS, the attempts by BRICS to represent and take leadership of the entire Global South, and potential new domains and issue areas in which BRICS could be making interventions and innovations in time to come.
Part II of the celestial Travelogue through the western regions of China.
By Silk Road pilgrim Pepe Escobar on the Strategic Culture Foundation.
DUNHUANG – Across History, the Silk Road – actually a network of roads – is the supreme Highway Star: the most important connectivity corridor ever, rolling across Ancient Eurasia, linking what Chinese scholars consensually define as the main civilization systems in the world: China, India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as showcasing several historical stages of economic and cultural exchanges between East and West.
Prof. Ji Xianlin, a top scholar of Dunhuang Studies, came up with a formulation certified to drive Western supremacists crazy for all eternity:
“There are only four, rather than five, influential cultural systems in the world: Chinese, Indian, Greek and Islam. They all met only on China’s Dunhuang and Xinjiang”.
Dunhuang’s prime geo-strategic position across History was inevitably bound to generate spectacular artistic achievements.
After years since my previous journeys, then the Covid shock, then China’s subsequent recovery, I have been privileged to finally embark on a renewed Journey to the West to retrace the original Ancient Silk Road, starting in Xian – the former imperial capital Chang’an – all the way through the Gansu corridor to Dunhuang.
Brilliant Eurasian cultures converged, interacted and spread their wings on the Ancient Silk Roads. Dunhuang – on the western end of the Hexi corridor in Gansu province – was the most vital hub in the eastern section of the Chinese Silk Road, framed by mountains to the north and south, the central plains to the east, and Xinjiang to the west.
Dunhuang, the “Blazing Beacon”, held a supremely strategic position controlling two passes – Yangguan and Yumenguan. Han Emperor Wu Di clearly understood that Dunhuang was the last major water source before the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert to the west, as well as sitting astride the three main Silk Road routes heading west.
Yumenguan was the all-important Jade Gate pass – set by the Han empire in the 2nd century B.C.: placed in the south Gobi and the western end of the Qilian mountains, actually marking the western limit of classic China.
(L): The remains of the Great Han Wall ; (R): Xian
I spent a whole blinding beautiful blue-sky day in the pass and its surroundings after striking a deal with a taxi driver in Dunhuang. It’s a thrill to admire how the Han dynasty organized their traffic management system, the beacon fire system, and the Great Wall defense system (remains of the Han Wall are still there) – guaranteeing the safety of the long-distance Silk Road connectivity corridor.
Talk to the caravan: the secret of “people to people’s exchanges”
At the impeccably organized Dunhuang Book Center, historical records refer to it as “a metropolis where the Han people and non-Han peoples meet”. Quite the antecessor to Xi Jinping’s “people to people’s exchanges.” The spirit remains, especially at the fabulous Night Market, a gastronomic feast with pride of place for Uyghur recipes.
Silk and porcelain from the central plains, jewelry and perfume from “the western regions”, camels and horses from north China, grains from Hexi, everything was traded in Dunhuang. Merchant deals, migrations, military games, cultural exchanges, a profusion of literati, scholars, artists, officials, diplomats, religious pilgrims, military brought classic Chinese culture into an effervescent mix – Sogdian, Tibet, Uyghur, Tangut, Mongolia – all absorbed into what eventually became Dunhuang art.
(L): Uyghur businesswomen at the fabulous Dunhuang Night Market ; (R): The Desert Princess look. Affordable. Less than $60 for a set of clothes, make-up, 25 exclusive pics and retouches.
Itinerant Buddhism, Nestorianism, Zoroastrianism, Islam – the sophisticated aesthetic feel of Dunhuang was progressively influenced by architecture, sculpture, paintings, music, dance, weaving, dyeing techniques all the way from Central Asia and West Asia.
“Silk Road” terminology in Xi’s “moderately prosperous” modernized China is an extremely nuanced business. For instance, already in Xian, at the Small White Goose pagoda, we see it described as “Silk Roads: The Routes Network of Chang’an-Tian Shan corridor”.
Xian. (L): The perfect lamian at the Muslim Quarter – since Tang times ; (R): DON’T mess with a Tang warrior princess
That’s a geographically correct interpretation, stressing the Tian Shan mountains instead of the politically correct Xinjiang (which was essentially part of the “western regions”, not necessarily Chinese territory, for centuries).
As for how the Silk Road began, that now follows a single, scholarly accepted version: Han Emperor Wu Di, in 140 B.C. sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the “western regions” on two business missions. The “Records of the Grand Historian” show that Zhang Qian, as the first official diplomat in Chinese history, de facto opened channels of communications with the “western regions” and then all the states in the northwest started trading with the Han, especially silk.
(L): On the road to the Jade Gate Pass. Electrification ; (R): At the Dunhuang Academy museum: where the artists came from
From Xian’s Shaanxi History Museum to the Dunhuang Academy, and including the Gansu museum in Lanzhou, in interactions with scholars and museum curators as well as in complement to formidable Silk Road exhibits, it’s fascinating to retrace the now established official narrative on the Silk Roads, according to which “the civilization of ancient China represented by silk started to impact the states in the western regions, Central Asia and West Asia.”
It was way more complex than that – as spices, metals, chemicals, saddles, leather products, glass, paper (invented in the 2nd century B.C.), everything was on the market, but the general drift applies: merchants from the central plains defying deserts and mountain peaks in caravans laden with silk, bronze mirrors and lacquerware from China, seeking to exchange them for commodities, while merchants from the western regions brought furs, jade, felts to the central plains.
Talk about multi-ethnic “people to people’s exchanges”. And by the way, no one ever used the term “Silk Road”; it was “the road to Samarkand” or just the “northern” or “southern” routes around the ominous Taklamakan desert.
About the Tang dynasty monetary system…
By the 3rd century, Dunhuang was already at the apex of Silk Road connectivity; and that’s when merchants and pilgrims started to sponsor the construction of the nearby Buddhist Mogao caves.
The Mogao Caves are part of what is known in Gansu province as the five Dunhuang grottoes. It’s the same system of caves – 813 surviving, with 735 in Mogao. To approach Mogao is a major thrill in itself: we need to be in an official park bus, crammed with zillions of Chinese tourists, rolling through the desert, and suddenly we are in the eastern foot of the Mingsha mountains, with the Dangquan river running right in front of us, facing the Qilian mountains to the east, with the caves set back against and cut into the cliff face, connected by a series of ramps and walkways.
the Mogao caves (L): the main pavilion ; (R): One of the Buddha highlights
The caves started to be built as early as in the 4th century – all the way to the 14th century (the earliest wall paintings are from the 5th); it’s a group of caves in four levels, 1,6 km from north to south along a cliff as much as 30 meters high. The 492 caves in the southern area house more than 45 km of wall paintings, over 2,000 painted statues, and five wooden eaves. They were originally used for worshipping Buddhas.
What we are still able to see takes our breath away. Highlights include a wrestling scene from Buddha’s life on cave 290; a girl apsara – mythic dancer – on cave 296; the Deer King on cave 257; a hunting scene on cave 249; a Garuda – defined in Chinese as “the Scarlet Bird” – on cave 285; parables of the Magic City from the Lotus Sutra, a masterpiece of High Tang dynasty, on cave 217; a sitting Boddhisattva on cave 196; impeccably preserved worshipping bodhisattvas on cave 285.
Rules are extremely strict: visit only to selected caves, with an official guide, no photos, only the guide’s torchlight to illuminate the grottoes. I was privileged to visit guided by Helen, who studied in Dunhuang University and is now doing her PhD in Archeology. After the visit she explained in detail the ground-breaking conservation work of the Dunhuang Academy.
The construction of the caves was a spectacular undertaking in terms of division of labor. Just imagine: chiselers to dig and excavate a cave out of the cliff; stonecutters, who also dug caves; bricklayers to build wooden or earthen structures; carpenters, who also repaired wooden tools; sculptors to create the statues; and painters to paint the caves and statues.
Mogao, as an aesthetic experience, is unequaled in its striking collection of Buddhist wall painting criss-crossing China, Persia, India and Central Asian art.
And then there’s what we cannot see: more than 40,000 scrolls found in the library cave, the largest deposit of documents and artifacts discovered anywhere along the Silk Road, with texts on Buddhism, Manicheism, Zoroastrianism and the Eastern Christian Church (from Syria) showing how cosmopolitan Dunhuang was. That’s part of the European scholarly – and otherwise – plunder of the Dunhuang wealth starting in the late 19th century, a completely different, complex, and long, story.
Kashgar. A big fan of the lemonade drink Baksap found everywhere in Xinjiang
In geoeconomic terms, for nearly ten centuries Dunhuang was extremely wealthy, especially during the Tang dynasty (6th to 9th century). The Tang had a fascinating monetary system – with three different currencies: textiles (silk and hemp), grain and coins.
The central government, in the imperial capital Chang’an, used a single aggregate unit to represent all trade. The Dunhuang garrison was a key strategic post: payments came in no less than six different types of woven silk. Well, each place paid their taxes with their locally produced cloth. What the Tang did was to transfer all these textiles to Dunhuang. The garrison’s officers then converted the tax cloth into coins and into grain, to pay local merchants and to feed the soldiers.
So in a nutshell the Tang dynasty was all the time injecting a lot of money – via woven cloth – into the Dunhuang economy. Talk about a public-private state development model – which certainly did not escape Beijing planners when they came up, in 2013, with the concept of the New Silk Roads.
ADDENDUM
≈≈≈
Viewed as a global strategy, Russia is performing a balancing act here, intently testing the US-imposed ‘rules-based system’ in West Asia. By boosting military ties with Iran, Russia underscores that the post-World War international order defined by a ‘rules-based system’ has become an aberration..
By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Deccan Herald.
An uneasy calm has settled over the Gulf region since a hastily brokered ceasefire ended the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran in June. But the protagonists lost no time to prepare for a second round that both anticipate to be apocalyptic. For Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this is the last chance to realise his 25-year-old dream of regime change in Iran, even as Israel’s international isolation is deepening, the spectre of a Palestine State looms ahead, and Iran is steadily boosting its deterrent capability.
Iran’s BRICS membership gives it a diplomatic reach as never before; the ties with Russia and China have assumed the nature of an entente cordiale. The Russian-Iranian Treaty of Comprehensive Strategic Partnership came into effect on October 2, within a week of E3 members of the JCPOA reimposing, with the US leading from rear, a priori additional sanctions on Iran.
The Moscow announcement highlighted the security implications of the treaty by flagging that the document ‘stipulates tighter interaction on the international stage in conditions of the emerging multipolar world, including close coordination within the leading multilateral associations, joint efforts to strengthen stability and security in the region, as well as countering common threats and challenges.’ The accent on security is striking, hinting that Moscow won’t be a bystander in a future Israeli attack on Iran. Indeed, Russian-Israeli ties have sharply deteriorated lately due to growing evidence of Mossad’s tie-up with Britain’s MI6 in Ukraine’s terrorist attacks on Russian territory.
On its part, Iran has tweaked its longstanding policy not to take foreign help to safeguard national defence. Suffice to say, the overall military balance in West Asia is shifting. Both Russia and China have questioned the legitimacy of the contrived Western move to reimpose JCPOA sanctions on the eve of Russia assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council on October 1. The Termination Day of the JCPOA is set for October 18, 2025, 10 years after Adoption Day. According to the JCPOA, 10 years after adoption day, all remaining UN and EU sanctions against Iran should have been terminated.
Russia and Iran, in a defiant move, signed a $25-billion deal last week to build four nuclear power plants in Sirik, which is a doubling down of bilateral co-operation in nuclear technology transfer. As of now, Iran has only the Bushehr NPP built by Russia. Russia and Iran are cocking a snook at the Donald Trump administration at this juncture, when the nuclear talks have broken down and the whereabouts of the enriched uranium stock remains unknown, and IAEA inspectors have no access.
Moscow is indebted to Tehran for providing drone technology that has been crucially effective in Ukraine, while China has been traditionally Iran’s main arms supplier. But Russia and China will not send in troops (which Iran doesn’t need), and instead will outfit Tehran appropriately. The US is in no position in any way to wage a continental war in Iran, which is roughly half the size of India. Even more than the nuclear issue, what is worrisome for the US and Israel is Iran’s success in developing advanced missile technology, which may now have Russian and Chinese support.
In these changed circumstances, the situation around Iran has the potential to bring the US and Russia into a military confrontation, which, of course, neither superpower wants. In principle, this contradiction should discourage Trump from joining any Israeli attack, but in reality, with the Epstein files hanging like a Damocles’ sword on his political future, combined with the powerful Jewish lobby’s control of Congress and Beltway, it is Netanyahu who will call the shots.
Viewed as a global strategy, Russia is performing a balancing act here, intently testing the US-imposed ‘rules-based system’ in West Asia. By boosting military ties with Iran, Russia underscores that the post-World War international order defined by a ‘rules-based system’ has become an aberration, a fragile and artificial construct, sustained only by deliberate US power. Interestingly, Russia has also strongly denounced Washington’s ‘increasing escalation’ against Venezuela.
The influential Iranian news website Nournews has called the Iran-Russia Treaty “a part of the new architecture of international relations, particularly meaningful within the frameworks of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Union… Iran’s strategic alignment with Russia, complementing its 25-year agreement with China and convergence with other countries, symbolises the structural transformations of the global order, in which political and economic independence will replace subordination to domination.”
There is no question that maintaining the rules-based system to provide the underpinning of Israel’s security is becoming a fraught endeavour going forward. The ecosystem is no longer hospitable for Israel anyway, and there is little that Washington can do to restore the status quo ante.
Israel may repeat a surprise attack, but Iran is prepared for war. Decapitation as a strategy won’t work this time. Critical weapon systems have been dispersed all over the country. Air defence capability is much better than before. Iran will not necessarily exercise restraint this time and will use all means at its disposal to defend, since this is a fight to the finish, including the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on US bases.
Against this backdrop, Trump announced on September 29 an extraordinary security pact between the US and Qatar, where the Central Command is headquartered, almost mirroring aspects of a Nato alliance. At first glance, Trump’s move may seem to lay down a marker affecting the fragile and combustible regional dynamics. However, according to former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, a simpler explanation is to see the executive order as more of an extraordinary prize for the ruling Al Thani family while seeking a quid pro quo from the emir to cajole Hamas’ Doha-based leadership to voice support for the Gaza Plan. Coincidence or not, Hamas and Israel began indirect talks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on Monday.
Meanwhile, the US military build-up of aircraft, ammunition, missiles, refuelling capabilities, and the reallocation of vessels at sea in and around the Gulf region on such a massive scale is ominous. Keeping armed forces in hype for a prolonged period is impractical. The Pentagon must pull the trigger sooner rather than later, or, will have to stand down. But standing down will mean that the apocalyptic high noon passes and the paradigm shift in the geopolitics of Iran becomes a fait accompli for the US and Israel.
A celestial Travelogue through the western regions of China.
By Silk Road pilgrim Pepe Escobar on Sputnik.
ON THE ROAD IN XINJIANG – Xuanzang, the itinerant Buddhist monk, has got to be one of the most extraordinary figures in History. He certainly is regarded as such in China.
In the early Tang dynasty in the 7th century, Xuanzang set out from the imperial capital Chang’an (today’s Xian), breaching a veto to travel to the “Western regions”, to go to India to fetch Buddhist manuscripts that he planned to translate into Chinese.
(L): The one and only Yumenguan – the Jade Gate Pass, marking the western limits of China for centuries. ; (R): Xinjiang. Flying over the Tian Shan mountains.
He crossed the Jade Gate Pass; kept walking further West; almost died of thirst in the desert; crossed the snow peaks of the Tian Shan mountains on horseback to Transoxiana; and finally reached India, where he studied for several years before returning to Chang’an 15 years after his departure with 22 horses loaded with Buddhist manuscripts in Sanskrit, plus religious relics and priceless Buddha images.
That’s my kind of guy. Since the late 1990s, I have followed on Xuanzang’s footsteps, on and off, along several stretches of the Ancient Silk Roads. Xuanzang was fictionally reincarnated in a magic-tinged 16th century novel which became quite popular in China, titled Xiyouji, or Journey to the West. That’s exactly what I set out to do – a compact Journey to the West for the digital era – this past month of September.
Sericulture was developed as early as 5,000 years ago in the Yellow River – in China’s historically traditional heartland. It spread out to Korea and Japan but mostly traveled West, along the larger-than-life Silk Road(s).
The start of the silky story is shrouded in historical mist. It is widely accepted in China that under the reign of Emperor Wu Di, in the second century B.C., special envoy Zhang Qian was twice dispatched to the “vast regions” to the West of China on a business mission.
At the glorious Shaanxi History Museum in Xian. (L): Drop-dead chic Tang Barbie, where I had a fab Silk Roads conversation with one of the curators ; (R): Silk Road golden splendour
Soon after, cross-border trade entered a new stage, with silk fabric among the key exports. Thus Zhang Qian was officially credited as the opener of the Silk Road – and granted the title of Duke. Today, at the fabulous Shaanxi History Museum in Xian, his exploits and the subsequent development of the Silk Road connectivity corridors are detailed alongside a mesmerizing collection of Silk Road artifacts.
Xian. (L): TikTok Tang Barbies on a roll. ; (R): Happiness is a bowl of perfect lamian in the Muslim Quarter
The Silk Road, actually a maze of roads, started in Chang’an, the old imperial capital, today’s Xian. Then it headed west through the spectacular gorges of the Wei river to the garrison city of Lanzhou, at the eastern end of the Hexi corridor. North is the Gobi desert; south is the snow-covered peaks of the Qilain Shan. The road keeps going from oasis to oasis all the way to Yumenguan, the Jade Gate Pass – which marked the western limit of China.
Lanzhou. (L): Downtown: dancin’ in the streets ; (R): The Flying Horse of Gansu: the epitome of Chinese bronze craftmanship
For a Silk Road pilgrim like this foreign correspondent, this is the trip of a lifetime – combined with the journey further west, to Xinjiang. I’ve tracked the original Silk Road before, and that’s my fifth time in Xinjiang; yet those journeys were in the late 1990s and the 2000s. Combined, now, that makes it the first trip in 10 years and the first one after Covid.
New Silk Roads on the move. At the fabulous Gansu museum in Lanzhou
Go West, past the Jade Gate Pass
The timing could not be more appropriate: right after the ground-breaking SCO summit in Tianjin in late August/early September and the Victory Day parade in Beijing on October 3, celebrating the 80th year of the Chinese defeat of Japanese aggression and Nazi-fascism in Asia.
It was the time to check in detail how a self-confident China had engineered its development of the West, boosted by the “Go West” campaign launched in 1999. That also coincided with the 70th year of the establishment of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The whole of Xinjiang was engulfed in “70” red flags.
Xinjiang. (L): Yurt time ; (R): The ancient city of Jiaohe
Xinjiang. (L): On the Northern Silk Road, from Aksu to Kucha ; (R): Northern Silk Road. Cotton fields. No slaves. No victims of “genocide”
The first stretch of my travels was solo, retracing the traditional Ancient Silk Road, from Xian to strategically located Lanzhou by the Yellow River, dominating all traffic between central China and the northwest, then all the way to fabled Dunhuang and the Jade Gate Pass. I made a deal with a local taxi driver to spend the day visiting the Pass, including the remains of the Han Great Wall. He loved the notion of a lone foreigner riding his taxi into the deep desert.
Then I caught the high-speed train from Lanzhou to Urumqi (this line was started already 11 years ago), the high-tech capital of Xinjiang, to join a Chinese-Uyghur production team and start shooting a documentary on the road in Xinjiang.
Xinjiang, or “New Territories”, the size of Western Europe, is the former Chinese Turkestan. That’s classic Silk Road territory as well, treading along the northern and southern rims of the Tarim basin, one of the most extraordinary geographical hot spots on earth. At the center lie the ever-shifting sands of the mighty Taklamakan desert – surrounded by three mountain ranges: the Kunlun Shan, the Tian Shan and the Pamirs.
We started by following the Northern Silk Road, from the key oasis of Turfan to the high-tech hub Urumqi, all the way to Kucha; crossed the Taklamakan desert to the Southern Silk Road; and proceeded across key oasis such as Yutian and Khotan all the way to the immensely venerable oasis of Kashgar, at the foot of the Tian Shan and the Pamir, and at the start of the Karakoram highway, arguably the pivot of the Ancient Silk Road leading to the heart of the Heartland: southern Central Asia.
Countless caravans perished over centuries in the sands of the Taklamakan (“you can get it but you won’t get out”): today, modernization of China-style, we can do it in an immaculate highway in a mini-convoy of Toyota Land Cruisers. [01][02][03]
We kept going via the Karakoram, a two-lane, extra-busy, connectivity corridor, the first stretch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), past the blinding beauty of glaciers, peaks and deep blue lakes all the way to Pamir lands and the high-altitude Tajik boom town of Tashkurgan; further on is the Khunjerab pass and the China-Pakistan border, all the way to South Asia.
To the west, the main historical Silk Road is subdivided in the three, key Chinese borders with Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and especially Kazakhstan: Alashankou in northern Xinjiang is China’s premier Eurasian hub – where all trains carrying laptops from Chongqin or household wares from Yiwu stop before heading further West, all the way to Europe.
(L): Khotan. In the – Carpet – Silk Road ; (R): On the road to Pamir land
Socialism with Chinese characteristics in practice
China has always been a Heartland power – not a maritime power. From the time of unification under Qin Shi Huang in 221 B.C., the territorial imperative has always been Go West, towards the Heartland/Southern Central Asia. That set up a series of intermittent clashes with primarily nomadic peoples – Turkic, Tibetan, Mongols. Only at times of serious Chinese strength – especially under the Han, Tang and Qin dynasties – Chinese imperial power was conclusively projected into Western Central Asia.
What we see now in a Xi Jinping-defined “moderately prosperous China”, inscribed within the mindset of a self-confident geoeconomic superpower, is how socialism with Chinese characteristics has successfully integrated the “Western regions” into the officially-termed “Chinese dream”.
Xinjiang. (L): Urumqi – symbol of the development of the “Western regions” ; (R): Kashgar. In the Old City, in front of Id Kah mosque
Urumqi is now a high-tech hub, a replica of those mega-cities in the eastern seaboard but 4,000 km away from Beijing. With over 4 million residents, it’s considered at best a Tier 3 city. The level of development compared to the start of the century is simply mind-boggling.
Xinjiang. (L): Urumqi on Saturday night – buildings celebrating the 70th year of the development of Xinjiang under a unified China. Xi will be in town today ; (R): On the Northern Silk Road. Stan and I at the spectacular Grand Canyon near Aksu.
We traveled in Xinjiang with a crack Uyghur team. Our on-site producers, translators, ultra-skilled drivers were all Uyghurs. We talked to everyone – from cotton pickers to bazaar whiz kids to enterprising business women (no, we did not find “genocide” victims). We attended two traditional weddings – one relatively low-key, the other a Bollywood-style production.
As @RealPepeEscobar, @RealJermWarfare and I checked into the hotel in Turpan, Xinjiang, we crashed a Uyghur wedding party (after asking for permission to film).
Absolute highlight of our evening! Uyghur wedding is the next level!!! pic.twitter.com/0Al52W8du8
— Carl Zha (@CarlZha) September 20, 2025
(L): With the ultra-pro Tajik MC of a lively dancin’ party ; (R): Kashgar princess
In parallel, a tsunami of middle-class families from all over China could be seen in every latitude enjoying Xinjiang for the first time in a self-driven Tank 300 jeep rented for only $60 a day (less than 1 in 10 Chinese have been to Xinjiang). The boom of domestic tourism is something to watch – as in the packed camel parking lot right before whole families immortalize their camel caravan adventure in the sand dunes outside Dunhuang. The Old City in Kashgar during Golden Week – an 8-day holiday that every Chinese dreams about – was so packed it was virtually impossible to walk most of the time in the main alleys.
This is just a first approach to the trip of a lifetime – which will be part of a book on the Ancient and New Silk Roads to be published next year and a documentary to be released before the end of 2025 (we have two terabytes of images). But among a wealth of highlights, a few have got to be inescapable.
Energy. Xinjiang is an energy Mecca. From Urumqi to Turfan [04], from the point of view of the proverbial impeccable highway, we see Massive Electrification, forests of solar panels, forests of wind turbines, and at least two massive solar farms. Xinjiang produces so much energy that it lavishly exports to the rest of China. And of course the key Pipelineistan superstars – from Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and soon Power of Siberia – all arrive here.
(L): Xian. At the Great Mosque. Having a fabulous time with the Hui. There are only 20k still living in Xian ; (R): Welcome to Xinjiang. At the astonishing 5th century ruins of Buddhist Gaochang kingdom
Integration of Hui (Chinese Muslims). Xian’s fabled Muslim quarter, quite close to the iconic Drum Tower, is a direct connectivity corridor to the former imperial capital’s Silk Road prominence. Itinerant Muslim merchants – Arabs, Turks, Sogdians, Persians – and religious teachers chose to live in the tolerant metropolis ever since the Tang dynasty. In the 8th century, Xian was the largest and most sophisticated city on the planet. Today at least 50,000 Huis – mostly prosperous bazaaris – live in Xian’s Old City. [05] The food in the Muslim quarter of course is to die for.
XINJIANG. Karakoram Highway. BRI/CPEC connectivity corridor. White Sand lake – on the way to Pamir lands
From oasis life to deep blue mountain lakes
Respect for History – The Shaanxi History Museum in Xian and the Gansu Provincial Museum in Lanzhou, side by side, offer an unparalleled collection of absolutely priceless Silk Road artifacts. Both are free, packed at all times and endlessly fascinating throngs of the TikTok/Bilibili generation with immense Silk Road cultural wealth, including the iconic Flying Horse of Gansu: excavated in 1969 in Wuwei, representing the “heavenly steed” of Heartland tradition and cast by an unknown craftsman of the early Han dynasty no less than 2,000 years ago. That’s arguably the most elegant and sophisticated Chinese bronze artifact ever.
Dunhuang. (L): The All China Camel Caravan is on the move ; (R): The unparalleled beauty of the remaining Buddhist paintings in the Mogao caves
Dunhuang. A “Blazing Beacon” since the times of Han emperor Wu Di, who understood the strategic importance of the oasis: the last major watering hole before the fear-inducing Taklamakan, and sitting astride the three main Silk Roads heading west, linked to the key Jade Gate Pass nearby (that refers to the fine jade brought to China from Khotan in Xinjiang).
Yet Dunhuang’s claim to a selected global cultural pantheon resides in the Buddhist Mogao caves, sponsored by merchants and pilgrims since the 3rd century and especially during the Tang dynasty, cut into the soft rock face of the Mingsha hills. [06] That’s China’s – and the world’s – most extensive collection of Buddhist statuary, painting and manuscripts. Unfortunately, many of the original materials were stolen by European barbarians, scholarly and otherwise, and are now in foreign museums. Beijing cares for the Mogao in millimetric detail. We can only visit with a scholar/guide; no photos whatsoever; and the only light inside the caves comes from the guide’s torch. A magical experience. I was privileged to enjoy a detailed explanation of Mogao history by Helen, a member of the remarkable Dunhuang Academy who’s doing a PhD in Archeology.
(L): At the Bezeklik Buddhist – and Manichean – caves, outside of the privileged oasis of Turfan. Classic Silk Road ; (R): Yutian. Carl Zha: [Pepe’s] holding up a $10,000 USD Hotan jade bracelet
Across the Southern Silk Road, we can literally touch and feel the essence of its allure: the best jade from both Khotan and Yutian (Marco Polo visited in the 13th century); the best silk and the best silk carpets in Khotan; and the best decorated knives in Yengisar – the knife capital of the world (every Uyghur man has a knife, to prove his manhood and to slice melons at any time).
And then there’s the mystery of ridiculously delicious Uyghur cuisine. No mystery: crystal clear water from the Tian Shan mountains; uncontaminated soil; lots of sunshine; everything organic; less than zero GMOs. Now get down and celebrate devouring a whole lamb.
In the heart of the Taklamakan desert. (L): the pilgrim finally made it ; (R): The fierce beauty of the Taklamakan
Crossing the Taklamakan – The Holy Grail of every Silk Road explorer. Today, no need to be engulfed by mellifluous shifting sands or unexpected sandstorms. We drove the Desert Highway back-to-back, nearly 500 km: impeccable tarmac; the notorious green belt encircling the desert on both extremities; the reeds compounding the “Chinese magic cube” by the side of the road, protecting it from the sands; plus an extra green fence.
Overall, a marvel of engineering and environmental protection. And we doubled down the day after, driving a backbreaking 170 km across the real shifting sands to see something stunning: the ancient small village of Daliyabuyi, right in the middle of the Taklamakan, arguably the most remote place in Xinjiang. The locals, known in China as “the lost tribe of the Taklamakan” are now getting into serious business: they showed us how they are building a few, comfortable B&Bs to cater for the budding Chinese off-road crowd. We crossed some of them in the sands. No wifi – yet.
(L): Xinjiang meets Pamir lands. The Muztagh Ata blesses the Karakoram highway ; (R): Lake Karakul
The Pamir lands – One of the top blinding beauty lands on earth – to be rivalled only by the Pamir highway and selected spots in the Tian Shan, the Karakoram in northern Pakistan, the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan and the Himalayas. You drive by the proverbial impeccable highway and you have the mighty Muztagh Ata (7,500 m high) practically in front of you. Lake Karakul, at 3,900 m high, is unparalleled in its blue, transparent tranquility. We can see no less than 14 different glaciers from the lakeshore. Cool Kyrgyz nomad cowboys hang out nearby; you can ride their yaks or stay in their yurts. [07] Further on down the road is Tashkurgan, mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2ⁿᵈ century as the westernmost point of the “Land of Ceres” – that is, China. Xuanzang was here in the 7th century, when he was already laden with the Buddhist sutras he carried from India to Xian.
From Xinjiang, the real challenge is to take the G216: 816 km in ultra-high altitude, considered the most dangerous road in China, all the way to Tibet. Talk about total integration of the Western regions. Well, sounds like a plan for 2026. The Silk Roads go on forever.
BRICS Joint Media Statement (https://telegra.ph/BRICS-Joint-Media-Statement-Part-I-09-27) following the Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations on the margins of 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (New York, September 26)
[Note: Here we can see the start of the reform and reformatting of the UN according to Xi Jinping’s principles of global governance].
1. The BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations held their annual meeting on the margins of the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 80) on 26 September 2025. The meeting was chaired by India in its capacity as the incoming BRICS Chair for 2026.
2. The Ministers exchanged views on major issues of global and regional significance and those on the agenda of UN in the political, security, economic, financial, and sustainable development spheres, as well as on intra-BRICS cooperation and activities. They reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening cooperation in the expanded BRICS under the three pillars of cooperation – political and security, economy and finance, cultural and people to people exchanges, and to enhancing strategic partnership for the benefits of our people.
3. The Ministers commended the outcomes of the XVII BRICS Summit held in Rio de Janeiro from 6-7 July 2025 under the theme “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for a More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance”, with the participation of BRICS Partner Countries as well as invited countries and international organizations. They reaffirmed their commitment to implementing decisions and declarations adopted at the Summit, including the BRICS Leaders’ Framework Declaration on Climate Finance, the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence and the BRICS Partnership for the Elimination of Socially Determined Diseases.
4. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism, multipolarity and upholding international law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN), in their entirety and interconnectedness as its indispensable cornerstone and the central role of the UN in the international system, consisting of equal sovereign states, in maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights and sustainable development, and fostering cooperation among States based on the principles of solidarity, democracy, non-interference in internal affairs of other States, inclusiveness, collaboration and consensus, sovereign equality, equity, mutual respect and understanding and justice.
5. The Ministers reiterated their commitment to ensuring greater and more meaningful participation and representation of Emerging Markets and Developing Countries (EMDCs), as well as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), especially from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, in global decision-making processes and structures and making them better attuned to contemporary realities. They also called for achieving equitable geographical representation in the Secretariat of the United Nations and other international organizations in a timely manner, as well as increasing the role and representation of women, especially from EMDCs, at all levels of leadership and responsibilities in these organizations. They stressed the need for the selection and appointment process of executive heads and senior positions to be guided by the principles of transparency and inclusiveness, and carried out in accordance with all the provisions of Article 101 of the UN Charter, with due regard for recruiting staff on a geographical basis as wide as possible and equal participation of women, and adhere to the general rule that there should be no monopoly on senior posts in the UN system by any State or group of States. The Ministers also deplored attempts, including by deliberately withholding assessed contributions, to unilaterally undermine the work of multilateral institutions and impair the implementation of their respective mandates.
6. The Ministers reiterated their commitment to reforming and improving global governance by promoting a more just, equitable, agile, effective, efficient, responsive, representative, legitimate, democratic and accountable international and multilateral system in the spirit of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. They emphasized dialogue and mutual understanding as a basis of international relations. They reiterated the centrality of sustainable development and inclusive growth in the UN agenda. They emphasized the need for fostering resilience and advancing sustainability as crucial for growth and sustainable development in the Global South and the world at large.
7. The Ministers reaffirmed the need for all countries to cooperate in promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms under the principles of equality and mutual respect and to fight all forms of discrimination. They agreed to continue to treat all human rights including the right to development in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. In this context, they agreed to strengthen cooperation on issues of common interests, both within BRICS and in multilateral fora, taking into account the necessity to promote, protect and fulfill human rights in a non selective, non-politicized and constructive manner and without double standards, constructive dialogue and cooperation. They called for the respect of democracy and human rights. In this regard, they underlined that these should be implemented on the level of global governance as well as at national level. They reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all with the aim to build a brighter shared future for the international community based on mutually beneficial cooperation.
8. The Ministers underscored the need to intensify the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as discrimination based on religion, faith or belief, and all their contemporary forms around the world, including the alarming trends of rising hate speech, disinformation and misinformation. They welcomed the proclamation of a Second International Decade for People of African Descent (2025 – 2034), by the UN General Assembly. They welcomed the decision of the African Union to designate 2025 as the year for “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations” and recognize the efforts of the African Union to tackle the destructive legacy of colonialism and the slave trade. The Ministers also noted the Second Africa – CARICOM Summit hosted in Addis Ababa in September 2025, to foster economic, social and political relations between the African continent and countries with significant populations of people of African descent.
9. The Ministers called for more just and equitable global governance and mutually beneficial relations among nations based on international law with an enhanced role for the global south and the developing world in global governance, reflective of their growing economies, demography, and contributions towards sustainable development, including poverty eradication. They acknowledged that multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to develop their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation. They renewed their calls for reforming the global governance institutions and global financial architecture to better reflect the contemporary global realities.
10. In light of the 80th Anniversary of the United Nations under the theme: ‘Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights, the Ministers recalled UNGA Resolutions 75/1, 77/335 and other relevant resolutions, and reiterated their commitment to provide the United Nations with all the required support it needs to discharge its mandate. They emphasized the strong call for reforms of the principal organs of the United Nations with a view to achieving concrete progress. They recommitted to instill new life in the discussions on reform of the UN Security Council and continue the work to revitalize the General Assembly and strengthen the Economic and Social Council. They look forward to the successful conclusion of the 2025 Review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture. The Ministers also look forward to the outcome of the review of all UN peace operations.
11. The Ministers noted the current global context of polarization and distrust and encouraged global action to strengthen international peace and security. They called on the international community to respond to these challenges and associated security threats through politico-diplomatic measures to lower conflict potential and stressed the need to engage in conflict prevention efforts, including through addressing their root causes. They underscored that security among all countries is indivisible and reiterated their commitment to the peaceful resolution of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. They encouraged the active role of regional organizations in conflict prevention and resolution and supported all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises. They highlighted the importance of mediation and preventive diplomacy as essential tools to avoid crises and prevent their escalation, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. In this regard, they agreed to explore avenues for cooperation on the prevention of armed conflicts, UN peacekeeping missions, African Union peace support operations, and mediation and peace processes.
12. The Ministers reaffirmed their strong commitment to strengthening multilateral cooperation to address humanitarian crises worldwide. They expressed concern at the dwindling of international responses, which were already insufficient, fragmented, and often politicized. They strongly condemned all violations of international humanitarian law, including deliberate attacks on civilians, including scientists and journalists and civilian objects, including civilian infrastructure, as well as the denial or obstruction of humanitarian access and the targeting of humanitarian personnel. They underlined the need to address accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law.
13. In light of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the thirtieth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women held in New York on 22 September 2025, the Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to promote the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The Ministers look forward to the incoming Global Leaders’ Meeting on Women co-hosted by China and the UN Women and reaffirmed their commitment to advancing women’s rights and leadership. The Ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to full implementation and advancement of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, especially in view of the upcoming 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000). They further reiterated the importance of ensuring the full, equal, safe and meaningful participation of women in decision-making at all levels of peace and security processes, including conflict prevention and resolution, humanitarian relief, mediation, peace operations, peace-building, and post-conflict reconstruction and development.
14. Recognizing the 2023 Johannesburg-II Leaders’ Declaration, the Ministers reiterated their support for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council, with a view to making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and to increase the representation of developing countries in the Council’s memberships so that it can adequately respond to prevailing global challenges and support the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America, including BRICS countries, to play a greater role in international affairs, in particular in the United Nations, including its Security Council. The Ministers recognized the legitimate aspirations of African countries, as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration. The Ministers stressed that the United Nations Security Council reform is to lead to the amplified voice of the Global South. Recalling the 2022 Beijing and 2023 Johannesburg-II Leaders’ Declarations, China and Russia, as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, reiterated their support to the aspirations of Brazil and India to play a greater role in the United Nations, including its Security Council.
15. Recalling that 2025 marks the eightieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, a war which brought untold sorrow to humankind, particularly in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific and other parts of the world, the Ministers rendered their full support to the UNGA Resolution 79/272 on the Eightieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, on this historic event, which established the conditions for the creation of the United Nations, designed to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.
16. The Ministers commended four consecutive developing countries as G20 Presidencies of Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa during 2022-2025. They applauded the inclusion of the African Union as a full G20 member and the inclusion of voices from the Global South in the G20 mandate. They reaffirmed the support for G20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation, and committed to deepening macroeconomic policy coordination, strengthening development cooperation, and accommodate needs and concerns of the Global South.
17. The Ministers reaffirmed their willingness to coordinate positions in order to enhance inclusiveness and amplify the voice of the Global South in the global economic governance system so that it adequately reflects EMDCs’ rising weight in the global economy and further integrate their priorities in the G20 agenda. They saluted strengthening of the EMDCs’ voice in the G20 through the accession of the African Union during India’s presidency of G20 in 2023 and the invitation to the NDB during Brazilian and South African presidencies including by their closer interaction and alignment.
18. The Ministers expressed their readiness to continue to enhance cooperation with the African Union to help address challenges, in particular economic vulnerabilities, in line with the aspirations of the African Union Agenda 2063 and its Second Ten Year Implementation Plan. They underscored the urgent need to address Africa’s development, debt burden and the impact of global economic volatility on the Continent’s fiscal space and stressed the importance of a reformed international financial system, responding to Africa’s priorities and needs.
19. Cognizant of the growing complexity in contemporary global challenges, including heightened geopolitical tensions, they underscored the urgent need for collective responses. The Ministers agreed that BRICS will continue to play a proactive and constructive role in addressing global challenges through dialogue and diplomacy.
20. The Ministers reaffirmed support to the principle “African solutions to African problems” should continue to serve as the basis for conflict resolution on the African continent. They recognized the critical role played by the African Union in conflict prevention, management and resolution and reaffirmed their support for African peace efforts on the continent, including those undertaken by the African Union, and African sub-regional organizations. The Ministers committed to consider new ways to support African Union peace support operations, mediation efforts, peace processes and broader peace building initiatives in the African continent.
21. The Ministers expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflicts and instability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and underline the particular urgency of addressing the current situation in the Middle East. In this regard, they reaffirmed their commitment to the Joint Statement by BRICS Deputy Foreign Ministers and Special Envoys at their meeting of 28 March 2025.
22. The Ministers stated that regional crises in MENA region should be exclusively resolved through political and diplomatic dialogue based on unconditional respect for independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of countries in the region. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the basic principle that peace and security in the MENA region should be achieved and sustained in accordance with, and in full respect for, international law and the United Nations (UN) Charter. They reaffirmed the primary role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in maintaining international peace and security.
23. The Ministers condemned Israel’s armed attack on the State of Qatar, which constitutes a flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, a grave breach of international law, including the UN Charter, and a threat to regional and international peace and security. They also noted the recent Urgent Debate on the armed attack launched by Israel against the State of Qatar, convened on 16th of September 2025 at the 60th Session of the Human Rights Council. They reaffirmed their commitment to uphold the rule of law, human rights, peace and security.
24. The Ministers condemned the military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13 June 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and expressed grave concern over the subsequent escalation of the security situation in the Middle East. They further expressed serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA. Nuclear safeguards, safety, and security must always be upheld, including in armed conflicts, to protect people and the environment from harm. In this context, they reiterated their support for diplomatic initiatives aimed at addressing regional challenges. They called upon the United Nations Security Council to be seized of this matter.
25. The Ministers expressed, in particular, grave concern about the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the persistent Israeli attacks against Gaza, which, after almost two years, continue to cause unprecedented suffering to the civilian population of the territory, ravaged by deaths, destruction, and famine. The Ministers condemned in this regard all attempts to displacing the Palestinian people from their occupied territory under any pretext or circumstances. They reiterated their calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, leading to the cessation of Israeli attacks, the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory, the release of remaining hostages and detainees, and unhindered access and delivery of humanitarian aid, at scale. They further underscored, their unwavering support for UNRWA and stressed the need to fully respect its mandate, as granted by the United Nations General Assembly, for the provision of essential services to Palestinians across its five fields of operation. The Ministers urged for the expeditious reconstruction of the civic infrastructure of the territory, with a central role by the Palestinians, as agreed in the Emergency Arab Summit on Palestine of 4 March 2025, and they noted with appreciation the initiative to convene an upcoming pledging conference to be held in Cairo. Efforts to stabilize and rebuild Gaza must go hand in hand with a just and lasting political resolution of the protracted conflict, which can only be achieved by peaceful means and depends on the fulfilment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The Ministers emphasized that the Gaza Strip is an inseparable part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, they further underscored the importance of unifying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under a reformed Palestinian Authority and reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. They reaffirmed support for the State of Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations in the context of the unwavering commitment to the two-state solution, in accordance with international law, including relevant UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and the Arab Peace Initiative, that includes the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine within the internationally recognized 1967 borders, which includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in order to achieve the vision of two States living side by side, in peace and security.
26. The Ministers expressed their concern over the situation in Sudan resulted in a humanitarian crisis and the growing risk of proliferation of extremism and terrorism. They reiterated their positions in this regard and called for an immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. They also stressed the need for sustained, urgent and unhindered access to humanitarian assistance for the Sudanese population, and for the scaling up of humanitarian aid to Sudan and neighboring countries.
27. The Ministers expressed strong condemnation of any acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed. They condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, during which 26 people were killed and many more injured. They reaffirmed their commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorism financing and safe havens. They reiterated that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group and that all those involved in terrorist activities and their support must be held accountable and brought to justice in accordance with relevant national and international law. They urged to ensure zero tolerance for terrorism and reject double standards in countering terrorism. They emphasized the primary responsibility of States in combating terrorism and that global efforts to prevent and counter terrorist threats must fully comply with their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the purposes and principles thereof, and relevant international conventions and protocols, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable. They welcomed the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) and its five Subgroups based upon the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the BRICS Counter Terrorism Action Plan and the CTWG position paper. They look forward to further deepening counter-terrorism cooperation. They called for an expeditious finalization and adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism in the UN framework. They called for concerted actions against all UN designated terrorists and terrorist entities.
28. The Ministers expressed concern over proliferation of trade-restrictive actions, whether in the form of indiscriminate rising of tariffs and non-tariff measures, or protectionism, in particular measures used as a means of coercion that threaten to further reduce global trade, disrupt global supply chains, and introduce uncertainty into international economic and trade activities, potentially exacerbating existing economic disparities and affecting prospects for global economic development. They voiced serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules. They cautioned against such practices that risk fragmenting global trade and marginalizing the Global South.
29. Recalling the BRICS Declaration on WTO Reform and Strengthening of the Multilateral Trading System, the Ministers reaffirmed their unwavering support for strengthening a non-discriminatory, open, equitable, transparent, fair, inclusive, and rules-based multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core while upholding the principles of Special & Differential Treatment for developing members, including LDCs. They strongly advocated for the immediate restoration of an accessible, effective, fully-functioning, two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism as a foundation for trust, predictability, for all members, and the appointment of new appellate body members without further delay. The Ministers look forward to the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference and to work towards strengthening the organization through necessary reform and to restore the credibility of the multilateral trading system. The Ministers reiterated their strong support to Ethiopia and Islamic Republic of Iran’s bid for accession to the WTO.
30. The Ministers rejected unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures, that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), deforestation regulations, due diligence requirements, taxes and other measures and reconfirmed full support for the call in COP28 related to avoidance of unilateral trade measures based on climate or environment. The Ministers also opposed unilateral protectionist measures, which deliberately disrupt the global supply and production chains and distort competition.
31. The Ministers called for concerted efforts and early conclusion and implementation of the BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership 2030, which will aim at consolidating mandates and guiding principles for the cooperation of BRICS on issues relating to multilateral trading system, digital economy, international trade, financial cooperation and trade and sustainable development.
32. On the 80th anniversary, the Ministers reiterated the urgent need to reform the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI) to make them more agile, effective, credible, inclusive, fit for purpose, unbiased, accountable, and representative, enhancing their legitimacy. First and foremost, their governance must be reformed to reflect the transformation of the global economy since their establishment. The Ministers called for improved management procedures, including through a merit-based and inclusive selection process that would increase regional diversity and representation of EMDEs in the leadership of the IMF and the WBG, as well as the role and representation of women at the managerial level. The Ministers urged for meaningful quota realignment under the 17th General Review of Quotas at the earliest possible time that should not come at the expense of developing countries, reflecting countries’ relative positions in the global economy, and increasing the shares of EMDEs, in line with BRICS Rio de Janeiro Vision for IMF Quota and Governance Reform. They reaffirmed that the 2025 World Bank Shareholding Review is a critical tool to strengthen multilateralism and enhance the legitimacy of the World Bank Group, as a better, bigger, and more effective development finance institution. In line with the Lima principles, BRICS countries continue to advocate for the increased voice and representation of developing countries, underpinned by a shareholding realignment that corrects their historic underrepresentation.
33. As the New Development Bank is set to embark on its second golden decade of high quality development, the Ministers recognized and supported its growing role as a robust and strategic agent of development and modernization in the Global South. The Ministers lauded the growing role of the New Development Bank (NDB) in meeting the development priorities and infrastructure needs of EMDCs. The Ministers welcomed the Bank’s steady expansion of its capacity to mobilize resources, foster innovation, expand local currency financing, diversify funding sources, and support impactful projects that advance sustainable development, reduce inequality, and promote infrastructure investments and economic integration. They recognized NDB as a crucial BRICS institution for promoting sustainable development, reducing inequalities, and supporting resilience in emerging economies. The Ministers reiterated support for the further expansion of NDB membership and expedited consideration of applications of interested BRICS countries, in line with the NDB General Strategy and related policies. They also called for strengthening the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) and encouraged greater participation of new members in its operations.
34. The Ministers acknowledged the progress made by BRICS countries in advancing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in its three dimensions—economic, social, and environmental. They underscored the importance of continued efforts to eradicate poverty, reduce, inequality and promote sustainable and inclusive growth. The Ministers called upon developed countries to fulfill their Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments, in particular that of dedicating at least 0.7% of their gross national income for ODA, and to facilitate the timely and affordable transfer of relevant technologies, knowledge, and capacity-building to developing countries. They emphasized that strengthened global partnerships and equitable resource flows are essential for bridging development gaps and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the established timelines. They further urged developed countries to reserve the classification of ODA to initiatives strictly linked to development.
35. The Ministers emphasized that just, inclusive and balanced energy transitions present social, economic and technological opportunities to contribute to universal energy access, energy markets stability, economic growth and GHG emissions reductions in line with the national circumstances, needs and priorities, principle of technological neutrality and SDGs. In this context, they acknowledged the updated Roadmap for BRICS Energy Cooperation 2025-2030 and the important role of the BRICS Energy Research Cooperation Platform in energy, cooperation and fostering energy access, within the BRICS format. They also recalled the importance of energy security and the need to increase energy access and affordability. 36. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to urgent and collective action to combat climate change, guided by the principles of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), in light of national circumstances. They highlighted that CBDR principle must remain central to global climate governance and reiterated the need for developed countries to meet their commitments on climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. The Ministers expressed strong support for Brazil’s upcoming Presidency of COP30 and welcomed Ethiopia’s and India’s candidacy to host COP32 and COP33 respectively. They welcomed initiatives and contributions made by BRICS countries and partner countries in contributing to the global response to climate change.
37. The Ministers emphasized that ensuring accessible, timely and affordable climate finance is critical for enabling just transition pathways that combine climate action with sustainable development. They called upon developed countries to fully deliver on their commitments to providing financial resources to assist developing countries, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries in just transitions. They also underlined the importance of a refocused effort for enhancing supporting technology transfer and development, in compliance with national legislation and policies, capacity building initiatives and targeted concessional finance, while recognizing the cross-cutting nature of climate finance. They encouraged an integrated approach across multiple areas of expertise to leverage BRICS collective strength, with a view to scale up access to climate finance for all member countries.
38. The Ministers welcomed the convening of the Second Africa Climate Summit by the African Union held in Addis Ababa, 8-10 September 2025.
39. The Ministers underscored the importance of enhancing the resilience of infrastructure systems to climate and disaster risks as is vital to achieving sustainable development in the Global South. The need to invest in resilient infrastructure and to ensure that infrastructure plans are risk informed was emphasized. They acknowledged that building disaster-resilient infrastructure contributes directly to long-term sustainability and economic stability. The Ministers reiterated the readiness of the BRICS countries to cooperate to improve national disaster risk reduction systems and capacities to reduce disaster-related damage and protect infrastructure, human lives and livelihoods as well as to mobilize sufficient funding and increase private investment for comprehensive infrastructure development.
40. The Ministers look forward to further promoting transport dialogue, including in civil aviation, to meet demands of all stakeholders and to enhance the BRICS countries transport potential while also respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states while carrying out transport cooperation. They reaffirmed the commitment of BRICS countries to develop sustainable and resilient transport infrastructure, recognizing its critical role in economic growth, connectivity, and environmental sustainability.
41. The Ministers reaffirmed that cooperation within and through BRICS is fundamental to contributing to the global effort towards a sustainable future and equitable and just transitions for all. The Ministers underscored the importance of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, of the fair, equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and of the effective implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, its Protocols, and its Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The Ministers appreciated the establishment of the Kunming Biodiversity Fund and the contribution made by the Government of China and recognized its significant role in supporting developing countries for their biodiversity conservation. The Ministers recognized the active role of BRICS countries in the COP16 negotiations, particularly with regard to resource mobilization. The Ministers urged developed countries to ensure the provision of adequate, effective, predictable, timely and accessible financial resources to developing countries, as well as to improve capacity building, development and transfer of technology to developing countries for the conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity. The Ministers underscored the critical role of all types of forests, including tropical forests, for conserving biodiversity, preserving water basins and soils and providing timber and non timber forest products of high value for economic sectors, regulating hydrological cycles, as well as combatting desertification and land degradation and serving as vital carbon sinks. In that regard, the Ministers took note of the UAE co-hosting the 2026 UN Water Conference with Senegal, which will focus on accelerating the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 on Clean Water and Sanitation. They also took note of the “United for Our Forests” initiative, which promotes the conservation, sustainable management, and restoration of these essential tropical ecosystems. The Ministers took note of the Mangrove Alliance for Climate co-led by the UAE and Indonesia as platforms for international cooperation. While appreciating the efforts of our countries to preserve rare species and noting the high vulnerability of big cats, they took note of the Republic of India’s initiative to create an International Big Cats Alliance and encourage BRICS countries to work together to the conservation of big cats.
42. The Ministers welcomed the plans to launch the Tropical Forest Forever Facility in Belém, at COP30, and recognized it as an innovative mechanism designed to mobilize long-term, results-based financing for tropical forest conservation. They encouraged potential donor countries to announce ambitious contributions, in order to ensure the Facility’s capitalization and timely operationalization.
43. The Ministers underscored the role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work within the UN System. They emphasized the importance of strengthening equitable, accessible, and resilient health systems to prepare for and respond to future pandemics. The Ministers acknowledged the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and supported the negotiations on its Annex on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing. They encouraged intra-BRICS cooperation and experience sharing on digital health, vaccine research and development, manufacturing capacity, tuberculosis (TB), antimicrobial resistance (AMR), nuclear medicine, traditional medicine systems. They acknowledged the establishment of the BRICS Partnership to Eliminate Socially Determined Diseases and the necessity to promote vaccine cooperation through the BRICS Vaccine Development Centre.
44. The Ministers expressed concern about the growing risks of nuclear danger and conflict. They reiterated the need for invigorating the system of disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation and for preserving its integrity and effectiveness to achieve global stability and international peace and security. They stressed the significant contribution of nuclear weapon-free zones to the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, reaffirmed their support for and respect towards all existing nuclear-weapons free-zones and their associated assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and acknowledged the paramount importance of the efforts aiming at accelerating the implementation of the resolutions on the Establishment of a Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East, including the Conference convened pursuant to UN General Assembly Decision 73/546. They called on all invited parties to participate in this conference in good faith and engage with this effort constructively. They welcomed the adoption of the UNGA Resolution 79/241 “Comprehensive study of the question of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all its aspects”.
45. The Ministers recognized the need to ensure the use of space systems, as well as the achievements of space science and technologies, for peaceful purposes. They also reasserted their support for ensuring the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and of its weaponization, as well as the threats or use of force against outer space objects, including through negotiations to adopt a relevant legal multilateral instrument to ensure global security. They recognized the submission of the updated Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) to the Conference on Disarmament in 2014 as an important step towards this goal. They stressed that practical and non-binding commitments such as Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs), and universally agreed norms, rules, and principles may also contribute to PAROS. They noted the initiative of some BRICS Members at the General Assembly to create a single Open-Ended Working Group to enable coherent, inclusive and effective discussions that serves such purpose and undertake to engage constructively in the process, on the basis of existing achievements, including on substantial elements on a legally binding instrument on PAROS.
46. Recognizing the importance of making international governance, dialogues on governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for peaceful purposes, inclusive and representative through meaningful participation especially from Global South, the Ministers underscored the need for collective efforts at the United Nations on AI governance that upholds AI for good and for all taking into account national policies, regulations and applicable international agreements, ensures sovereignty of States, development of trustworthy AI systems, equitable access to resources critical for responsible AI development, stimulates innovation and economic growth, ensures privacy and data protection, promotes leveraging AI for diverse AI solutions to address global social realities, including economic, linguistic, and cultural diversities in accordance to national and regional priorities and national regulatory frameworks. The Ministers look forward to BRICS cooperation to help developing countries strengthen AI capacity building. They reiterated the UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/78/311 – Enhancing International Cooperation on Capacity-building of Artificial Intelligence. They also welcomed the General Assembly Resolution 79/325 adopted on 26 August 2025 to establish two new mechanisms – the UN Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance – to promote international cooperation on the governance of AI with the United Nations at the Centre.
47. The Ministers underscored the important role of BRICS economies in fostering innovation, advancing technological cooperation, including in areas related to Industry 4.0, and promoting deeper engagement among start-ups and SMEs through intra-BRICS initiatives and exchanges. They acknowledged the importance of strengthening cooperation under the Partnership on the New Industrial Revolution (PartNIR). They encouraged members to join the BRICS Center for Industrial Competences (BCIC). They appreciated the launch of the BRICS Startup Knowledge Hub under the BRICS Startup Forum and reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening collaboration in this regard.
48. The Ministers recognized the transformative impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as a key driver of socioeconomic growth and digital transformation in BRICS countries and reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening collaboration in this regard. They reaffirmed their support for an open, safe, secure, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable ICT environment and stressed the importance of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security and Advancing Responsible States Behaviour in the Use of ICTs. They underscored the leading role of the United Nations in fostering constructive dialogue to forge common understandings on security in the use of ICTs and discussions on developing a universal legal framework in this realm and the further development and implementation of universally agreed norms, rules and principles for responsible behavior of States in the use of ICTs. They called upon all States to sign and ratify the UN Convention against Cybercrime, in accordance with domestic laws, processes and procedures, as soon as possible, with an aim to enhance international cooperation in combating cybercrime. The Ministers emphasized the importance of promoting the use of ICT for peaceful purposes and in a more inclusive and accessible manner, and ensuring that its applications remain people-centered. They called for concerted efforts to address challenges stemming from and within the digital realm such as threat to security in the use of ICTs, malicious software, data security, and the misuse of technologies including cybercrime, disinformation and deepfakes. They called for a comprehensive, balanced, objective approach to the development and security of ICT products and systems as well as for the development and implementation of globally interoperable common rules and standards for supply chain security.
49. The Ministers reiterated that utilizing science and technology for peaceful purposes is an inalienable right and encouraged all countries to implement the UN General Assembly resolution] titled “Promoting International Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security” (A/res/79/80) and UN GA Resolution titled “Role of Science and Technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (A/res79/23).
50. The Ministers recognized that women, along with children, are the main victims of crimes such as human trafficking. The Ministers welcomed the adoption of the 2010 United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and look forward to the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on the appraisal of the United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons to be held on 24 25 November 2025 in New York, which will contribute to the promotion and protection of the rights of women and children, as well as enhance cooperation and better coordination of efforts in fighting trafficking in persons.
51. The Ministers recognized the serious threat posed by crimes that affect the environment, such as illegal wildlife trade, illegal mining, illegal logging, illegal fishing and illegal movement and disposal of waste and hazardous substances, among other activities and note that these activities are closely interlinked with other serious crimes and exacerbate challenges undermining sustainability and development objectives. In this regard, the Ministers called for strengthened cooperation among BRICS Member States to address these crimes, including through enhanced information sharing, legal and institutional capacity building, law enforcement efforts, and to reinforce these efforts through synergies with multilateral frameworks for combating crimes that affect the environment.
52. The Ministers recognized that BRICS countries are key players in world food production and, as such, have a critical role in enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability, and ensuring global food security and nutrition. They also recognized that family farmers, including smallholders, pastoralists, artisanal and small-scale fishers and aquaculture producers, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, are essential for advancing sustainable agricultural practices and the transformation of systems. They recognized that mechanization and technological innovation especially in small-scale agriculture, including information and digital innovations, are strategic opportunities for reducing the drudgery of work, increasing productivity and improving standards of living, enhancing resilience, and accelerating the sustainable transition. The Ministers stressed the importance of minimizing disruptions and promoting rules-based trade in agriculture and fertilizers with the view to ensure a continuous flow of food and essential inputs for agricultural production which should be exempted from undue restrictive economic measures, inconsistent with WTO rules, including those affecting producers and exporters of agricultural products as well as business services with regard to international shipments, including those affecting producers and exporters of agricultural products as well as business services with regard to international shipments. They acknowledged the importance of continued elaboration of the initiative to establish a grain trading platform within BRICS (the BRICS Grain Exchange) and its subsequent development, and expanding into other agricultural products and commodities.
53. The Ministers welcomed the convening of the Second United Nations Food Systems Summit Stocktake (UNFSS+4), which Ethiopia hosted successfully in Addis Ababa from 27-29 July 2025. They recognised the Summit provided an opportunity to assess progress, renew global solidarity, and connect high-level ambition with local action – advancing food systems transformation as a cornerstone of sustainable development and accelerating sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems transformation.
54. The Ministers recognized the key role of critical minerals for the development of zero- and low emission energy technologies, energy security, and resilience of energy supply chains. They reaffirmed the need to promote reliable, responsible, diversified, resilient, fair, sustainable, and just supply chains of such minerals to guarantee benefit sharing, value addition and economic diversification in resource-rich countries, while fully preserving sovereign rights over their mineral resources, as well as their right to adopt, maintain and enforce measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives.
55. The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of BRICS people-to-people exchanges in enhancing mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation. They acknowledged that people-to-people exchanges play an essential role in enriching our societies and developing our economies. The Ministers called for more efforts to respect diversity of cultures, highly value inheritance, innovation and creativity, jointly advocate robust international people-to-people exchanges and cooperation and recognize the adoption of the UNGA resolution A/res/78/286 entitled “International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations.
56. Acknowledging that the BRICS countries have immense potential in the tourism sector and offer promising possibilities for the growth and development of sustainable and resilient tourism, including ecotourism, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to expanding BRICS cooperation, fostering innovation, and ensuring that tourism contributes meaningfully to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. They also welcomed the theme of the 2025 World Tourism Day being commemorated on 27 September under the theme “tourism and sustainable transformation”.
57. The Ministers noted that the BRICS expansion reflects its influence, credibility, and appeal as an important platform for inclusive global governance and for amplifying the collective voices from the Global South. In this regard, they underscored the need for enhanced coordination, continuity and support for a long-term institutional development of the grouping.
58. Given the BRICS expansion process according to the BRICS Membership Expansion Guiding Principles, Standards, Criteria and Procedures, adopted at the BRICS Summit at Johannesburg, South Africa, the Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to consolidate and strengthen BRICS in line with the group’s spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration, continuity, full consultation and consensus. They emphasized the importance of partner countries contributing to BRICS cooperation in accordance with the Modalities of BRICS Partner Country Category adopted during the BRICS Summit at Kazan, Russia. They reaffirmed that institutional development is a continuous and dynamic process that should reflect the group’s needs and priorities. They took note of the need to establish a common BRICS database to facilitate access to relevant documents and background information. They underscored their strong belief that extending the BRICS partnership with EMDCs will further contribute to strengthening the spirit of solidarity and true international cooperation for the benefit of all.
59. The Ministers expressed appreciation to India for holding the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations meeting on the margins of UNGA 80. They extended their full support to India for its BRICS Chairship in 2026 and the holding of the XVIII BRICS Summit in India. The Ministers also look forward to the Standalone Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations in India in 2026.
tomorrow, 27ᵗʰ September 2025, the 2015 JCPOA “snap-back” sanctions will come into force. With disavowal from China and Russia, it will become a milestone day in the disintegration of the post-WW2 UN system.
with appreciation to Dr. Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.
One Major FM statement and two by main UN Representative Vassily Nebenzia
On 20 September, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a major statement about its views on the snap-back sanctions issue which was followed by two separate statements by Mr. Vassily Nebenzia that were made to the assembled UN Security Council. It should be noted that China, Algeria and Pakistan all hold similar positions as they expressed orally and via their vote. When this move was announced back in August, Russia published a paper expressing why this move is illegal and violates the JCPOA that I reported on in full. We’ll begin with the MFA Statement then go to the two statements by Mr. Nebenzia.
On September 19, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution submitted by the Republic of Korea as President of the UN Security Council as a follow-up to the August 28 appeal by the United Kingdom, Germany and France regarding Iran’s alleged material failure to comply with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Russian side has repeatedly pointed out the provocative and illegal nature of the actions of the European countries participating in the JCPOA and the South Korean chairmanship of the UN Security Council, which is under their influence. These actions have nothing to do with diplomacy and only lead to a further escalation of tensions around the Iranian nuclear program. Until the last moment, we explained in detail and in a well-reasoned manner the reasons why the above-mentioned European appeal cannot be considered a notification within the meaning of paragraph 11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which the British and the European Two are trying to shamelessly manipulate. Accordingly, the presidential draft put to a vote in the Security Council does not meet the requirements of Resolution 2231 and a priori cannot lead to the restoration of the previously lifted UN sanctions against Iran.
During a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 19, Russia, together with China, Algeria and Pakistan, strongly supported the preservation of the regime for the lifting of previous sanctions resolutions on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Predictably, the European instigators of the current growing crisis around the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as the United States, which together exerted unprecedented pressure on the non-permanent members of the Security Council, forcing them to show solidarity with their unsuitable position, spoke out against this. As a result, those who succumbed to blackmail and threats have not been able to clearly explain the essence of their objections to the fact that the restrictions that have long lost their relevance and were in effect before the conclusion of the JCPOA remain lifted.
The position of the Republic of Korea, which abstained on its own draft resolution, is noteworthy in this context. We perceive this as self-exposure and a sign that Seoul is well aware of the legal and procedural nullity of its initiative, as well as the inconsistency of European claims on snapback. Apparently, the chairmanship is aware of the likely disastrous consequences of the political campaign unleashed against Iran, which threatens to negate constructive cooperation between Tehran and the IAEA and push the Iranian leadership to take tough retaliatory decisions.
The results of the vote on the South Korean resolution only indicate that this document did not find support and was removed from the agenda. This fact does not impose any obligations on other states to revive past restrictions against Iran. The notorious “snapback” cannot be considered to have taken place. Claims by the Western camp to the contrary mean that these countries are desperately seeking to legitimize their earlier gross violations of Resolution 2231 and to subordinate the rest of the world to their confrontational and fundamentally flawed policies. Their diktat and their legal nihilism in international affairs must be resolutely rebuffed, and attempts to use the authority and powers of the UN Security Council to settle political scores with Tehran must be rejected.
For the United States and European countries, the moment of truth has come. They will finally have to answer the question with certainty whether they are seeking a political and diplomatic settlement or are they once again preparing for the “dirty work” of plunging the Middle East into a new tragedy, similar to the one that took place in June, when the nuclear facilities in Iran under IAEA control were the target of missile and bomb strikes by Israel and the United States.
The Russian-Chinese draft UN Security Council resolution on a technical postponement of the implementation of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 for six months, which is on the table, provides a real opportunity to rectify the situation, create conditions for the effective implementation of the agreements reached between Iran and the IAEA in Cairo on September 9, and provide space for a vigorous search for negotiated solutions that will make it possible to remove any suspicions and prejudices regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy with due reliance on international law and consideration of the legitimate interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. [My Emphasis]
Here’s the first Nebenzia statement:
Mr. President,
We have to take the floor on a point of order, because we do not see any legal, political or procedural grounds for any steps to develop the European claims to launch the snapback mechanism, including voting on the draft resolution submitted by the South Korean presidency.
We have repeatedly explained at various venues that the European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) simply have no right to launch the mechanism provided for by OP11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. The United Kingdom, France and Germany themselves have chronically violated UNSC Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, including by imposing illegal unilateral sanctions against Iran to replace the restrictions that expired in accordance with the Plan. These countries also grossly violated the procedure for considering disputes provided for by the JCPOA, in particular, they did not launch the Dispute Settlement Mechanism in accordance with the prescribed procedure at the Vienna platform.
We would like to remind you that Resolution 2231 is an integral document and does not allow for a gap between it and the JCPOA, which has been and remains an integral part of it. Attempts by European countries to present the situation as if they have the right to use the “punitive” provisions of the resolution without fulfilling their part of the obligations are hypocritical and untenable from both a legal and political point of view. That is why we do not recognise the complaint submitted by Berlin, London and Paris to the Council within the meaning of UNSC Resolution 2231.
In this regard, we do not see any need for the Chairman-in-Office to take any steps, including the introduction of a draft resolution. The hasty putting of it to a vote by the South Korean chairmanship, although there is still more than a week before the expiration of 30 days, is also perplexing. We regret that the Republic of Korea has chosen the path of playing along with Western destructive approaches, to the detriment of its duties as an impartial chairman.
On the whole, what is happening today evokes the feeling of a clumsy spectacle aimed at creating a false “parallel reality” that has nothing to do with the political and legal foundations of the work of the Security Council. After all, it is no secret that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not care at all about the fate of the JCPOA or the authority of the UN Security Council. Their only goal now is to use the Council as a tool in their unscrupulous game, as a lever of pressure on an undesirable state that defends its sovereign interests.
Here is a clear illustration of the fact that our European colleagues reject diplomacy at the root, preferring the language of blackmail and threats. Last week in Vienna, we officially proposed holding a meeting of all the original participants in the JCPOA in order to discuss, so to speak, “in the family circle” ways out of the current crisis. Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States responded to our proposal with a refusal.
Therefore, in other circumstances, we would not even take part in such a shameful spectacle in the Security Council, which is now unfolding at their behest. We are doing this today only because the content of the submitted document implies the preservation of the regime for lifting sanctions against Iran, which is in line with our long-standing principled position. However, this does not lend an ounce of legitimacy to either the European statements about the launch of the snapback, or the actions of the presidency to develop them. I ask you to record this in the minutes of the meeting.
Thank you. [My Emphasis]
And here’s the second:
Mr. President,
Today we have already stated our principled position of rejection of either the attempts of European states to launch a snapback or the actions of the presidency to develop them, including the introduction of this resolution. Our position on this matter remains unchanged. The fact that the Russian Federation voted in favour of the draft should not be interpreted as a change to it.
We supported the draft for only one reason: its only operative paragraph was on maintaining the lifting of UN sanctions against Iran. This is the only correct, politically and legally justified decision, which we have been talking about for all these years. The logic laid down in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) assumed the gradual lifting of all restrictions on Iran, and we are firmly convinced that there is no reason why they should not expire on October 18 of this year. and we have all witnessed how Iran fell victim to the aggressive actions of Israel and the United States in June of this year, and then trying to “crush” it with UN sanctions is immoral, unfair and illegal.
However, this is exactly what our Western colleagues are now trying to do. We would like to remind you that everything, including Iran’s interaction with the IAEA, was going according to plan exactly until the United States took a destructive path in 2018 and officially withdrew from the deal. This was the “trigger” of the crisis around the JCPOA, the consequences of which the Council has to deal with now, but Western delegations are diligently hushing up this fact. Despite Washington’s illegal and brutal actions, Tehran showed restraint at that time and continued to comply with its obligations in good faith for more than a year – I emphasise that for more than a year. Only after another round of pressure on it, Tehran took retaliatory steps, while regularly noting that these actions were reversible. Unfortunately, our European colleagues were not interested in returning to diplomacy even then and did not follow the path of a normal conversation, which was a chance in 2022, when the parameters for restoring the JCPOA were discussed.
Violations by the United Kingdom, France and Germany of their obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA have long become chronic. We are talking about their inability to comply with their obligations to ensure economic returns for Iran from the lifting of EU sanctions that were in effect until 2015, and their illegal decision to resume unilateral sanctions pressure after the JCPOA Transition Day on October 18, 2023.
Our country has repeatedly brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council its position that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not have the right to use the procedure for restoring the UN Security Council sanctions regime against Iran, as provided for in paragraph 11 of the operative part of UNSC Resolution 2231. A party that fails to comply with its obligations under any contract or agreement deprives itself of the right to use the tools provided for therein. This is clearly evidenced by the so-called “clean hands doctrine”, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.
Against this background, the so-called “notification” of the “European Three” about the launch of the “snapback”, distributed in the Council on August 28, has no legal and procedural force. It cannot serve as a basis for any decisions or actions of the Security Council. This position is set out in detail in the joint letter of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China and Iran dated August 28, which was circulated in the Council.
Let us emphasize once again: from our point of view, there is no launch of the snapback procedure. The introduction of the draft considered today is a direct violation of Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, which is an integral part of it. For this reason, the Russian Federation does not recognize either the alleged steps taken or any further steps in this context.
We would like to remind you that there is a real alternative to the lawlessness taking place today in the Security Council hall. This is the Russian-Chinese draft resolution, which is in the blue, which provides for the technical extension of Resolution 2231 for six months while demanding that all original participants in the JCPOA immediately resume negotiations in order to find a diplomatic solution. We call on all sensible members of the Security Council to support it when we put it to a vote.
Thank you. [My Emphasis]
Seems pretty basic: The E3 violated basic contract law and thus voided their ability to do anything, almost as if they had dropped out like their Outlaw US Empire Master. I haven’t read anything by China, Pakistan or Algeria, but do know that they echoed Russia’s position meaning Russia wasn’t the only nation pointing to the illegality of the E3’s actions and the unseemly behavior by the South Korean UNSC Chair. Maybe Trump should have attacked some more Korean factories so they’s know where they stand in his racist eyes.
The Cairo Agreement between Iran and IAEA has already been annulled by Iran as a result of the illegal UNSC happenings. Here’s the key quote from RT’s report:
“The ill-considered actions of three European countries regarding the Iranian nuclear issue… will effectively suspend the path of cooperation with the Agency,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement cited by state news agency IRNA. [Emphasis Original]
The UNSC action is very powerful proof that Law and Justice are absent within the world and need to be made reality via another institution; otherwise, what we’ll have in the law of the garden, which in reality is the jungle. As I have suggested, a UN Charter 2.0 is now needed more than ever with modifications made to the Security Council eliminating the veto and other past mistakes in its organization. Obtaining consensus can remain provided all UNSC members are not in current or past violation of the UN Charter—some form of strict disciplinary measures must be added to the Charter for those members who violate it.
It’s become very clear that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t the issue. It’s Iran’s government and the fact it remains independent despite 46 years of attempts to destroy it led by the Outlaw US Empire and its Zionist proxy. The only weapons not used against Iran are nuclear—chemical and biological weapons were used at the behest of the Empire by Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War who covered up their use by Iraq. The longstanding crime spree that was begun by the Outlaw US Empire and UK proxy in 1953-4 so Iran’s hydrocarbon riches could be controlled by the Empire continues. When the Shah was in power, the Empire, nor any of its proxies had any trouble with Iran having a nuclear program because the Empire controlled the Shah. That all changed when Iranians revolted and regained their independence, and all signs today are they relish it greatly and will not cede it under any circumstances. And to defend their independence, Iran has developed very sophisticated high-tech missile and drone capabilities that have shocked the Empire and its Zionist proxy, although they lie about everything about Iran. Today’s Iran isn’t that of 2015—it has very powerful allies and is much better economically. Plus, as the 12-Day War showed, Iran’s populace came together in mass solidarity with the government and military against what are called the Two Satans—Big and Small.
The Genocidal Don and Bibi will again attack Iran with the big question being will either use nukes to attain their goal. And the other big question is, did Iran obtain a considerable upgrade to its AD suite? For if Iran can kill the planes and/or missiles bringing the nukes, it will save itself and much more—but if it does so, how will we know nukes were used? Obviously, in a properly governed world, this crisis wouldn’t exist. If Humanity survives the next war on Iran, global governance will need to be altered whether some nations like it or not.
And as an ending by-note, Venezuela has held talks with Russia on what the MFA called, “Russian-Venezuelan consultations on international legal issues.” Here’s the important portion of the Press Release:
We discussed in detail the issues of coordination at the relevant platforms of international organisations and practical steps to combat the practice of illegal unilateral restrictive measures (sanctions). The issues of the functioning of international justice bodies, including criminal justice, are considered separately. Specific mechanisms and tools for the implementation of common positions have been outlined.
The consultations confirmed the parties’ firm conviction of the need to strengthen the rule of international law. Illegitimate sanctions were condemned, and rejection of the politicisation of international justice was expressed. The Russian side reaffirmed its full support for Caracas in its efforts to protect its sovereignty in light of current threats. [My Emphasis]
Trump has now blown up three boats and killed several dozen which merely adds to his bloody total—Genocide Don and Killer of Ukrainians. He had no business being at the Charlie Kirk funeral.
On September 25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2048904/) in the G20 Ministerial Meeting in New York.
The event, held on the sidelines of the High-Level Week of the 80th UN General Assembly Session, was dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the UN and Victory in World War II, as well as the 65th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
During substantive discussions involving UN Member States and international organisations, particular attention was paid to the interconnection between peace and security in the context of strengthening interaction between the G20 and the UN.
The prevailing view voiced by the World Majority countries, in particular #BRICS and the #SCO members, emphasised the importance of reinvigorating the coordinating role of the UN and the primacy of international law based on its Charter #UNCharterIsOurRules
In his remarks, Sergey Lavrov outlined fundamental approaches concerning the emergence of a multipolar world grounded in the architecture of indivisible security, an open global economic system, and a mutually respectful dialogue.
He also highlighted the prospects for creating independent mechanisms to ensure the fair functioning of cross-border markets and supply chains in line with the outcomes of the 2024 Kazan Summit and other BRICS agreements, as well as the SCO and the EAEU instruments.
—
This is the formal readout. But Mr Lavrov said something else.
The refusal to follow the UN Charter, which is a manifestation of “neo-colonial ambitions,” prompts regional wars and raises global tension, Lavrov stated, invoking decades-long unresolved conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.
“Another clear example is the Western-provoked crisis in Ukraine, through which NATO and the European Union want to declare – have already declared – an actual war on my country and are directly participating in it,” the top diplomat added.
So, there we have it. NATO and the EU are de facto at war against Russia. He could not make it clearer.
With the world economy transitioning towards what some term as fragmentation and/or regionalization, there may be new groups of countries and regional blocs that are likely to ascend to greater prominence on the international stage. In particular, the so-called middle powers are becoming increasingly active in consolidating their efforts in the world economy, while also exploring the possibilities for reforming the current system of global governance. Some of these middle powers such as Vietnam in Southeast Asia, are among the most dynamic in the world economy, while also playing increasingly important roles in their respective regional integration blocs. The world’s “golden middle” may hold the key to the future growth dynamics of the global economy and the creation of new pathways to international economic cooperation, including via the formation of a platform for regional integration arrangements.
One of the issues with the lack of consolidation among the regional powers of the global economy is the “identification problem” for such members[1] of the international community – while for small and large economies the criteria and scale of analysis have been extensively explored, the layer of middle powers and its role for the world economy have been accorded relatively less attention. We refer to the middle powers (used here interchangeably with the term “regional powers”) as economies with a significant regional (but not quite global) clout/influence (including through their respective RTAs) whose size is well above the criteria for small economies as defined by the IMF and the World Bank. Such economies may include the likes of Malaysia and Thailand in Southeast Asia, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, Argentina in South America.
In terms of growth dynamics, middle powers are likely to account for a rising share of global GDP on the back of the outperformance of middle-sized developing economies. One of the successful growth stories among the middle powers of the Global South is Ethiopia that exhibited GDP growth rates consistently in excess of 6% in each of the years within the 2020-2025 period[2]. Another dynamic growth story in this country category is Vietnam that posted positive growth rates in each of the years in the 2020-2025 period, with an annual average rate of more than 5.2%[3]. Overall, existing estimates of the share of the middle powers in global GDP based on proxies such as the shares of BRICS/BRICS+ or the emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) suggest a rising trajectory, with the EMDC category already accounting for nearly 1/2 of global GDP in current prices (more than 60% in PPP terms) and nearly 2/3 of global growth[4].
More generally, there may be reasons why in today’s setting there is a need and scope for middle powers to play a greater role in the global economy and global economic governance:
There is inherently less rivalry among the middle/regional powers compared to large powers vying for world leadership
In a world of mounting geopolitical strife, middle powers have a greater neutrality potential compared to small or large economic powers
With the regionalization of the world economy it is the regional powers (frequently being the main drivers of economic integration in their respective regions) that are taking on greater prominence in the world economy
Middle powers account for a rising share of global economy, while also pertaining to one of the most disenfranchised categories of countries in the world economy
Indeed, compared to large and small economies, middle powers have greater scope for maintaining a neutral stance on the international stage. While large powers are frequently obsessed with geopolitical ambitions and small countries find it hard to maintain neutrality and independence under the pressures from the largest players, the middle powers have more scope to withstand such pressures, particularly in case they create stable and resilient RTAs in their respective regions as well as networks/platforms among their regional arrangements.
Despite their notable potential, middle powers appeared to be somewhat left out in the current system of global governance that favored large developed economies. In fact, there may be a phenomenon that could be referred to as the “middle power trap”, whereby the role of middle powers in global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank (Bretton Woods institutions) is undermined by the disproportionate share of votes accorded to the largest powers, while on the other hand in other institutions such as the UN and the WTO voting is so fragmented that the middle powers also lose out, this time at the expense of smaller constituencies.
For middle powers then, the way out of the trap may be associated with the creation of a new layer of global governance – one may refer to it as the middle layer positioned between that of global institutions (IMF, WTO) and the country-layer composed of individual national economies. This middle/intermediate layer could be formed by the regional integration arrangements, in which the middle powers play a crucial role. Thus far, no such layer for regional arrangements has been created in the world economy.
A system of global governance with a regional layer of cooperation among regional integration arrangements would arguably have better resilience with respect to geopolitical shocks both in terms of ex-ante reduction in national-level tensions and in terms of ex-post conflict resolution (as the regional layer would facilitate the role of regional organizations in peace mediations). In the economic sphere, such a layer would benefit the international community via:
Greater development of regionalism and regional ties across the main regions of the world economy
Lowering dependence on the economic performance of large economic powers via a more regionalized/decentralized pattern of economic cooperation
Boosting South-South economic ties that are currently well below potential, partly due to the lack of a well-developed framework of regionalism
The dynamics within the “middle power” belt of the world economy could have increasingly palpable implications for the rest of the international community. Greater consolidation of middle powers and their ability to exploit their comparative advantages in boosting regional (RTA) and inter-regional (inter-RTA) trade could improve their longer term growth potential, which in turn may be conducive to the expansion in the ranks of the middle class in these emerging markets. This in turn could set in the virtuous circle of greater wealth-creation propping up social and political stability, which in turn would support further economic expansion. The reverse is what appears to have been in motion in the preceding decades, whereby a high degree of fragmentation among the middle powers resulted in low impulses towards intra- and inter-regional trade, leaving many regional powers in the “middle-income trap” and depriving these economies of the benefits of growth and social/political stability.
Greater coordination and a cooperative platform for regional powers could lead to the formation of a “middle bulge” of neutrality and a more “normal distribution” of voting shares/influence/policy-making in international organizations and the global economy more generally. Such a segment of middle powers in the global spectrum could be similar to the role of the median voter that performs a stabilizing role in the socio-economic dynamics and electoral processes. This in turn could act to attenuate the power excesses of large powers that increasingly would compete to get closer to the center of the global political spectrum by concluding alliances with middle powers, much as electoral contenders seek to secure the support of the median voter. This appears to be already playing out with respect to such a centricity-driven regional bloc as ASEAN, whereby competition among the global powers such as the US and China has been intensifying to forge closer alliances with this regional grouping.
But while the benefits from greater consolidation of middle powers and the creation of a platform for regional integration arrangements appear to be plausible, the more difficult question concerns the constituencies, blocs or groups of economies that would opt to launch such a platform. Anything along the lines of a non-aligned movement (NAM) lacks a constructive vision and sufficient momentum for economic cooperation. The G20 group is dominated by large economies with polarized and highly competitive ambitions – so far calls for the creation of an inclusive platform for regional integration arrangements along the lines of a regional R20 remained unaddressed.
The rising number of middle powers applying to join BRICS would suggest that such a platform for regional arrangements could be launched on the basis of a BRICS+ formation. Thus far there is limited headway in this direction that mostly revolves around the framework of the potential cooperation between BRICS economies and the two Eurasian regional blocs – Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The presence of such heavyweights of the Global South as China and India within the BRICS core necessitates an open and inclusive approach from these large powers in order for BRICS+ to perform the role of a platform for middle powers.
Another possibility is for the regional blocs themselves to launch such a platform. Perhaps of all the regional blocs in the Global South, it is ASEAN that could lead such an effort, given its centricity and neutrality credentials, its economic dynamism and its diversified network of alliances with countries and regions across the world. ASEAN is also the hub for a relatively large number of dynamic and ambitious middle powers such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.
Notwithstanding its potential benefits, the creation of a platform for middle/regional powers may be fraught with difficulties. One of the pitfalls in this respect is the intra-regional competition and tensions among some of the middle powers that are striving for regional leadership – the competition among some of the largest economies in Africa is one of the cases in point. Another problem is the lingering power of distance in cross-regional trade flows that limits the scale of consolidation among the various regions of the global economy. This is particularly problematic with respect to South-South trade and the under-trading compared to potential among the leading regional economies of the Global South.
In the end, middle powers may be the newly discovered juste-milieu of the global economy. They in effect could become the main beneficiaries of a shift away from a unipolar setting in the global economy to a regionalized framework as one of the possible modalities of a multipolar global governance. The consolidation of the middle powers may enable the international community to build new layers of global governance as well as a bulge of neutrality and stability that attenuates the power excesses of large/global powers. The regional/middle powers may lead the process of a re-assembly of global economic governance that is accompanied by stronger regional integration impulses and a closer cooperation among the main regional integration arrangements.
From BRICS+ Analytics
The Himalayan nation of 30 million people, wedged between China and India, is slowly returning to normal, less than a week after widespread Gen Z-led protests following a government ban on social media platforms.
Authorities began easing restrictions on Saturday, with curfew and prohibitory orders lifted in the capital, Kathmandu, though sensitive areas remain off-limits to the public.
Hours after appointing former chief justice and anticorruption figure Sushila Karki as the new interim head of government, President Ramchandra Paudel announced in a statement late on Friday that the 275-seat parliament has been dissolved and elections are fixed for March 5.
From Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has steadily evolved from a modest regional forum into one of the most significant multilateral platforms of the Global South. What began in 2001 as a security-focused grouping of China, Russia, and Central Asian states has now expanded its agenda to cover development, finance, connectivity, and global governance. With nine full members, several observers, dialogue partners, and applicants, the SCO today represents almost half of the world’s population and a vast proportion of its natural resources.
The 2025 Tianjin Summit was a landmark moment in this journey. Not only was it the largest SCO summit ever held, but it also carried profound implications for the organization’s institutional evolution, policy direction, and global relevance. The summit outcomes, particularly the launch of the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) and the decision to establish a multilateral SCO Development Bank, underscored the SCO’s growing capacity to translate vision into concrete action.
The SCO: A Unique Model of Cooperation
Unlike traditional military alliances or purely economic groupings, the SCO has always pursued a holistic model. Its foundation rests on the “Shanghai Spirit”—mutual trust, equality, respect for cultural diversity, and the pursuit of common development. This ethos sets it apart from exclusive Western-led blocs that often divide the world into competing camps.
The SCO’s agenda has gradually expanded from counterterrorism and border security to encompass trade, energy, health, climate cooperation, and digital connectivity. Its ability to bring together diverse actors—China, Russia, Central Asia, South Asia, and now increasingly West Asia—shows that multipolar collaboration is not only possible but increasingly necessary in today’s fractured world.
Key Outcomes of the 2025 Tianjin Summit
The Tianjin Summit marked a turning point for the SCO’s trajectory. Several outcomes deserve particular attention:
1. Global Governance Initiative (GGI)
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s proposal of the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) was the most visionary highlight. The GGI aims to create a cooperative framework for fair, inclusive, and rules-based governance at the international level. Unlike the status quo dominated by a handful of powers, the GGI embodies the principle that all nations, regardless of size or economic weight, should have a voice in shaping global rules.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the initiative, noting its alignment with the UN Charter’s principles of equality, multilateralism, and sustainable development. By embedding the GGI within the SCO framework, China demonstrated both leadership and a commitment to building bridges rather than walls.
2. The SCO Development Bank
The decision to establish a Multilateral SCO Development Bank was another milestone. The bank is envisioned as a dedicated financial institution to support infrastructure, energy, climate resilience, and digital innovation projects across the SCO space.
This bank could become the Global South’s answer to financial asymmetries long dictated by Bretton Woods institutions. While the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRICS’ New Development Bank already play transformative roles, the SCO Bank would be rooted directly in the needs of Eurasia and South Asia—regions central to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It will provide concessional financing, encourage cross-border investments, and promote economic integration across the world’s largest landmass.
3. The Tianjin Declaration and 10-Year Development Strategy
The Tianjin Declaration, adopted unanimously, reaffirms the SCO’s commitment to peace, mutual respect, and regional stability. Alongside it, the Development Strategy 2025–2035 lays down an ambitious roadmap: expanding energy connectivity, promoting green technologies, advancing digital economies, and strengthening educational and cultural exchanges.
This long-term strategy shows that the SCO is not merely reactive but forward-looking. It seeks to consolidate its role as a stable pillar of global governance at a time when other institutions struggle with crisis management.
4. Strengthened Multilateralism
The summit also highlighted SCO’s embrace of inclusive multilateralism. UN support, coupled with growing interest from countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, suggests that the SCO is evolving into a global forum rather than a purely regional one.
China’s Leadership Role
China’s role in the SCO is indispensable. As the world’s second-largest economy, China provides both vision and capacity to the organization. President Xi’s speech in Tianjin emphasized that the SCO is shouldering greater responsibilities for safeguarding peace and promoting development.
China’s leadership manifests in several ways:
Pakistan’s Contributions and Opportunities
Pakistan has been an active and constructive member of the SCO since joining in 2017. Its strategic location, bridging South Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia, makes it a vital connectivity partner within the SCO framework.
Pakistan contributes in multiple dimensions:
For Pakistan, active engagement in the SCO offers opportunities to diversify partnerships, strengthen economic resilience, and enhance its global standing as a responsible actor in multilateral platforms.
The SCO as a Pillar of the Global South
The Tianjin Summit underscored the SCO’s growing importance as a pillar of the Global South. In an era marked by geopolitical fragmentation, the SCO provides a rare platform where countries of diverse political systems and cultures come together on the basis of equality and shared interests.
Its expansion beyond Eurasia reflects a natural trajectory: nations in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are increasingly looking toward the SCO as a forum that represents their aspirations more authentically than Western-led institutions. With its principles of non-interference, sovereignty, and mutual development, the SCO resonates strongly with these regions.
As the Global South’s voice grows louder, the SCO is likely to emerge as a unified forum for development, dialogue, and diplomacy—helping shape a new, multipolar order that is more balanced and inclusive.
The Way Forward
Looking ahead, the SCO faces both opportunities and responsibilities:
SCO’s Rising Trajectory
The 2025 Tianjin Summit was more than a diplomatic gathering—it was a statement of intent. By launching the Global Governance Initiative and deciding to establish the SCO Development Bank, the organization has positioned itself as a genuine force for multipolar cooperation and equitable development.
China’s leadership, Pakistan’s constructive engagement, and the collective will of member states have transformed the SCO into a rising pillar of the Global South. At a time when global governance structures are under strain, the SCO offers a model of inclusivity, balance, and pragmatism.
The future of the SCO is bright. As it gains momentum day by day, it will increasingly serve as a unified platform for dialogue, development, and diplomacy—reshaping the contours of international order in favor of fairness, stability, and shared prosperity.
—
Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).
Vanessa Beeley recommended this which was written by Eric Toussaint and published at CADTM
These are questions that are being asked. Why? Why continue trading with zionist-israel? I would have peace with this issue if anyone gave me a logical answer. I do not get the logic here. I am not intending to blackball BRICS, but only intending to bring to the light the questions that are already being asked, and indeed, questions that I’ve asked in the past. The author is convinced that this is because the BRICS leaders support the capitalist mode of production. That seems shallow to me. Trade with Zionist-Israel is not so huge that it would be a major loss for BRICS countries to declare a boycott, divestment and sanctions regime.
—
The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which have admitted five more states (Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran), met in Rio de Janeiro on 6 and 7 July 2025. Saudi Arabia was present but did not officially join as a member country. Representatives from 20 other states considered partners were also present.
While the President of the United States is stepping up unilateral actions on both the military and commercial fronts, the BRICS countries are defending multilateralism and the United Nations system, which are in crisis. They are also defending the capitalist, productivist-extractivist mode of production that exploits human labour and destroys nature.
The BRICS countries represent half the world’s population, 40% of fossil energy resources, 30% of global GDP and 50% of growth. They have the resources to change their export-oriented capitalist development model, but they don’t want to.
It is necessary to express a clearly critical view of the BRICS. This stance in no way prevents us from denouncing, first and foremost and with the utmost firmness, the government of the United States, as well as its European and Indo-Pacific allies (Japan, Australia, etc.), for their imperialist policies.
This policy is blatantly expressed through their support for the State of Israel, which is responsible for the ongoing genocide in Gaza and military aggression against neighbouring countries. Israel is the armed wing of the United States in the region. Without Washington’s unwavering support and the complicity of Western Europe, the neo-fascist Israeli government would not be able to continue the genocide.
For their part, the BRICS countries are not taking any concrete measures as a group to effectively prevent the continuation of the massacres and genocide.
In this series of questions and answers, the author analyses the final declaration of the BRICS summit released on 6 July 2025, as well as the practical policies of the BRICS and the institutions they have established.
This first part of the series addresses the BRICS’ international policy regarding their relations with Israel and the genocide being committed by the Israeli government.
In the other parts of the series, the author will address the BRICS position on other international issues: the attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran, the Houthis, the invasion of Ukraine, NATO, etc. He will also address the BRICS’ position on issues such as the international financial system, the dollar, the New Development Bank, the G20, the ecological crisis, and more.
In the final declaration of the BRICS summit published on 6 July 2025, the BRICS countries do not use the term genocide to describe what is happening in Gaza.
Yes. In the final declaration of the BRICS summit published on 6 July 2025, the BRICS countries do not use the term genocide to describe what is happening in Gaza. The BRICS countries criticise Israel’s use of force in points 24 to 27 of their statement, but nowhere do they use the terms “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” or “massacre”.
What is also striking is that the part of the 6 July 2025 statement concerning Gaza is almost identical to what is found in the final statement of the previous BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024 (point 30 of the final statement).
It is as if the evidence of genocide, which is mounting every day, still does not justify the clear use of this term.
Yes, it is true: in their final statement, the BRICS countries did not propose sanctions against Israel. They did not propose to break the various agreements that bind them to the State of Israel. Yet the ongoing genocide and massacres of Gazans in search of food justify and demand action that goes beyond protests by the BRICS and other states.
The protests expressed by the BRICS countries were totally insufficient in October 2024 at the Kazan summit and are even more so in 2025. Only governments and multilateral bodies can take the required concrete and strong action. Of course, street demonstrations, occupations of public spaces and universities, and legal initiatives by citizens’ organisations are fundamental, but they cannot replace action by states and international institutions.
| For context on the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the responsibilities of Western powers, read: Gilbert Achcar, History’s crossroads: Gaza or the failure of the West, Le Monde diplomatique, June 2025.
Also read: Gaza Catastrophe, The Genocide in World-Historical Perspective, Saqi Books, London, April 2025 |
South Africa has taken the initiative to file a complaint against Israel before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, but its trade practices contradict this legal action
The BRICS countries as a group are not implementing any concrete measures against the Israeli government, such as boycotts or embargoes. Admittedly, South Africa has taken the initiative of filing a complaint against Israel before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which is positive, but its practices are at odds with this legal action. Indeed, South Africa maintains trade relations with Israel, notably by allowing South African companies to regularly export coal to Israel by ship.
Since the genocide began, it is reliably estimated that 17 shipments have taken 1.6 million tonnes of coal to fuel the Israeli grid. There have been protests attended by hundreds, called by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, community groups in coal-mining areas, and climate activists against Glencore on 22 August 2024 and 28 May 2025 (a global day of action) and at its local partner African Rainbow Minerals on 5 April 2025; that company is run by Patrice Motsepe who is South African president Cyril Ramaphosa’s brother in law.
Apart from Iran, the BRICS member countries maintain trade relations with Israel. In addition to South Africa, Russia, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and China continue to sell fuel (oil, gas, coal, etc.) to Israel. This is significant assistance to the Israeli government, which needs to diversify its energy sources to continue its war effort and normal functioning and to prevent the discontent of the Israeli population from growing to uncontrollable proportions.
| To learn more about the continuation of trade relations between the BRICS and Israel during the genocide, read: Patrick Bond, ‘The Blessing’ for genocide. Nearly all BRICS+ regimes nurture Israel, economically”, published on 1 October 2024. |
We will briefly review the relations between the BRICS member countries and Israel.
China is Israel’s largest source of imports. China makes significant investments in Israel. China exported $13 billion worth of goods to Israel in 2022, $16 billion in 2023 and $19 billion in 2024. Growth is set to continue in 2025. The volume could easily exceed $20 billion if no restrictions or boycotts are imposed. The figures quoted are from Israel Imports from China and the Chinese state news agency Xinhua, China remains Israel’s largest source of imports in 2023. Chinese sources report that in 2023, China was Israel’s largest source of imports for the fourth consecutive year. The United States came in second place. In 2024, China’s dominant position was confirmed. Read: China remains Israel’s top source of imports in 2024.
High-tech products dominate the goods traded between Israel and China: electrical/electronic equipment (imports and exports), industrial machinery, and optical and medical products are among the major categories traded.
Israel’s trade deficit with China is very significant. Israel imports much more from China than it exports to China. Israel’s trade deficit with China has increased sharply in recent years, exceeding $10 billion in 2024.
It should be noted that if we take the EU countries as a whole, the EU is Israel’s main supplier, with approximately $26 billion exported to Israel in 2024. In reality, each EU country supplies Israel separately, with Germany leading the way in terms of exports to Israel with approximately $6 billion. This is why China can be considered the leading supplier (with $19 billion in exports from China to Israel in 2024), and the United States the second largest supplier (with just over 9 billion dollars in exports to Israel in 2024).
Among the manufactured goods sold by China to Israel are drones that were not originally intended for military use but are converted into weapons by the Israeli military to kill Palestinian civilians. This is evidenced by an investigation carried out by the independent Israeli media outlet+972 Magazine, which indicates that these drones are produced by the private Chinese company Autel Robotics (based in Shenzhen), which produces EVO drones. Here is an excerpt from what was revealed:
“The Israeli military has weaponized a fleet of Chinese-manufactured commercial drones to attack Palestinians in parts of Gaza that it seeks to depopulate, an investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call can reveal. According to interviews with seven soldiers and officers who served in the Strip, these drones are operated manually by troops on the ground, and are frequently used to bomb Palestinian civilians — including children — in an effort to force them to leave their homes or prevent them from returning to evacuated areas. Soldiers most commonly use EVO drones, produced by the Chinese company Autel, which are primarily intended for photography and cost around NIS 10,000 (approximately £2,500) on Amazon. However, with a military-issued attachment known internally as an “iron ball,” a hand grenade can be affixed to the drone and dropped with the push of a button to detonate on the ground. Today, the majority of Israeli military companies in Gaza use these drones. S., an Israeli soldier who served in the Rafah area this year, coordinated drone attacks in a neighbourhood of the city that the army had ordered to be evacuated. During the nearly 100 days that his battalion operated there, soldiers conducted dozens of drone strikes, according to daily reports from his battalion commander that +972 and Local Call reviewed. In the reports, all Palestinians killed were listed as “terrorists.” However, S. testified that aside from one person found with a knife and a single encounter with armed fighters, the scores of others killed — an average of one per day in his battalion’s combat zone — were unarmed. According to him, the drone strikes were carried out with the intent to kill, despite the majority of victims being located at such a distance from the soldiers that they could not have posed any threat.” +972 Magazine, ‘Like a video game’: Israel enforcing Gaza evacuations with grenade-firing drones, 10 July 2025.
In an article published in Euro-Med Monitor, an independent NGO based in Geneva (Switzerland), in February 2024, the Israeli military’s use of drones produced by AUTEL Robotics was already denounced – Gaza: Israel systematically uses quadcopters to kill Palestinians from a close distance. This NGO, which is dedicated to the documentation of human rights violations in the Middle East, North Africa (MENA) and Europe, had called on Chinese companies, including AUTEL, to comply with international law:
“In regions affected by armed conflicts, companies face an increased risk of becoming complicit in serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws. Consequently, businesses operating in such environments must exercise enhanced due diligence to mitigate these heightened risks effectively. More specifically, when a product is misused in ways that contradict the company’s international obligations and non-violent values, particularly for military purposes leading to the commission of international crimes and grave human rights violations, the company must act decisively. It should take immediate steps to cease or prevent its contribution and use leverage to mitigate the remaining impact to the greatest extent possible. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor emphasises that companies, including Autel Robotics—a Chinese electronics and drone manufacturer—must comply with international law.” Source: Euro-Med Monitor, Chinese companies must prevent their arms, drones from being used in Israeli international crimes, 1 July 2024.
The Israeli army is also using civilian drones from another Chinese company in its war against the Palestinian population in Gaza. These drones are manufactured by DJI (Da-Jiang Innovations), a private Chinese company based in Shenzhen (China) and the world leader in the manufacture of civilian and professional drones. See the article published by Al Jazeera on 8 May 2025: Israel retrofitting DJI commercial drones to bomb and surveil Gaza”.
As Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, wrote in her report entitled From the economy of occupation to the economy of genocide published in June 2025:
20. Where corporate entities continue their activities and relationships with Israel – with its economy, military, public and private sectors connected to the occupied Palestinian territory – they may be found to have knowingly contributed to: violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination; annexation of Palestinian territory, maintenance of an unlawful occupation and therefore the crime of aggression and associated human rights violations; crimes of apartheid and genocide, and other ancillary crimes and violations. Both criminal and civil laws in various jurisdictions can be invoked to hold corporate entities or their executives accountable for violations of human rights and/or crimes under international law.
21. It is therefore incumbent upon the authorities of the country where these companies are based and upon the companies themselves to avoid any form of complicity with the Israeli authorities. This applies to China as it does to the rest of the world.”
It is therefore incumbent upon the authorities of the countries where these companies are based, and upon the companies themselves, to avoid any form of complicity with the Israeli authorities. This obligation applies to China as well as to the rest of the world.
China has made significant investments in two strategically important Israeli ports, the Port of Haifa and the Port of Ashdod, both located on the Mediterranean Sea. The Chinese company China Harbour Engineering Company, a subsidiary of China Communications Construction Company, has modernised and developed the port terminal in Ashdod. This project has increased the capacity of the port facilities and improved infrastructure to meet the growth in international trade. The port of Ashdod is one of Israel’s main commercial hubs. Its modernisation has strengthened its strategic position in the region, facilitating trade between China and Israel, particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), another major Chinese company, has acquired a significant stake in the Haifa container terminal as part of a partnership with the Israeli government. This project, like the one in Ashdod, has enabled Israel to attract investment in improving its port infrastructure. In the case of the Port of Haifa facilities, Chinese investment is partly being made through collaboration with Indian companies. Beyond ports, Chinese companies are also investing in other infrastructure sectors, such as transport, energy and high technology. For example, projects in the fields of intelligent transport technologies, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and telecommunications are currently being developed with the participation of major Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
It is well known that Vladimir Putin and Netanyahu have a good opinion of each other, even though Russia publicly criticises Israel’s policies in the Middle East. So far, Putin has not denounced the ongoing genocide in Gaza in any of his statements. However, he has used the term genocide very often to justify the invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of part of its territory. In his speech on 24 February 2022 justifying the “special military operation” in Ukraine, Putin stated:
“Our goal is to protect people who have been subjected to genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years. We will strive to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.” (Address by the President of the Russian Federation) [1] .
It should also be noted that on 1 July 2025, Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, a few days before travelling to the BRICS summit in Rio, stated:
“We are pleased to note that the leader of the new Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem twice in the past month. We hope that this position will be backed by practical steps. For our part, we will continue facilitating the resumption of talks – both via bilateral channels and at different international venues, first and foremost, in the format of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators.
It is necessary to monitor the situation in the Gaza Strip where the population continues to experience serious humanitarian difficulties. There is considerable demand for steps aimed at lifting or at least easing the blockade.” (See the full statement on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s message welcoming participants in the international seminar on peace between Palestinians and Israelis. [2]
As can be seen from this statement, Sergey Lavrov does not condemn the ongoing genocide, and his attitude towards the fascist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is positive, which is totally unacceptable.
Israel still depends partially on Russia for food (cereals) and energy (oil, gas, coal), despite geopolitical tensions. Israel exports high value-added products to Russia: agricultural products, medical equipment, chemicals and electronics. Israel has a significant trade deficit with Russia. In 2023, trade volume declined following sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine but rebounded in 2024. Trade volume reached 3.5 billion in 2022, fell to 2.6 billion in 2023, and rebounded to 3.9 billion in 2024.
In summary, Israel does not, in practice, apply Western sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, and Russia does not apply sanctions against Israel despite the ongoing genocide.
In practice, Israel is not applying Western sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, just as Russia is not applying sanctions against Israel despite the ongoing genocide
It should be noted that since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, hundreds of millions of dollars (approximately $300 million per quarter) have been transferred to Israel via the accounts of oligarchs or new migrants (Read: Over 95,000 Russians Have Relocated to Israel). It should also be noted that around 500 Israeli soldiers with Russian passports took part in operations in the Gaza Strip between October 2023 and March 2024, nine of whom were killed. The Israeli authorities provided this information (Read: The Israeli embassy announced the number of Russians mobilized into the IDF who died in Gaza).
For the year 2025, we do not have precise information on the numbers, but it is known that Israeli soldiers participating in the genocide have dual Russian and Israeli nationality. The Russian authorities do not criticise Russians mobilised in the Israeli army, including those engaged in Gaza.
Trade between India and Israel is growing and stands at around $10 billion. India supplies Israel with petroleum products, diamonds and other precious stones, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as arms (including drones).
Israel supplies arms (missiles), ammunition and defence systems to India. According to Moneycontrol.com, one of India’s leading financial websites, arms trade between Israel and India has increased 33-fold in 10 years, between 2015 and 2024, reaching US$185 million in 2024. The magazine New Internationalist writes in its January 2025 issue:
“Indian companies like Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India, Premier Explosives, and the state-owned Munitions India are actively supplying drones and weapons to Israel as it continues its genocidal war against the people of Gaza. In April, careful not to jeopardize these arrangements, India abstained from a UN ceasefire resolution that included calls for an arms embargo on Israel. Israel, in turn, has continued its uninterrupted supply of military equipment to India – a significant commitment as Israel has delayed over $1.5 billion in arms exports to other countries since October 2023. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rise to power in 2014 India has become a key player in Israel’s arms trade. As the world’s largest arms importer, the South-Asian country has become Israel’s most reliable buyer, accounting for 37 per cent of its total arms exports.” Mohammad Asif Khan, Partners in power: Israel, India and the arms trade, 1 January 2025, New Internationalist.
Regarding the supply of arms to Israel by Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India, read: India: Report alleges Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Ltd. & Munitions India Ltd. were authorised to continue to send arms products to Israel amid continued war on Gaza.
Also read, Adani’s weapons business with Israel. For more information on new collaborations between Adani, Elbit and a US arms company, visit the Adani group website.
Extractive and mining conglomerates, while providing sources of civilian energy, have fuelled Israel’s military and energy infrastructure, both of which are used to create living conditions aimed at destroying the Palestinian people, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories
”.
There is no indication of any desire to change the Indian Prime Minister’s pro-Israeli stance (he was present in person at the BRICS summit in Rio in July 2025). India and Israel hope to conclude a free trade agreement before the end of 2025. According to the Times of Israel on 18 February 2025:
“Israel and India are seeking to sign a long-awaited free trade agreement this year, following US President Donald Trump’s decision to reorganize plans for a trade route between the United States and India that would pass through Israel”.
With regard to India’s position on Palestine, there has been a significant shift in favour of Israel, especially since the election of Narendra Modi. He broke with tradition in 2017 by becoming the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel without also visiting Palestine. The Modi government has avoided directly criticising Israel, particularly during the bombings of Gaza (2014, 2021, 2023, 2024 and 2025) and the violence committed by settlers in the West Bank. Within the country, solidarity with Palestine is increasingly attacked, denigrated or delegitimised by the Hindu right, particularly in the political and ideological climate shaped by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
There is no doubt that it is very positive that the South African government filed a complaint against Israel on 29 December 2023 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations tribunal responsible for settling disputes between states. Pretoria accuses Israel of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in its military assault on Gaza.
South Africa’s application sets out its allegations in what it denounces as the broader context of Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians during its 75 years of apartheid, its 56 years of belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16 years of blockade of the Gaza Strip. In its decision of January 26, 2024 the Court ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, although it did not grant South Africa’s request to require Israel to suspend its military operations in Gaza. Since then, Israel has nevertheless continued the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and has tightened its blockade of humanitarian aid.
In January 2025, South Africa helped to establish the Hague Group to coordinate legal and diplomatic measures against Israel’s policy in Gaza (see: South Africa and Malaysia to launch campaign to protect international justice. According to the inaugural statement, the main commitments are to demand compliance with the orders of the International Court of Justice and the arrest warrants of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli leaders, to prohibit the transfer of arms or fuel (for military purposes) that could be used in the conflict, and to block access to ports for ships carrying military equipment to Israel. The founding countries of the group are: South Africa, Colombia, Belize, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal. An emergency meeting was held in mid-July 2025 in Bogota.
On the BRICS side, none of the four founding states (Brazil, Russia, India and China) has so far joined South Africa’s complaint, while 15 states have joined in one way or another. Of the five BRICS countries, only Brazil, very late in the day, i.e., in July 2025, announced its intention to join the complaint against Israel in the future. If we take into account the ten countries that constitute the BRICS in 2025, only Egypt has joined the complaint so far.
On the part of South Africa, the most deplorable relationship, one very seriously inconsistent with its just complaint against Israel, is that it continues to trade with that country, notably by supplying coal. According to some sources, 15% of the coal consumed by Israel comes from South Africa. Patrick Bond, a university professor in South Africa, has regularly denounced South African coal deliveries to Israel. Read more: ‘The Blessing’ for genocide, Nearly all BRICS+ regimes nurture Israel, economically.
According to Bond, the main argument put forward by the Pretoria authorities to justify continuing to supply coal to Israel is that doing so would violate WTO rules. Bond responds that this argument is completely unserious, given that in recent years a considerable number of states have violated WTO rules without any repercussions. Furthermore, ending trade with Israel would undoubtedly be a legitimate action for South Africa.
Indeed, as Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, writes in paragraph 89 of her report entitled “From the economy of occupation to the economy of genocide”:
“Extractive energy and mining conglomerates, while providing sources of civilian energy, have fuelled Israel’s military and energy infrastructures – both used to create conditions of life calculated to destroy the Palestinian people.” [3]
It should be noted that this fundamental report was made public at the end of June 2025, before the BRICS summit. However, the final declaration of the BRICS summit, made public on 6 July 2025, makes no mention of it.
Bond has compiled a substantial dossier on the South African arms group Paramount Group, headed by Ivor Ichikowitz, denouncing the close collaboration between this company, Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Bond particularly condemns the Paramount Group’s collaboration with the Israeli arms company Elbit. His dossier entitled Does SA-Israel trade include armaments? was published on 21 December 2024.
It should be noted that the head of the Paramount Group, Ivor Ichikowitz, denounced South Africa’s complaint against Israel. He wrote in Fortune magazine:
“South Africa’s most recent position, outrightly hostile to Israel and very sympathetic to Hamas, culminating in dragging the State of Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), could well have led to South Africa being punished and excluded from AGOA–a prospect that still looms over U.S.-South Africa relations.” [4] Source: Ivor Ichikowitz, “South Africa should be truly non-aligned–and stop risking its vital trade ties with the West,” Fortune, 26 January 2024, https://fortune.com/2024/01/26/south-africa-non-aligned-risk-vital-trade-ties-west-us-biden-israel-politics/
Bond, various South African movements and numerous activists are calling on the Pretoria authorities to impose sanctions on Israel by banning coal exports to that country and ending all trade relations.
| For a perspective analysis of the Palestinian people’s struggle, read: Joseph Daher, Palestine and Marxism, Resistance Books and the IIRE, https://resistancebooks.org/product/palestine-and-marxism/ |
The volume of trade between Brazil and Israel amounts to just under $2 billion. Brazil imports more from Israel than it exports there. Brazil exports crude oil to Israel, which accounts for a quarter of its exports to that country. It also exports meat, which accounts for around 20% of its exports, and genetically modified soybeans, which also account for 20%. The rest includes kosher chicken, weapons, etc.
Arms trade between Brazil and Israel?
Yes. In 2024, for example, Brazil exported arms to Israel for a limited amount (just under $2 million), but these were war munitions (see https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/exports/israel/arms-ammunition-parts-accessories). In 2024, Brazil imported war weapons from Israel for just under $9 million (see https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/imports/israel/military-weapons-excluding-revolvers-pistols-lances). Brazil, therefore, maintains an arms trade despite the genocide and, above all, continues to cooperate significantly in the field of defence technology, mainly with the Israeli company Elbit Systems (see official website https://www.elbitsystems.com/) and its Brazilian subsidiary Ares Aeroespacial e Defesa.
It should be noted that Elbit System is explicitly mentioned in the report and appears on the list of arms companies directly collaborating in the genocide, according to Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.Francesca Albanese makes the following statement in point 31 of her report:
“The military-industrial complex has become the economic backbone of the State. Between 2020 and 2024, Israel was the eighth largest arms exporter worldwide. The two most prominent Israeli weapons companies – Elbit Systems, established as a public-private partnership and later privatised, and state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) – are among the top 50 arms manufacturers globally. Since 2023, Elbit has cooperated closely on Israeli military operations, embedding key staff in the Ministry of Defence, and was awarded the 2024 Israeli Defence Prize. Elbit and IAI provide a critical domestic supply of weaponry and reinforce Israel’s military alliances through arms exports and joint development of military technology. Point 31 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/a-hrc-59-23-from-economy-of-occupation-to-economy-of-genocide-report-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-palestine-2025/ and https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5923-economy-occupation-economy-genocide-report-special-rapporteur
She adds in point 33:
“Drones, hexacopters and quadcopters have also been omnipresent killing machines in the skies of Gaza. Drones largely developed and supplied by Elbit Systems and IAI have long flown alongside these fighter jets, surveilling Palestinians and delivering target intelligence. In the last two decades, with support from these companies and collaborations with institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Israel’s drones acquired automated weapons systems and the ability to fly in swarm formation.”
Military collaboration between Brazil and Israel through Elbit and its subsidiary ARES is well established. For example, Ares has supplied remote-controlled weapon stations (RCWS, REMAX) to Brazil under a contract worth approximately $100 million. The cooperation goes beyond physical exchanges, with technology transfers, co-production and training via Elbit/Ares.
Furthermore, in April 2024, under pressure from the Ministry of Defence, Brazil’s VBCOAP (armoured self-propelled howitzer) programme selected the ATMOS-2000 155 mm truck-mounted system (Tatra T-815 6×6) developed by Elbit Systems as the winner of a tender also involving the Caesar (France), the SH-15 (China) and the Zuzana 2 (Slovakia/CZ). The initial contract provides for the acquisition of 36 howitzers: two units were to be delivered within 12 months for technical and operational evaluation in Brazil. The remaining 34 systems will be delivered annually until 2034. The total value of the contract is estimated at $150-200 million, or even $210 million according to some sources (see the Brazilian newspaper The Rio Times: https://www.riotimesonline.com/lulas-brazil-acquires-israeli-defense-tech-despite-criticism-over-gaza-conflict/).
At the time of writing, the project has been “frozen” since October 2024 due to criticism from President Lula da Silva against Israel and the war in Gaza (https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2024/10/07/brazils-deal-for-israeli-howitzers-frozen-over-gaza-war/). However, no executive decree cancelling the project has been signed. Since the announcement of the contract freeze, the Brazilian Ministry of Defence and the army chief have been trying to unblock the file and persuade the president to proceed with deliveries, in particular the two prototype units for operational testing. At the end of July 2025, Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira announced a hardening of Brazil’s position towards Israel and a halt to arms trade with Israel (in Portuguese: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/republica/brasil-sancoes-israel-por-genocidio-gaza-chanceler-onu/).
[You can also read my series of articles on Egypt-Israel relations here]
Firstly, it should be emphasised that in June 2025, the Egyptian authorities cracked down on and prevented thousands of people from dozens of different countries from travelling within the country to reach the Rafah border crossing to express their solidarity with the Palestinian people, demand an end to the genocide and support the need for a ceasefire. On 10 June 2025, activists from more than 50 countries launched the Global March for Gaza, a civil initiative supported by a broad international coalition to denounce the Israeli blockade and demand the opening of a humanitarian corridor to Gaza via the Rafah border crossing.
However, the Egyptian authorities prevented the march from taking place, mobilising a media smear campaign against the organisers from the outset. The repression intensified with arrests (in the streets, hotels and restaurants), passport confiscations and the destruction of phones, and convoys were prevented from leaving Cairo. Violence and detentions were also reported in Ismailia, where 200 activists were arrested. Several expulsions and refoulements at the airport were also reported. (Read https://jewishcurrents.org/egypt-cracks-down-on-the-global-march-to-gaza).
This repression reflects the growing collaboration between Egypt, Israel and the United States, to the detriment of solidarity with Palestine. Indeed, during the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt refused any normalisation with Israel and continued to severely criticise Israeli abuses against Palestinians. But his successor, Anwar Sadat, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, under the auspices of the United States. Considered a betrayal by Palestinians and the peoples of the region, including the Egyptians, this treaty paved the way for growing military, security and economic cooperation.
Under the presidency of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, this normalisation has intensified to unprecedented levels, with security cooperation, increased economic dependence on Israeli gas, implicit support for the blockade of Gaza, tight control of the Rafah crossing point and the dismantling of trade tunnels to Gaza. The regime continues torepress pro-Palestinian demonstrations systematically, and even symbolic gestures such as waving a Palestinian flag can lead to accusations of terrorism.
In 2022, trade between Egypt and Israel was estimated at around $300 million, compared to around $330 million according to a 2021 report. In 2023, trade increased by 56% compared to 2022, for an estimated total of approximately $468 million. In 2024, growth accelerated at the end of the year, with a 168% jump in the fourth quarter, but the exact annual total is not specified. The main product purchased by Egypt from Israel is natural gas. Israeli gas accounted for 15-20% of Egyptian consumption in early 2025.
Yes, there is secret but substantial military collaboration between Egypt and Israel, despite their conflictual history (wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973). Since 2007, Egypt and Israel have effectively organised a blockade of Gaza (restrictions on the movement of goods and people, surveillance of tunnels). Egypt and Israel conduct joint operations to destroy tunnels between Gaza and Egypt (with Israeli technological assistance). Egypt has acquired Israeli surveillance systems (including Elbit radars) via European intermediaries. According to the Wall Street Journal on 7 March 2024, Israel has carried out secret strikes against weapons transiting through Egypt to Gaza with the tacit agreement of the Egyptian authorities. The US grants $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt, contingent on Cairo’s cooperation with Israel. The United States is ensuring that this condition is met.
In 2020, under the auspices of President Donald Trump, the Abraham Accords led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
In 2020, under the auspices of President Donald Trump, the Abraham Accords [5] led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (for more information on the United Arab Emirates, see the box). On 29 August 2020, a few weeks after the announcement of the Abraham Accords, the Emirates repealed the 1972 federal law prohibiting economic relations with Israel. This decision legalised bilateral trade and investment, the import and sale of Israeli products, scientific, cultural and technological cooperation, etc. Prior to this repeal, increasingly close relations had gradually been established.
Following the Abraham Accords, the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) was signed on 31 May 2022 and entered into force on 1 April 2023, with the elimination or significant reduction of customs duties on approximately 96% of tariff lines and 99% of the value of trade. This treaty aims to increase bilateral trade to more than $10 billion within five years of its conclusion. The conflict in Gaza reduced the visibility of trade in 2024, but it remained active and grew. As evidence, the volume of trade, which reached $2.5 billion in 2022, is expected to reach $5 billion in 2025.
According to Bloomberg, there are around 600 Israeli companies operating in the UAE in 2025, and according to a report by the Dubai Chamber (2023), more than 200 Emirati companies have established partnerships or opened operations in Israel since the normalization of relations (https://www.dubaichamber.com).
| ABC on the United Arab Emirates
Although Dubai is the largest city, the best known internationally, and a major commercial, financial and tourist centre, Abu Dhabi is the official capital of the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) plays an international economic and military role that far exceeds its population. The UAE has a population of around 10 million, only about 10% of whom are Emirati nationals. Of these 10 million, around 9 million are foreigners, including 3 million from India, 1.5 million from Pakistan, another 1.5 million from Bangladesh and the rest mainly from other Asian countries (the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Nepal). Finally, around 1 million come from Arab countries, half of whom are from Egypt. Dubai, the largest city, has become a leading international financial center competing with other financial centers such as London, Zurich, Luxembourg, Singapore and Hong Kong. To attract international private financial companies, the Emirati authorities offer the most favorable conditions imaginable: legislation and taxation that are particularly lenient towards large companies and high net worth individuals. The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) is a regulated free zone with its own judicial system based on English law, home to more than 5,000 companies, including more than 1,000 financial institutions (banks, insurance companies, funds, etc.). The Free Zone offers the following advantages: 0% corporation tax (under certain conditions); no capital gains tax or dividend tax; 100% foreign ownership. We will see later in this series that the use of Free Zones or Special Economic Zones is being developed both by countries such as the UAE and, in its own way, by China (which exercises more control and is less favorable in terms of taxes and duties) and is being promoted by the BRICS countries at their summits. As Husam Mahjoub writes in a study published by the Amsterdam-based Transnational Institute (TNI): Husam Mahjoub gives two concrete examples of the rise of the UAE: The UAE has invested $60 billion in several African countries in various sectors such as mining, oil, infrastructure, logistics and agriculture and is beginning to play a significant role in their national economies. With this level of investment, the UAE ranks fourth after China, EU countries and the United States. The UAE is an ally of Israel and the United States but plays a special role in the Arab region and sub-Saharan Africa. As Husam Mahjoub writes: To justify the use of the concept of sub-imperialism in relation to the UAE, Husam Mahjoub refers to the work of Ruy Mauro Marini. His explanation is worth repeating here: Power and wealth in the United Arab Emirates are concentrated in the hands of the ruling families of Abu Dhabi (Al-Nahyan) and Dubai (Al-Maktoum), as well as a few capitalist clans specialising in trade and finance that are closely linked to them. The head of state is Sheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He was present in person at the BRICS summits in Kazan in 2024 and in Rio in 2025 in Brazil. At the heart of the UAE’s geostrategy is the takeover of port and logistics infrastructure around the entire African coastline. The UAE has infrastructure in North Africa, on the Mediterranean (Algeria and Egypt); in West and Southern Africa, on the Atlantic Ocean (Angola, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Guinea and Senegal); on the Indian Ocean in East Africa (Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania); and in the Red Sea region, including the Horn of Africa, with projects in Egypt, Puntland, Somaliland and Djibouti. They are investing in logistics hubs within Africa: Rwanda, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania. See the report by the Financial Times: “The UAE’s rising influence in Africa”, 30 May 2024, https://archive.ph/6HEca#selection-1375.0-1384.2 The fact that the UAE hosted COP 28 also shows that it is very committed to green capitalism. During COP 28, Blue Carbon LLC, a company created by a member of the UAE royal family, signed numerous contracts with leaders from the Global South to grab huge swathes of their land for 30 years. This land will allow Blue Carbon LLC to sell carbon credits to polluting companies [6] , so that they can “offset” the pollution they generate. 25 million hectares of forest in Liberia, Angola, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe have been purchased by this company and, therefore by the United Arab Emirates (equivalent to the size of the United Kingdom). 20% of Zimbabwe’s land area, 10% of Liberia’s and Zambia’s, and 8% of Tanzania’s have been grabbed by Blue Carbon LLC. As academic Adam Hanieh clearly shows [7], the UAE and other Gulf countries are trying to place pseudo-carbon capture technologies and the carbon offset market at the centre of discussions, particularly at COPs, so that there is no talk of ending fossil fuels (of which they are major exporters). Their strategy is as follows: muddy the waters and spearhead false solutions involving finance and the market so that they can continue to generate ever more money on the back of the ecological transition and continue to extract and export hydrocarbons unhindered. In short, they are working diligently to ensure that nothing changes. |
At the arms fair held in Abu Dhabi in February 2025, 34 Israeli arms companies were present
Yes, there has been a very real arms trade between Israel and the Emirates since normalisation in 2020. It mainly concerns anti-aircraft systems (SPYDER, Barak 8, Iron Dome), drones and electronic technologies and is also based on industrial cooperation. Although specific contracts remain sensitive, trade has accelerated since 2022, with increasing public visibility since 2024–2025 through arms fairs such as the IDEX, which takes place every two years. At the IDEX exhibition held in February 2025,34 Israeli arms companies were present. The Emirati company EDGE, which specialises in armaments, actively collaborates with Israeli companies in the armaments sector, such as Elbit, Rafael, IAI, RT and Thirdeye.
Indeed, the Emirati armed forces and the Israeli army engage in military collaboration, despite neither party officially acknowledging it. The hostility of both countries towards Iran and its influence in the region partially explains this collaboration. The same applies to their common interests against the Houthis in Yemen.
Since the start of the war in Yemen in 2015, the United Arab Emirates has increased its military presence in the region, particularly on the main island of Socotra, which is officially part of Yemen. The UAE has occupied the island, set up a military base there and cooperates with the Israeli army on the ground. The Socotra archipelago, located off the coast of Yemen in the Indian Ocean, controls crucial shipping lanes between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Approximately 20,000 transport ships pass near the Socotra archipelago each year, 9% of which are involved in the global oil supply. Read: Karim Shami, “Tyranny on the waters: The UAE-Israeli occupation of Yemen’s Socotra Island”, 24/03/2023, https://thecradle.co/articles-id/916# See also: “UAE, Israel expand spy bases in Yemen’s Socotra under US sponsorship: Report”, 29/07/2024, https://thecradle.co/articles-id/26154
The UAE is also collaborating with Israel, India and several EU countries (Italy, Germany, France, Greece) on a project to build a land route linking the Gulf of Dubai to the port of Haifa across the Arabian Peninsula via Riyadh in Saudi Arabia in order to avoid passing through the Suez Canal for trade between Asia and Europe. Read: https://www.jns.org/uae-israel-land-corridor-operating-despite-war/ In a way, this is also a means of developing an alternative to the new Silk Roads developed by China. Read: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/imec/
It is important to note that the UAE is the only BRICS member country to have a permanent US military base on its territory, which is obviously linked to its policy of collaboration with Israel. The US military presence in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is significant, strategic and long-standing, forming part of bilateral defence cooperation that has been strengthened since the Gulf War in 1991. Close to the UAE capital, the United States has a military base hosting fighter jet (F-22, occasionally F-35), surveillance aircraft (AWACS, JSTARS), armed drones (MQ-9 Reaper), refueling aircraft, etc. This base is a key logistics hub for US operations in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Syria, for CENTCOM (Middle East/Central Asia) command, and for surveillance of Iran. There are approximately 2,000 to 3,000 US military personnel stationed there on a permanent or rotational basis.
The United States has deployed missile defence systems, such as Patriot PAC-3s in the UAE. The UAE cooperates with the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain. The UAE participates in joint naval exercises and initiatives such as the International Maritime Security Cooperation in the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE guarantees access to Emirati ports for the US fleet and its allies.
Despite the ongoing genocide in Gaza, military cooperation between Israel and Ethiopia, a full member of the BRICS, continues.
According to several sources, Israel remains one of Ethiopia’s main military suppliers, notably through the sale of air defence systems, such as the Spyder-MR, designed to protect the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam against air attacks.
Military cooperation has been ongoing despite regime changes in Addis Ababa. It dates back to the 1960s–1990s: Israel trained paratrooper units and counterinsurgency forces for the Ethiopian army (Nebelbal Division), supplied 150,000 rifles and cluster bombs, and sent military advisers to train the Presidential Guard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia%E2%80%93Israel_relations). Since November 2020, there has also been a cooperation agreement between Mossad and the Ethiopian security service (NISS), covering the exchange of expertise and counterinsurgency.
Due to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the military partnership between Ethiopia and Israel is relatively low-key, but it contributes significantly to Ethiopia’s security strategy and Israeli influence in East Africa. This includes intelligence sharing, strategic coordination and capacity building in Ethiopia. Read: https://hiiraan.com/news4/2025/Mar/200683/israel_ethiopia_discuss_joint_efforts_to_combat_al_shabaab_and_houthis.aspx
It should be noted that Israel has excellent relations in this region with the Museveni regime in Uganda (which was represented at the BRICS summit in Rio by the vice-president). Read: www.alestiklal.net/en/article/how-israel-is-penetrating-the-african-continent.
Trade between Israel and Ethiopia is low, at around $100 million per year. However, Israeli companies are increasingly interested in investing in agriculture in Ethiopia.
Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country and a full member of the BRICS, does not have official diplomatic relations with Israel, but the reality is quite different. In May 2024, a joint investigation by the Israeli daily Haaretz, Amnesty International and Tempo revealed that Indonesia had imported espionage and surveillance technology from Israel.
The investigation reveals that between 2017 and 2023, Indonesia imported and deployed a wide range of highly intrusive spyware and other sophisticated surveillance technologies. Several Israeli companies have been identified as indirect suppliers: NSO Group (via Q Cyber Technologies SARL, Luxembourg), which produced the Pegasus spyware; Intellexa Consortium, known for its Predator software; Candiru/Saito Tech; and Wintego Systems Ltd. The spyware acquired by Indonesia, such as Pegasus, Predator, etc., is designed to be ultra-stealthy, infect without explicit interaction, and enable the management of images, messages, calls, location, etc. Among those who have acquired these technologies are the Indonesian National Police (Polri), the National Cybersecurity and Cryptography Agency (BSSN), and, according to some media reports, the Ministry of Defence. Amnesty has warned that these devices pose a major risk to civil rights, including freedom of expression and privacy.
In mid-July 2025, Indonesia officially joined “The Hague Group” at the emergency summit in Bogotá on 15 and 16 July 2025 (https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/). It is now one of 13 countries that have committed to taking concrete and coordinated measures to enforce international law in response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Apart from this, trade between Israel and Indonesia is low, at less than $200 million per year.
Gaza and the BRICS: refusal to condemn genocide and impose sanctions
A detailed analysis of the positions and practices of BRICS member countries in response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza reveals a flagrant contradiction between their official rhetoric – often focused on international law, multilateralism and the sovereignty of peoples – and their concrete actions, as in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or the actions of the UAE. As BRICS+, the ten member states refuse to designate as such the crime of genocide being perpetrated in Gaza, despite it being widely documented and denounced by international bodies and by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur.
In fact, the BRICS have not taken any strong joint measures: no sanctions, no severance of diplomatic or economic relations, no embargo, not even a symbolic suspension of cooperation with Israel. On the contrary, for most of them, trade relations – particularly in the strategic areas of energy, surveillance technologies, infrastructure and armaments – continued and even intensified in 2024 and 2025. South Africa is certainly an exception with its complaint to the ICJ, but this very positive action is undermined by the continuation of coal exports to Israel and other trade relations.
This diplomatic double-speak highlights a fundamental truth: despite their rhetoric about a “more just world order”, the BRICS countries are primarily defending their geopolitical, economic and security interests, often at the expense of the principles of international justice. This reality dashes the hopes of some progressive sectors for the possibility of an “alternative” pole embodied by this bloc.
For those on the left who harbour illusions about the BRICS’ willingness to take clear initiatives in favour of the people, the latest summit and their attitude as a bloc towards the genocide in Gaza and their relations with Israel should help to open their eyes.
In the next instalment of this series, we will see that the BRICS leaders support the capitalist mode of production that led us to the current disaster. The BRICS countries are in favour of maintaining – and increasing funding contributions to – the international financial architecture (with the IMF and the World Bank at its centre) and the international trade architecture (WTO, free trade agreements, etc.) as they currently exist. The BRICS support so-called green capitalism and engage in greenwashing, such as promoting carbon markets instead of making overdue greenhouse gas emissions cuts. Some of them, such as Russia, resort to military aggression against other peoples, as is the case in Ukraine. In the same way, and more often than others, the United States (and the European powers) has done so repeatedly around the world.
[1] In an interview with Tucker Carlson on 9 February 2024, Putin claimed that “Ukraine, under Western control, has waged a war against its own people in the Donbass. Children, women, elderly people have been killed every day. Isn’t that genocide?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYfByTcY49k
[2] It should be noted that during 2024 and 2025, Lavrov began to use the term genocide in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza. There is clearly a division of roles between Putin, who avoids denouncing Israel’s genocidal actions, and his foreign minister. It should also be noted that Lavrov represented Russia at the BRICS summit in Rio in July and did not use the term genocide in his public statements during the summit. As indicated at the beginning of this article, the term genocide does not appear in the final declaration of the Rio summit, which he helped draft.
[3] “Extractive energy and mining conglomerates, while providing sources of civilian energy, have fuelled Israel’s military and energy infrastructures – both used to create conditions of life calculated to destroy the Palestinian people.” [Read, Agenda item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,FROM ECONOMY OF OCCUPATION TO ECONOMY OF GENOCIDE and From economy of occupation to economy of genocide – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (Advance edited version).
[4] “South Africa’s most recent position, outrightly hostile to Israel and very sympathetic to Hamas, culminating in dragging the State of Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), could well have led to South Africa being punished and excluded from AGOA–a prospect that still looms over U.S.-South Africa relations.” Source: Ivor Ichikowitz, South Africa should be truly non-aligned–and stop risking its vital trade ties with the West”, Fortune, 26 January 2024, https://fortune.com/2024/01/26/south-africa-non-aligned-risk-vital-trade-ties-west-us-biden-israel-politics/
[5] The Abraham Accords are two peace treaties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates on the one hand, and between Israel and Bahrain on the other. The first, between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, was announced on 13 August 2020 by US President Donald Trump. They were signed on 15 September 2020 at the White House in Washington, accompanied by a tripartite declaration also signed by the US president as a witness. These agreements were extended by agreements with Sudan and Morocco. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords
[6] Vincent Lucchese, “ Capter le CO2, un cadeau empoisonné pour les pays du Sud “ (The carbon trap: CO2 capture, a poisoned gift for Southern countries), Reporterre, 11 December 2023, https://reporterre.net/Capter-le-CO2-un-cadeau-empoisonne-pour-les-pays-du-Sud
[7] Adam Hanieh, “Laundering Carbon—The Gulf’s ‘New Scramble for Africa’”, CADTM, 8 August 2024, 22789
is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.
He is the author of World Bank: A Critical History, London, Pluto, 2023, Greece 2015: there was an alternative. London: Resistance Books / IIRE / CADTM, 2020 , Debt System (Haymarket books, Chicago, 2019), Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012, etc.
See his bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Toussaint
He co-authored World debt figures 2015 with Pierre Gottiniaux, Daniel Munevar and Antonio Sanabria (2015); and with Damien Millet Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. He was the scientific coordinator of the Greek Truth Commission on Public Debt from April 2015 to November 2015
History will register that the first week of September 2025 propelled the advent of the Eurasia Century to a whole new level.
By Pepe Escobar at Sputnik.
That was the expectation ahead of three crucial intertwined dates: the SCO annual summit in Tianjin; the Victory Day parade in Beijing; and the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.
Yet expectations were even surpassed considering the breadth and scope of what just happened.
The SCO in Tianjin solidified the Chinese push for the establishment of true Global Governance – which in practice means the unceremonious burying of the “rules-based international order” that under the new US administration has metastasized into a no-rules based international chaos: essentially an ethos of “we’ll blow up the world if we are not able to control it.”
Tianjin had not only the 10 SCO full members but also 2 observers and 15 partners – with a heavy Southeast Asian presence – discussing the finer points to be observed for peaceful development. The pic of the week, if not the year or decade, was the Putin, Xi and Modi trilateral handshake: the return of the original, Primakov-coined RIC (Russia-India-China) in full force. As Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University remarked in Vladivostok, the SCO is now expanding steadily in three platforms: energy; clean industries; and AI. In parallel, Central Asia is finally being seen as a “geographical blessing”, and not “a curse”.
Immediately after Tianjin, the Russia-China strategic partnership also shot up to a whole new level, as President Putin was received by President Xi at the Zhongnanhai, the official residence of the Chinese head of state, for an across-the-spectrum state of the planet recap.
The next day Beijing was resplendent under blue skies overseeing the stunning military parade celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japanese invasion and the Asian chapter of Nazi-fascism. That was a confident geoeconomic superpower showing off its military progress.
On the same day the Eastern Economic Forum started in Vladivostok: an unrivalled platform for discussing the surge of pan-Eurasia business.
What China has proposed, actually reiterated in Tianjin, goes way beyond the concept of wangdao, referring to an enlightened, benign power, but not a Hegemon. What could be described as the trademark motto of a Pax Sinica under Xi could be summed up as Make Trade, Not War – and for the common good, or community of a shared future”, in Beijing terminology.
SCO partners, as well as BRICS partners, fully understand that China does not intend to replace Pax Americana, which always relied on the – now aptly renamed – Department of War’s gunboat “diplomacy”. Whatever hysteria fits the West may throw – manipulating Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea, Taiwan – won’t deviate Beijing from its civilizational inclusive path.
The birth of a new logistics order
The road from Tianjin to Vladivostok mostly evolved on three interconnected fronts; oil and gas; connectivity corridors; and massive economic development.
The collective West simply cannot get rid of its pathology of perennialy underestimating the East. For years, both BRICS and SCO were derided in Washington as irrelevant talk shops. But it’s the multilateral spirit that allows something groundbreaking like the Power of Siberia-2 to come to light.
Power of Siberia-2 was planned several years ago, but it was difficult to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom preferred Western Siberia to Xinjiang, across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia, straight into central China.
The Mongolian route eventually prevailed. It was decided two years ago, and in the last few weeks, the final pricing mechanism, respecting market rates. This massive geoeconomic game-changer means that the gas from the Yamal peninsula that would supply Europe via the Nord Streams will supply China.
President Putin’s expose at the plenary session in Vladivostok placed particular emphasis on energy and connectivity.
But to track the devil in the details nothing could beat the arguably two top panels at the forum.
One of them discussed the integrated development of the Arctic and the Russian Far East, with special insights by Vladimir Panov, who not only is Rosatom’s top expert on the Arctic but also the Deputy Chairman of the State Commission on Arctic Development.
Another panel really dug deep , tracing a parallel between the origins of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), 500 years ago – when Russian diplomat Dmitry Gerasimov drew up the first draft of the Northern Sea Route and the first map of the Arctic Ocean and Muscovy coastlines – and the 21st century technology challenges.
This panel featured a particular striking expose by the CEO of Rosatom, Aleksey Likhachev, complemented by experts such as Sergey Vakhurov, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Maritime Collegium. Likhachev detailed the complex shaping of an Arctic corridor, carrying mostly raw materials: a resilient transport corridor for the whole of Northeast Asia.
That’s no less than the birth of a new logistics order – think IA- based weather forecasting plus icebreakers – featuring critical Russian input.
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) September 6, 2025
Will Vladivostok become the next Hong Kong?
So, as Putin stressed in his presentation at the plenary session, the heart of the matter is the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor: arguably the key 21st century connectivity corridor.
Thus it’s no wonder Vladivostok’s discussions centered around the key role of nuclear energy and nuclear icebreakers in assuring stable shipping along the NSR route, side by side with environmental concerns and the trials and tribulations of securing large-scale investments in energy production, processing and infrastructure building.
All that merged with a timely discussion of the Greater Eurasia Partnership – the crux of Russian geoeconomic policy – with key inputs by Alexey Overchuk, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s government, and the affable Suhail Khan, the Deputy Secretary-General of the SCO.
An absolutely key takeaway of all these discussions was the startling realignment being operated by Rosatom – which is simultaneously expanding business with China, India and South Korea along the ultra-strategic NSR.
That means, in essence, Russia evaluating all vectors when it comes to organizing full-scale convoy systems for 365 days a year of Arctic navigation: nothing less, once again, than a new economic and technological order.
Now couple all that with a lively discussion of how the Global South and East will be leading the new growth economy.
Sberbank’s CEO Herman Gref, for instance, disclosed that the largest Russian bank has become the second largest in transactions globally, only behind JP Morgan.
Wen Wang, from Renmin University, remarked how China is undergoing a very strong de-Americanization process, in education and tech, pushing “its own knowledge system”.
He foresees huge Russia-China cooperation potential – economic and financial, emphasizing there is a pressing necessity to open financial markets on both sides. That’s how Vladivostok could become the next Hong Kong. Several panelists at the forum observed that Vladivostok has all it takes to become a strategic center for Global South integration.
The Arctic will be at the center of possible business deals between Russians and Americans; serious discussions have been going on since March, including in the recent Putin-Trump meeting.
Amidst the colossal logistics challenges, an economic breakthrough in the Arctic, next to and within Alaska may eventually represent for the US a ticket out of an economic catastrophe. So here the Arctic – which is de facto dominated by Russia – may in the end become a privileged arena to domesticate the Empire of Chaos.
After all Russia has already built extensive, complex infrastructure in the Arctic – upgraded in real time. Mammoth ports, LNG processing, whole cities of workers and technicians, the enormous advantage of the nuclear icebreaker fleet (nine in action, with two more coming), all these advances are Russian intellectual property that can be exploited in dealing with the US.
In the end, these heady few days last week solidified The Future. Grandmaster Lavrov once again delivered the succinct version – commenting on the triple handshake of Putin, Xi and Modi: “A demonstration that three great powers, representing three great civilizations, recognize the commonality of their interests in several areas.”
That’s way more: that’s a new world in the making.
“No mountain or ocean can distance people who have shared aspirations,” China’s President Xi Jinping said in July 2024, addressing leaders from fellow Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states and a few other nations, in Astana, Kazakhstan.
It is not reaching too far, saying that this year’s 25th SCO Summit (SCO) in Tianjin, China, from 31 August to 1 September 2025, fulfilled – and more – President Xi’s vision of 2024. The summit caused a tectonic shift in the conventional world order.
China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Bin told a news conference in Beijing, shortly before the SCO summit, that the 2025 SCO event be “One of China’s most important head-of-state and home-court diplomatic events this year”.
As the Economist says, “A New Reality is Taking hold”. The “new reality” is not anti-US or anti-West; it is just separating the western unipolar aspirations from the newly created multi-polar, or perhaps better, multi-block, world, where countries aim at a peaceful cooperation towards a joint future with shared benefits.
The SCO was established in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Today the SCO consists of ten member States, with headquarters in Beijing. In addition to the founding members, SCO members have increased by India, Iran, Belarus, and Pakistan. SCO members account for 23% of the world’s GDP and for 43% of the world’s population.
Further attendance included high-level government officials from Myanmar, Egypt, Cambodia, Nepal, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Turkey, as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn, and UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres.
This year’s summit, made clearly the SCO the guiding light for the Global South which includes the 11 BRICS countries, plus the 10 BRICS partners, added at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024.
While even the UNSG, Mr. Guterres, was invited – while the UN was or still is (?) considered by the US and the West in general, as the World Organization in the western camp – President Trump felt snubbed by China, “left out” from the world shifting SCO event in Tianjin.
So, Trump invented a last-minute opportunity to leave his mark on the meeting by requesting President Xi literally on the eve of the SCO summit for “military talks”, a phone call between the two Defense Ministers [in the US now called War Minister, as the Ministry of Defense has been re-christened by Trump as War Ministry].
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that Beijing rejected the proposal, reasoning “a lack of mutual understanding between the two countries”, asking a pertinent question: “Is there any sincerity in and significance of any communication like this?”
Of course not. Trump just wanted to interfere in the SCO summit, showing his self-styled emperor head. But to no avail. The West was absent – the “naked emperor” as well as his European puppets, the (almost) defunct European Union, and especially the non-elected and every time more rejected European Commission (EC).
Imagine, just a few weeks earlier a delegation of the EC, including Kaja Kallas, the Commission’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the Commission’s top-diplomat, so to speak, visited Beijing to discuss tariffs, but on the side, they were insinuating that China should distance herself from Russia.
So much aggression, let alone undiplomatic thinking and acting – like at home spending taxpayers’ money destined for social programs, instead for a monster armament to go to war against Russia – aggression and a war philosophy that can only lead to a EU downfall – which is accelerating by the day.
To add insult to injury, the symbolic leader of the EU, Germany, her Chanceller Friedrich Merz, said recently: “Putin is a war criminal. He is perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time that we have seen on a large scale. We must be clear about how to deal with war criminals: There is no room for leniency”.
It is time for the Real World, the Global South, to distance themselves from the western warmongers and war-makers. This is just happening with the 25th SCO Summit – a new awakening for Peace, cooperation, and togetherness in the spirit of working towards a future of shared benefits.
A future with shared benefits is not possible by western economic standards and principles, that followed since 1989 the so-called Washington Consensus, an un-stated agreement between the three most powerful western financial institutions, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – to “subdue” the “emerging and developing world” with debt, so as to get a hold of their natural resources.
This disequilibrium already started with the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, during which the World Bank and IMF were created, two institutions which were and still are veto-dominated by Washington. Real economic equality and development had – and up to now – has no chance under these circumstances. Instead, it is abusive exploitation and neocolonialism.
The SCO decision at their Summit, to create an SCO Development Bank bodes well with a new future of togetherness and cooperation. It fits right in with the Chinese Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB). It is a vivid sign of pulling free from the neoliberal western financial institutions making their living by exploiting “socioeconomic development”, instead of enhancing it
Together and perhaps with a newly furbished BRICS New Development Bank, they will allow the Global South to evolve and grow according to their sovereign and independent terms, using instead of an isolating “protective” tariff system – Trump-style – their comparative advantages to deal and trade with each other – tariff-free. No conflicts but cooperation.
See also this https://www.rt.com/news/624196-fyodor-lukyanov-russia-and-china/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email .
This SCO Summit was not a western style aggression-event of “The Willing”, but a China initiated reorientation of the world order, in which long-term objectives were envisioned by real leaders, who had seen and lived enough of western dictated aggressions, wars and destruction, but instead opted for Peace and Cooperation – and it very much looks like they may succeed.
In his opening speech, President Xi made this point clear: “Humanity is again faced with a choice of peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, and win-win outcomes; or zero-sum games”.
This clearly creates a growing chasm between East and West. The former seeking peaceful constructive development, while the latter are still clinging to their destructive economic model, wars and killing for a growing military complex and a tech-world that goes hand in hand with the agenda of transhumanization and destruction of humanity.
The highly successful SCO Summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged just before China’s Grand Military Parade on Tiananmen Square, marking 80 years since the end of World War II. It was the culmination of a new “World Order”, one of Peace – demonstrating the West, silently but visibly, that a new epoch is about to begin.
The image of presenting the heads of China, Xi Jingpin, Russia, Vladimir Putin, India, Narendra Modi; Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian; and North Korea, Kim Jong UN, side by side – speaks volumes. They embody a new power base – power for Peace and for a new world order of a common future with shared benefits.
——–
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Eurasia’s Re-alignment in the face of Late Stage Barbarism
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s meetings in China last week (September 2 and 3) took a remarkable step forward in defining how the world will be dividing into two great blocks as Global Majority countries seek to free their economies not only from Donald Trump’s tariff chaos, but from the U.S.-sponsored increasingly Hot War attempts to impose unipolar control on the entire world’s economy by isolating countries seeking to resist this control with trade and monetary chaos as well as direct military confrontation.
The SCO meetings became a pragmatic forum to define the basic principles that are to replace other countries’ trade, monetary and military independence from U.S. with mutual trade and investment among themselves, increasingly isolated from reliance on U.S. markets for their exports, U.S. credit for their domestic economies, and U.S. dollars for trade and investment transactions among themselves.
The principles announced by China’s President Xi, Russian President Putin and other SCO members set the stage for spelling out in detail the principle of a new international economic order along the lines that were promised 80 years ago at the end of World War II but have been twisted beyond all recognition into what Asian and other Global Majority countries hope will have been just a long detour in history away from the basic rules of civilization and its international diplomacy, trade and finance.
It really should not be surprising that not a word of these principles or their motivation has appeared in the mainstream Western press. The New York Times depicted the meetings in China as a plan of aggression against the United States, not as a response to U.S. acts. President Donald Trump summarized this attitude most succinctly in a Truth Social post: “President Xi, Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”
U.S. press coverage of the SCO meetings in China presents a foreshortened perspective that reminds me of the famous Hokusai etching of a close-up tree in the foreground completely overshadowing the distant city in the background. Whatever the international topic is, it’s all about the United States. The basic model is a foreign government’s adversity toward the United States, with no mention of such policies being a defensive response against U.S. belligerence toward the foreigner.
The press treatment of the SCO meetings and its geopolitical discussions has a remarkable similarity with its treatment of NATO’s war against Russia in Ukraine. Both events are seen as if they are all about the United States (and its allies), not about China, Russia, India, Central Asian and other countries acting to promote their own attempts to create orderly and mutually beneficial trade and investment. Just as the war in Ukraine is depicted as a Russian invasion (with no mention of its defense against NATO’s attack on Russia’s own security), the SCO meetings in Tianjin and Beijing meetings were depicted as confrontational scheming against the West, as if the meetings were about the United States and Europe.
On September 3 the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, called Putin perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time, as it was Russia that attacked innocent Ukraine, not vice versa from the 2015 coup onward. As Putin commented on Merz’s accusation: “we do not assume that any new dominant states should appear. Everyone should be on an equal footing.”
The military parade in Beijing that followed the meetings was a reminder to the world that the international agreements that created the United Nations and other organizations at the end of World War II were supposed to end fascism and introduce a fair and equitable world order based on the United Nations’ principles. To depict this frame of the meetings as a threat to the West is to deny that it is the West itself that has abandoned and indeed reversed the seemingly multilateral principles promised in 1944-1945.
The U.S. and European treatment of the SCO meetings as shaped entirely by antipathy toward the West is not merely an expression of Western narcissism. It was a deliberately censorial policy of not discussing the ways in which an alternative to U.S.-sponsored neoliberal economic order are being developed. NATO head Mark Rutte made it clear that there was to be no thought that there even was such a thing as a policy by countries to create an alternative and more productive economic order when he complained that Putin was getting too much attention. That meant not to discuss what really has happened in the last few days in China – and how it is a landmark in introducing a new economic order, but not one that includes the West.
President Putin explained in a press conference that confrontation was not at all the focus. The speeches and press conferences spelled out the details of what was necessary to consolidating relations among themselves. Specifically, how will Asia and the Global South simply go their own way, with minimum contact and exposure to the West’s economic and military aggressive behavior.
The only military confrontation that is threatened is by NATO, from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea, Syria, Gaza, the China Sea, Venezuela and North Africa. But the real threat is the West’s neoliberal financialization and privatization, Thatcherism and Reaganomics. The SCO and BRICS (as are now being discussed in follow-up meetings) want to avoid the falling living standards and economies as the West deindustrializes. They want rising living standards and productivity. This attempt to create an alternative, more productive plan of economic development is what isn’t being discussed in the West.
This great split is best epitomized by the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline. This gas was planned to go to Europe, feeding into Nordstream 1. That has all ended. Siberian gas will now go to Mongolia and China. It powered European industry in the past; now it will do the same for China and Mongolia, leaving Europe to depend on U.S. LNG exports and declining North Sea supplies at much higher prices.
Some geopolitical upshots of the SCO meetings
The contrast between the successful consolidation of SCO/BRICS trade, investment and payments arrangements and the U.S. destabilization makes it difficult for countries to try and join both the US/NATO bloc and the BRICS/Global South countries. The pressure is especially strong on Turkey, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. They are observers of BRICS, and the Arab countries are especially financially exposed to the dollar and also host U.S. military bases. (India has blocked Azerbaijan from joining.)
Two dynamics are at work.
On the one hand, the BRICS and Global Majority are trying to defend themselves against US/NATO economic aggression, and to de-dollarize their economies so as to minimize trade dependence on the U.S. market. That saves them from the U.S. weaponizing its foreign trade and monetary system from blocking their access to supply chains that have been put in place, and thereby disrupting their economies.
The other dynamic is that the U.S. economy is becoming less attractive as it polarizes, shrinks and de-dollarizes as a result of its financialization and rising debt overhead. It is becoming inflationary, subject to a debt-leveraged financial bubble that is at increasing risk of sudden collapse.
This basic moral contrast catalyzes the contrast of economic systems and policy between oligarchic privatized and financialized markets (neoliberalism) and industrial socialist economies. This socialism is the logical extension of the dynamic of early industrial capitalism, seeking to rationalize production and minimize waste and unnecessary costs imposed by rent-seeking classes demanding income without playing a productive role – landlords, monopolists and the financial sector.
The great problem, of course, is that the Americans want to blow up the world if they can’t control it and dominate all other countries. Alistair Crooke recently warned that the Evangelical Christian movement sees this as an opportunity for a conflagration that will see Jesus return and convert the world to Christian jihadism. The term “late stage barbarism” is now being used throughout much of the internet for the ethnic supremacy fanaticism ranging from Wahabi jihadists and al Qaeda breakoffs through Gaza and the West Bank to the Ukrainian neo-Nazi revival (with its echoes in Germany’s hatred of Russia) not seen since the Nazism of the 1930s and ‘40s, denying that their opponents are fellow human beings. As an alternative to the SCO, BRICS, and Global Majority, this defines the depth of the split in today’s geopolitical alignment.
I”m sure that client oligarchies throughout BRICS will try to hold on to as many of their privileges (that is, economic rents) as possible.
That is why the key ultimately will be tax policy.
All that member countries can do at the beginning is insulate their monetary and balance-of-payments relations with each other, along with mutual investment. (Already I see China apparently driving a hard deal with Russian oil.)
So the real “new civilization” is a way’s off. But US and its European satellite policy is a great catalyst for speeding up the discussion.
Infantile clowns are mocked or shunned. As Trump dozed off somewhere, world leaders met in Tianjin.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
New World Order — Sep 05, 2025.
On 6/16/25, the Hindustan Times reported, “US President Donald Trump was apparently seen dozing off during a military parade as he celebrated his 79th birthday and the 250th anniversary of the US Army.” Notice birthday before anniversary of army’s founding. Some guy named Washington, I think, was first Commander in Chief. Move over on Mount Rushmore, George, or better yet, Donald’s big beautiful face should just be chiseled right into yours.
Creaking tanks and soldiers strolling out of sync, with one grunt holding up a drone, couldn’t hold this bone spurred chicken hawk’s attention for too long. It’s still hurting him.
Trump’s buddy Kim Jung Un had his state TV report, “The capitalist pigs of America held a gaudy and vainglorious display of their dwindling military might this past weekend […] Their inferior leader, pictured here, looking old, confused and tired, sat next to an expensive prostitute and a drunk television host for the duration of the parade.”
Infantile clowns are mocked or shunned. The Telegraph on 8/26/25, “Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, has reportedly ignored four phone calls from Donald Trump amid escalating tariff tensions.”
Seven months into Trump’s second reign, the US is more despised and irrelevant than ever. As Trump dozed off somewhere, world leaders met in Tianjin. Modi’s first visit to China in seven years triggered this tantrum by Peter Navarro, “It is a shame to see Modi getting in bed with Xi Jinping and Putin. I’m not sure what he’s thinking.”
As Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing, Navarro has managed to reduce significantly both trade and manufacturing in the USA, so his face must be added, in miniature, to the back of Mount Rushmore?
The Guardian on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Tianjin, “They stood together like old friends, heads thrown back in jovial laughter, clutching one another’s hands affectionately. Except this was no ordinary gathering of three men, but a meeting of three of the most powerful non-western leaders: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi.” With the West already so limp, that modifier “non-western” is superfluous.
Meanwhile in DC, rumors swirled that Trump was even more comatose. Appearing higher than Hunter Biden, Donald Junior had to tell News Max, “I called my father over the weekend to be like, ‘Hey, just want to make sure you’re not dead.’”
Following the Tianjin summit, there’s a monstrous military parade in Beijing, so China had four days to flex its muscles. India Global Today, “This is China displaying weapons, Russia showing resilience, North Korea showing loyalty and India showing independence. Together they projected an image that challenges decades of American dominance. So is this the moment where America loses its grip on world leadership and China takes its place as the new superpower?” Together they projected is correct.
Sidelined, Trump yelped at Xi, “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”
Xi, “The Chinese nation is a great nation that is never intimidated by any bullies and always values independence and forges ahead. In the past, when faced with critical struggles between good and evil, light and darkness, progress and reaction, the Chinese people rallied together to defy the enemy. They fought for the survival of the country, for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and for justice of the whole humanity. Today, humanity again has to choose between peace and war, dialogue and confrontation, win-win cooperation and zero-sum game. The Chinese people firmly stand on the right side of history and the progress of human civilization.”
Xi’s key point here is “survival of the country.” Like Putin, he’s a nationalist. Defense of national interests is how Xi and the Chinese Communist Party can maintain legitimacy and support from ordinary Chinese. His “justice of the whole humanity” is just an old timey Commie tic or flourish and, frankly, sounds too much like Uncle Sam at his most righteous and hypocritical. Indifferent to that, Chinese chests only swelled at this reassurance, “The Chinese nation is a great nation that is never intimidated by any bullies.”
How does one square the Chinese state’s manly display with Chinese freaks like Madison Zhao and International Kid? Western influenced pop culture must be countered by sober policies as directed by sane leaders. Xi, Putin and others are doing that. It is an ongoing battle.
In the US, however, you have blackmailed, avaricious, mendacious and cynical leaders who are warring against their own population. Confused, disunited and, yes, cowardly, Americans appear hopeless against an internal enemy most can’t even identify.
The only European nations that came to Beijing were Serbia, Slovakia, Hungary and Turkey. Serbia was bombed by NATO in 1999, Slovakia’s prime minister was nearly killed last year, Hungary’s Orban is often dubbed a Fascist (for being a nationalist) and Turkey’s Erdogan is just a weasel. As fringe Europeans, they’re actually in better shape than Germany, France or the UK, thanks to their nationalism and demographic coherence. Riots in Belgrade, likely instigated by the USA, is a real danger, though, as they are in Jakarta. Until it croaks, the Empire of Chaos is always busy.
Trump’s trade war is bankrupting American farmers, businesses and just ordinary consumers. With trade deficits against all nations, Uncle Sam has long been a deadbeat. If only he would just lie down, like Trump, and wheeze out with a dozen or so peaceful farts. With so many nukes, he won’t go quietly, though.
About Linh Dinh (@linhdinh):
‘Before being canceled, I was an anthologized poet and fairly prolific author, with my last book Postcards from the End of America. Now, I write about our increasingly sick world for a tiny audience on SubStack. Drifting overly much, I’m in Cambodia.
Born in Saigon, Vietnam in 1963, I lived mostly in the US from 1975 until 2018, but have returned to Vietnam. I’ve also lived in Italy, England and Germany. I’m the author of a non-fiction book, Postcards from the End of America (2017), a novel, Love Like Hate (2010), two books of stories, Fake House (2000) and Blood and Soap (2004), and six collections of poems, with a Collected Poems cancelled by Chax Press from external pressure. I’ve been anthologized in Best American Poetry 2000, 2004, 2007, Great American Prose Poems from Poe to the Present, Postmodern American Poetry: a Norton Anthology (vol. 2) and Flash Fiction International: Very Short Stories From Around the World, etc. I’m also editor of Night, Again: Contemporary Fiction from Vietnam (1996) and The Deluge: New Vietnamese Poetry (2013). My writing has been translated into Japanese, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Korean, Arabic, Icelandic, Serbian and Finnish, and I’ve been invited to read in Tokyo, London, Cambridge, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, Halle, Reykjavik, Toronto, Singapore and all over the US. I’ve also published widely in Vietnamese.’
AHH: Please support this wonderful writer on his Substack! Thanks
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 
