Editors note: This is something to keep our eyes on as well since India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them in the past. The red horse of Revelation is riding, taking peace from the earth!
Tensions between India and Pakistan appear to be on the rise again after both countries’ capitals were rocked by deadly blasts just a day apart from each other, fueling fears of another full-blown clash this year.
On Tuesday afternoon, a suicide bomber self-detonated next to a police car outside a court building in Islamabad, killing at least 12 others and wounding at least 27. Many of those killed or injured were passersby or people attending court appointments, according to Islamabad police.
The leader of the Jamaat-ul-Ahrar group, a splinter faction of the Pakistani Taliban or Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), claimed responsibility for the attack, according to the Associated Press, although another commander from the group denied association with the attack. The group has split from and remerged with TTP on a number of occasions, including breaking away in 2022 after its leader was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan. A TTP spokesperson disclaimed involvement in Tuesday’s attack.
But Islamabad has been quick to point fingers at New Delhi, even as it says it is still investigating the attack. The Prime Minister’s Office in Islamabad appeared to blame India for the attack, calling it one of the “worst examples of Indian state-sponsored terrorism in the region.” Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi also claimed the attack was “carried out by Indian-backed elements and Afghan Taliban proxies.”
“We are in a state of war,” Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said in a post on X that did not name India and blamed the Taliban government in Afghanistan. “Anyone who thinks that the Pakistan Army is fighting this war in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and the remote areas of Balochistan should take today’s suicide attack at the Islamabad district courts as a wake-up call: this is a war for all of Pakistan, in which the Pakistan Army is giving daily sacrifices and making the people feel secure.”
India rejected accusations of its involvement, calling them “baseless and unfounded allegations being made by an obviously delirious Pakistani leadership.”
“It is a predictable tactic by Pakistan to concoct false narratives against India in order to deflect the attention of its own public from the ongoing military-inspired constitutional subversion and power-grab unfolding within the country,” Randhir Jaiswal, a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said in a statement. “The international community is well aware of the reality and will not be misled by Pakistan’s desperate diversionary ploys.”
Less than 24 hours earlier, a car explosion in New Delhi on Monday night killed at least 10 people and injured more than 30 others. The car went up in flames near the city’s historic 17th century Red Fort, or Lal Qila, which is a symbol of India’s independence and a popular area for tourists. Indian authorities have said the incident is under investigation and have not publicly identified any suspects. The case is being investigated by India’s counter-terrorism law enforcement agency, the National Investigation Agency, and Indian authorities invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, an anti-terror law which allows security forces to detain suspects without trial. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that India’s “agencies will go to the root of this conspiracy and will not spare the conspirators behind it.”Even so, some in India have already cast blame on Pakistan. Indian media reported links between the driver, reportedly a Kashmiri resident, and a Pakistani militant group. Meanwhile, social media users and reports have recalled the language of the deadly armed conflict with Pakistan earlier this year, calling the Delhi attack an “act of war.”
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
US-backed NATO, Pakistan, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent” of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines are poised to respectively face off against Russia, India, and China across this century.
The US is sending mixed signals about the Sino–RussoEntente, which was strengthened by the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline deal, after Trump said in September that he’s “not concerned” about it while Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed that he ordered him to “re-establish deterrence” against them. As was argued here, “Trump 2.0’s Eurasian Balancing Act Has Failed” largely as a result of this development, which importantly involved India’s tacit approval amidst its rapprochement with China.
Far from remaining divided, principally as regards China and India with all the complications that their continued rivalry would entail for Russia’s own balancing act, Eurasia’s three most powerful civilization-states are increasingly coming together to revive their dormant Russia-India-China (RIC) format. This platform is significant on its own but it’s also crucially the core of BRICS and the SCO, which play complementary roles in gradually transforming global governance as explained here.
These RIC-accelerated multipolar processes can’t be countered through direct military force, however, but the way in which the Pentagon might try to slow everything down is through provoking arms races. NATO’s, Pakistan’s, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent’s” (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines) US-backed military buildups (partial in Pakistan’s case) could help achieve this vis-à-vis Russia, India, and China as could reinforced US military presences (or a formal return in Pakistan’s case) in each.
Likewise, the “Golden Dome”, intermediate-range missile deployments in their regions, and more militarization of outer space can place additional pressure on Russia and China to this end, though these moves could also backfire by enhancing those two’s military-technical coordination too. To be clear, Russia and China aren’t allies that would go to war for one another, but their shared military-security and strategic interests raise the chances that they’ll provide support for the other during wartime.
China has thus far eschewed sending military-technical aid to Russia due to its complex interdependence with the West, but Trump’s tariff war, his accusation that President Xi Jinping is “conspiring” against the US, and the Pentagon’s plans for the “Asian/Containment Crescent” might prompt a recalculation. In a similar spirit, Russia might become comfortable sharing cutting-edge military-technical knowledge with China to counterbalance US moves in Japan, which could extend to their shared North Korean ally too.
Although the lion’s share of Pakistan’s military-technical equipment comes from China, the US might break into this market if Chinese exports decrease due to the Sino-Indo rapprochement, which could also lead to a decrease in American exports to India and the need to replace them with exports to Pakistan. Russia might even regain its traditional role as India’s top supplier by far if exports to it spike in response to more US exports to Pakistan in a de facto revival of the region’s Old Cold War-era military dynamics.
All of these strategic dynamics set the stage for a security dilemma between the Eurasian Rimland (NATO, Pakistan, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent”) and the Eurasian Heartland (RIC) instigated by the US in order to “re-establish deterrence” vis-à-vis the Sino-Russo Entente. The purpose is to pressure one of them or their shared Indian partner into capitulating to the US so as to then more effectively divide-and-rule the supercontinent. This hegemonic plot will define Eurasia’s 21st-century geopolitics.
His arrogant and aggressive behavior towards Russia, India, and China is responsible for this.
The global systemic transition to multipolarity is nowadays proceeding along a different trajectory than before due to recent shifts in the international system. Up until this point, Trump 2.0 sought resource and military partnerships with Russia and India respectively that could decelerate China’s superpower rise, which would then make it the junior partner in any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal. His Eurasian balancing act has failed, however, due to his arrogant and aggressive approach towards all three countries.
Ties with Russia took a hit after the Anchorage Summit following increasinglyconcerningreports about US plans to support NATO troops in Ukraine, thus spooking Putin into abandoning his country’s own Eurasian balancing act by pivoting to China. This took the form of the legally binding deal that was just clinched for constructing the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline. The US’ envisaged resource-centric partnership with Russia, which aimed to enticeconcessions on Ukraine, is now much less likely.
With Russia pivoting to China via Power of Siberia 2 amidst the Sino-Indo rapprochement, the resource and military means for decelerating China’s superpower rise through partnerships with them were neutralized, thus leading to any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal now being in China’s favor instead. President Xi Jinping accordingly espoused stronger rhetoric about reshaping the world order during his speeches at the SCO Summit and V-J Day, which prompted Trump to accuse him of “conspiring” against the US.
The interim Sino-US trade deal is now in jeopardy after he just threatened the imposition of 100% tariffs on China by 1 November or earlier depending on when China imposes its export controls on rare earth minerals. Coupled with his dramatic accusation that Xi is “conspiring” against the US in collusion with Putin and Kim Jong Un, this could presage future military-strategic tensions, even if only indirectly via proxy. That would further destabilize Eurasia per the US’ traditional divide-and-rule stratagem.
In clockwise order, these could take the form of: fomenting Color Revolution unrest in Mongolia in order to undermine Power of Siberia 2; Japan, Taiwan, and/or the Philippines provoking an incident with China at sea in contested waters; obstructing China’s access to rare earth minerals in Myanmar’s KachinState; and/or sowing instability in Central Asia via NATO member Turkiye through the new TRIPP Corridor. China’s response to these scenarios could be to arm Russia and even send troops to help it in Ukraine.
Xi saw how Trump mistreated his friend Modi despite him leading a state that could have joined the US’ anti-Chinese axis, while also watching how he’s betraying Putin in Ukraine after Anchorage, so he expects similar treatment if he agrees to a “G2”/ “Chimerica” deal. He also knows that China now has a target on its back after the latest tariffs and Trump accusing him of a “conspiracy”. It’s therefore little wonder that Trump 2.0’s Eurasian balancing act, which was characterized by arrogance and aggression, has failed.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
For decades, Palestinians have been living under the shadow of war.
Now entering its third year on October 7, Israel’s “war on Hamas” is taking too long to finalize its victory. Israel has killed an alleged 8,900 fighters in the last 19 months, out of 47,653 people listed as active fighters (Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) in its database. This accounts for only 16.8 percent of the total population killed in Gaza as of May 2025 (combatant-civilian mortality ratio is based on data obtained from a leaked Israeli Intelligence database). Given Israel’s formidable military with advanced surveillance technology and weapons system, how is this even remotely convincing? There is a word for it — propaganda; and it is sustained by Big Tech and the corporate media.
“In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]
The military objective was never the eradication of Hamas but rather mass depopulation and exodus of Palestinians from their homeland to give way to the creation of “Greater Israel” in blatant derogation of the 1948 Geneva Genocide Convention.
Article II of the Genocide Convention reads as follows. It essentially defines acts of genocide, all of which apply to Palestine.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Apart from Israel, Who Are the “Actors of Genocide”? The Role of Our Governments
It is not solely Israel which is waging the genocide. Western governments have formally endorsed Israel. They have provided financial support as well as military aid. US-NATO is a partner of Israel in this criminal endeavor.
Western governments are routinely arresting citizens who are protesting against genocide. Millions of people throughout the European Union and around the world have expressed their solidarity with Palestine.
The 1948 Genocide Convention is explicit with regard to the role of our governments: it defines the notion of complicity in Articles III and IV.
“Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”
Two years on (23 months), after 65,344 deaths, 166,795 injuries, nearly one million people displaced, collapsing healthcare system, mass starvation, and unimaginable level of destruction, the Western ruling elites led by the US continue to deny the existence of genocide and stand by Israel’s “right to self-defense.”
Despite several UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions, report from UN commission of inquiry, and ICJ ruling, the international community repeatedly fails to commit to a legally binding intervention aimed at ending the systemic violence and impunity for Israel’s war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Such neglect permits the intensifying rampage and annihilation which will decisively culminate in the total wipe-out of Gaza.
The Vestiges of Democracy
Advocates of democracy are also the instigators of human rights violations and abuses.
What we are witnessing today is a huge wave of democratic backsliding perpetrated by governments who are simultaneously touting democratic norms and values. In a system of genocide, it is the people who carry the casket of democracy.
Notwithstanding the systematic suppression of dissent through coordinated censorship, smears, and arbitrary arrests, protest movements persist worldwide. From boycotts to mass demonstrations, people around the world refuse to be desensitized to the crimes of the genocidaires.
According to Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist,
these movements “are not built around the single issue of the apartheid state in Israel or its genocide against Palestinians. They are built around the awareness that the old world order, the one of settler colonialism, Western imperialism, and militarism, must end. … These protests are built around a vision of a world of equality, dignity, and independence,” (quoted from his book, A Genocide Foretold, Reporting on Survival and Resistance in Occupied Palestine).
In the Philippines, civil society groups have mounted Palestine solidarity campaigns, urging the national government to take concrete legal measures against the Zionist regime in Israel. The Philippines-Palestine Friendship Association (PPFA), a loose network of pro-Palestine groups and individuals, condemns the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for “continuing to bolster its arms deals and trade ties with Israel.” In a recent statement, PPFA “denounces the continued procurement of Israeli weapons” and urges the Marcos administration to review all arms agreements with the US and Israel amid Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro’s disclosure that there will be no new contracts with Israeli arms firms. Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), a left-wing organization, likewise demanded for the cancellation of arms sales involving Israel and the expulsion of US bases and troops in the country, highlighting US support of the illegal occupation of Palestine.
Lawmakers from the same left-wing group as Bayan recently filed House Resolution No. 231 before the House of Representatives urging the government of President Marcos Jr. to cut military and trade ties with Israel. This occurred after Representatives from Akbayan and Dinagat Islands filed House Resolution No. 195 urging the termination of the procurement of Israeli defense equipment.
“Through this measure, we demand that the Philippine government not only speak out against the genocide but also cut all forms of complicity—end military ties, arms deals, and intelligence-sharing that strengthen Israel’s occupation. Our resources must never be funneled, directly or indirectly, toward Zionist aggression,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement. (Inquirer.net)
Sen. Robinhood Padilla also filed Senate Resolution No. 1366 “condemning inhumane treatment, deliberate starvation, and mass killings of Palestinian civilians.”
Amid the reiteration of support for a Palestinian statehood and for permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the Philippine government under President Marcos Jr. still refuses to call the reality for what it is: a genocide. An acknowledgement of the commission of genocide is crucial and necessary in properly addressing the urgency of the crisis. Still, despite the ongoing famine and enforced starvation resulting from the blockade of humanitarian aid, Foreign Affairs Assistant Secretary Germinia Aguilar-Usudan declines to apply pressure on Israel saying,
“Our position is always consistent, that we support the two-state solution, … I think pressure is not the solution to this, but dialogue and understanding.” (Philstar.com)
.
President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. met with Israeli Ambassador Ilan Fluss in Malacañang Palace in October 2023 (Source)
.
Parallels with Filipino Struggle
Riddled with their own struggle for justice, the Filipino people understand the suffering of the Palestinians and recognize the need for urgent action. As both nations are united by a shared resistance to neocolonialism and imperialism, their aspirations are thus one and the same, that of liberation.
While the Israeli military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories provides a textbook example of settler-colonialism, the growing presence of US military in the Philippines, on the other hand, reinforces the neocolonial status of the latter. Israel is consistently America’s top military aid recipient. In other words, the US is an active enabler of Israel’s atrocities in the OPT that systematically advance forced displacement and dire humanitarian catastrophe. Moreover, the US is leveraging the ongoing crisis in the South China Sea to bolster its military footprint in the Philippines.
From Palestine to the Philippines, the US war machine breeds a culture of militarism which fuels cycles of injustice and inequality. Namely, the augmentation of Philippine national security pushed for a 50.8 percent increase in the defense budget from 2024 to 2025. The prioritization of defense programs over the health sector (among others), whose budget allocation is 24 percent shy of the total defense expenditure, is daylight robbery. And the US and Israel are the leading sources of military imports — a clear manifestation of empty rhetoric. In this regard, poor social services, derived from budget misappropriation and misallocation, instigate a cycle of poverty and inequality — a measure of structural violence that ordinary people need to overcome daily.
Following the report of the UN commission of inquiry that finds Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza, the Philippine government under President Marcos Jr. needs to recalibrate its bilateral approach toward Israel if it is indeed committed to a lasting peace and has respect for international law.
“The Philippines is deeply concerned by recent developments, including the Israeli government’s planned full military takeover of Gaza, the continuing restrictions on access to life-saving humanitarian aid such as food and water, large-scale displacement, attacks affecting civilians, and reports of settlement expansion in the West Bank,” the DFA said in August. “The Philippines, therefore, strongly calls on Israel to heed the ceasefire proposal as a crucial step to protect civilians and revive the path to peace,” it added.
“The international community must reject, without reservation, any proposals that bear even the faintest shadow of ethnic cleansing. While such actions clearly constitute violations of international law, the pressing question remains: who will step in to prevent them? We must focus on meaningful, sustainable solutions that pave the way for a just and stable future, grounded in the principles of international law,” Sen. Loren Legarda stated.
Further, it needs to heed the demands of its people to cancel existing and future defense contracts with the criminal state and abolish military agreements with the US, because to affirm solidarity with Palestine is to secure the liberation of its own.
Conclusion
The Palestinian struggle for liberation rests on the collective intervention of the international community and the global protest movement. Echoes from public opinion should surround the crescendo of genocide, for a free and independent Palestine is the gateway to a world free from the shackles of neocolonialism and imperialism.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
Jezile Torculas has a graduate degree in International Studies. She is an Associate Editor at Asia-Pacific Research and Global Research.
That and other worldwide chaos are in today’s video including how Vietnam closed 86 million bank accounts to bring them into the digital age and how the government in France has collapsed…again.
According to Flight Radar data, a UK fuel tanker reportedly departed from Qatar shortly before the Israeli attack, only to return and land in Qatar soon after.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
Vietnam just made a shocking move closing 86 million bank accounts as the country submits to the OECD’s power grab. What does this mean for the future of Vietnam banks, financial freedom, and the push toward a Vietnam digital ID under Agenda 2045? For expats and investors eyeing Vietnam’s economy, the implications are huge. Imagine landing in Saigon only to find your bank access frozen or your visa tangled in new digital ID mandates. We break down the 50-day campaign that’s forcing foreigners to submit biometric data, promising convenience but delivering a web of surveillance.
In this video, Attorney Ken Duong breaks it all down, the hidden forces behind the OECD, how this impacts ordinary citizens, and what you need to know if you follow Vietnam news closely. show how Project 06, biometric KYC, and the State Bank of Vietnam cross-checks connect to the wider push for a cash-lite society–then compare it with Thailand’s tightening rules for expats and the April 2025 Spain/Portugal blackout that turned payments into chaos. When power dies, a cashless system stops. Are we building fragility into the core?”
America is next! They have talked about the US going all digital with money by next month, October 2025!
The processes that are unfolding will take a lot of time to complete, perhaps even a generation or longer, so expectations of a swift transition to full-blown multipolarity should be tempered.
The recent SCO Leaders’ Summit in Tianjin drew renewed attention to this organization, which began as a means for settling border disputes between China and some former Soviet Republics but then evolved into a hybrid security-economic group. Around two dozen leaders attended the latest event, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who paid his first visit to China in seven years. Non-Western media heralded the summit as an inflection point in the global systemic transition to multipolarity.
While the SCO is more invigorated than ever given the nascent Sino-Indo rapprochement that the US was inadvertentlyresponsible for, and BRICS is nowadays a household name across the world, both organizations will only gradually transform global governance instead of abruptly like some expect. For starters, they’re comprised of very diverse members who can only realistically agree on broad points of cooperation, which are in any case strictly voluntary since nothing that they declare is legally binding.
What brings SCO and BRICS countries together, and there’s a growing overlap between them (both in terms of members and partners), is their shared goal of breaking the West’s de facto monopoly over global governance so that everything becomes fairer for the World Majority. To that end, they seek to accelerate financial multipolarity processes via BRICS so as to acquire the tangible influence required for implementing reforms, but this also requires averting future domestic instability scenarios via the SCO.
Nevertheless, the BRICS Bank complies with the West’s anti-Russian sanctions due to most members’ complex economic interdependence with it, and there’s also reluctance to hasten de-dollarization for precisely that reason. As for the SCO, its intelligence-sharing mechanisms only concern unconventional threats (i.e. terrorism, separatism, and extremism) and are hamstrung to a large degree by the Indo-Pak rivalry, while sovereignty-related concerns prevent the group from becoming another “Warsaw Pact”.
Despite these limitations, the World Majority is still working more closely together than ever in pursuit of their goal of gradually transforming global governance, which has become especially urgent due to Trump 2.0’s casual use of force (against Iran and as threatened against Venezuela) and tariff wars. China is at the center of these efforts, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll dominate them, otherwise proudly sovereign India and Russia wouldn’t have gone along with this if they expected that to be the case.
The processes that are unfolding will take a lot of time to complete, perhaps even a generation or longer, due in no small part to leading countries like China’s and India’s complex economic interdependence with the West that can’t abruptly be ended without dealing immense damage to their own interests. Observers should therefore temper any wishful thinking hopes of a swift transition to full-blown multipolarity in order to avoid being deeply disappointed and possibly becoming despondent as a result.
Looking forward, the future of global governance will be shaped by the struggle between the West and the World Majority, which respectively want to retain their de facto monopoly and gradually reform this system so that it returns to its UN-centric roots (albeit with some changes). Neither maximalist scenario might ultimately enter into force, however, so alternative institutions centered on specific regions like the SCO vis-à-vis Eurasia and the AU vis-à-vis Africa might gradually replace the UN in some regards.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
What the 20th Century was to the West — the next 100 Years will be to the Global South *Editors note* That’s assuming we have 100 years left, we don’t. Time is short! That being said the power structure of the world has shifted from the West to the East, just I’ve been saying for years! JS
History will record the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China this year as a pivotal moment in the evolution towards a new world order.
The SCO’s burgeoning role as a critical player in the development of a multipolar world was demonstrated this week. It illustrated the Global South’s solidarity with its defining principles: the recognition of sovereignty, non-interference and a rebuttal to the West’s hegemonic model of globalization under the guise of ‘liberal democracy’.
Significance of the event was also connoted through its symbolism —its proximity to the September 3 military parade in Beijing, marking not just the end of World War II but the 80th anniversary of China’s victory in the Sino-Japanese War.
Russian President Vladimir Putinwas conspicuous as an omnipresent figure at both the summit and parade events – carrying both symbolic weight and strategic meaning.
Moscow continues to advance its role as a reliable interface between nations across Asia and the Middle East – a role of consequence, especially today, given the shifting center of gravity in geopolitical affairs toward Asia and the Global South.
The Russian president’s remarks at the summit were characteristic of his vision of the future; he reiterated the import of adopting and implementing the SCO Development Program through the remainder of the decade. It defines the group’s strategic path towards establishing a carefully-conceived foundation for orchestrating economic and infrastructure initiatives.
Perhaps of equal significance was Moscow’s enthusiastic support for Beijing’s proposal to establish an SCO Development Bank. In addition to financing infrastructure projects, it would assist member countries in reducing their dependence on Western financial institutions and lessen the impact of Western sanctions – pressures which – with varying degrees of severity — Russia, China, Iran, India and others continue to experience.
The imagery from China indicates how the Russian president’s attendance at the summit carried both concrete and symbolic significance: As occurred previously in May, Moscow and Beijing continue to signal their determination to defend historical – not revisionist – truth.
The arrival in Tianjin of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi brought into specific relief New Delhi’s strategic flexibility and willingness to revisit and advance its relationship with China. In the face of unmitigated pressure from US President Donald Trump, the visit amounted to a definitive statement of India’s shift from historical non-alignment to strategic autonomy.
Modi’s talks with Xi Jinping – his first visit to China in seven years – symbolized their intent to resolve differences. Their continuing border dispute notwithstanding, the countries signaled a willingness to remove obstacles – and move closer.
Xi remarked to the Indian prime minister that true ‘normalization’ between their nations had actually begun last year at the BRICS summit in Kazan, when both nations deescalated a tense situation. The two sides should “not let the border issue define the overall China-India relationship,” Xi said, adding that economic development should be their main focus.
Modi, referring to relations with Beijing as a ‘partnership’, announced the resumption of direct flights and even voiced an intent to reduce India’s trade deficit with China.
A priority for India lies in multilateral relationships that augment a multipolar system concerning geopolitical affairs. New Delhi has consistently defended its right to pursue a multi-directed, autonomous foreign policy, viewing Global South initiatives (e.g. SCO and BRICS+) as pivotal in strengthening its sovereignty, pragmatism of strategic autonomy and global relevance.
While India attempts to eschew diplomatic issues with the US, its message is categorical: New Delhi will not accept ‘bullying’, especially with issues impacting national and regional priorities.
The symbolism of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also being present at the gathering, was evident. The leader of a NATO-member state attending the SCO summit connoted to the Western alliance that Ankara intends to assert a more sovereign, self-defined foreign policy.
This reflects Türkiye’s concept of ‘strategic flexibility’, in which the SCO is viewed as more than a forum for regional cooperation; rather, it is a platform for extending Turkish influence and securing access to key assets – from transport corridors to energy markets.
The Tianjin summit welcomed as well the presidents of Belarus, Iran and Pakistan along with Malaysia, Armenia and Azerbaijan signaling their interest in full membership. The wide geographical mix of attendees illustrates that the SCO is moving beyond Eurasia — developing toward a nucleus of an alternative global order.
The Tianjin Declaration, delineating the principles uniting SCO member states was a pivotal outcome of the summit – delineating non-interference in internal affairs, respect for sovereignty, rejection of the use or threat of force and opposition to unilateral sanctions as instruments of coercion. It expressed the common vision of the organization.
“The main outcome of the SCO and SCO+ summits is the shared determination to uphold our rights, without yielding to provocations, in full compliance with international law, the UN Charter, and the principles of the international monetary, financial, and trade systems – the very principles once promoted by the West itself.”
The summit in China manifested more than imagery and words – it confirmed the reality of a multipolar world order – a concept Putin has advanced for years. One thing is certain — it can no longer be treated theoretically. The SCO has given ‘multipolarity’ institutional integrity – steadily expanding, gaining influence and authority throughout the Global South.
The organization is reviewing applications from some ten countries seeking observer or dialogue partner status – indicating a burgeoning interest in the SCO as an alternative center of power in geopolitical affairs.
And one must not overlook rising interest in the SCO from the Arab world. Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already SCO dialogue partners – nations central to the Middle East’s energy and investment hierarchy. This indicates that a new geopolitical axis linking Eurasia and the Middle East is becoming a reality – with the SCO emerging as a viable alternative to the West’s hegemonic model.
The SCO today is no longer a regional structure; rather, it is a strategic center of gravity in geopolitical affairs. What was once disparaged by the West as a mere ‘regional club’ has matured into a meaningful platform for the Global South – a geopolitical entity with expanding membership, burgeoning economic vigor and a shared political horizon – a new political reality.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
F. Andrew Wolf, Jr. is director of The Fulcrum Institute, a new organization of current and former scholars, which engages in research and commentary, focusing on political and cultural issues on both sides of the Atlantic. After service in the USAF (Lt.Col.-Intel) Dr. Wolf obtained a PhD-philosophy (Wales), MA-theology (Univ. S. Africa), MTh-philosophical theology (TCU-Brite Div.). He taught philosophy, humanities and theology in the US and S. Africa before retiring from university.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
A lasting peace in the region will only be achieved through negotiations that take into account Russian, Iranian, and Turkish interests.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
On August 8, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met on American soil to sign a “peace deal” brokered by the US. The agreement establishes conditions completely unfavorable to the Armenians and facilitates a plan to expand NATO intervention in the Caucasus. The measure is extremely damaging to Russia and Iran, which are historically the countries most interested in peace and stability in the Caucasus—despite being ignored by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have chosen to ally with NATO countries.
Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, and Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, met with US President, Donald Trump, at the White House to sign a joint declaration opening a transport route in the disputed region between the two countries – the so-called Zangezur Corridor. Trump described the meeting as a “historic peace summit,” emphasizing the alleged benefits for both countries resulting from the agreed terms.
The route agreed upon by both sides connects Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan through a strip of land passing southern Armenia. Superficially, this “solution” creates a compromise between the interests of both countries, preventing both the annexation of Armenian territory by Azerbaijan and the lack of access between Azerbaijani territories. However, there are several serious problems surrounding the agreement that make it dangerous for regional stability.
First, it’s important to remember that the agreement has largely favorable conditions for Azerbaijan, which will have the right to control a strip of land that runs through historically Armenian territories. In practice, Pashinyan is once again capitulating to foreign interests, prioritizing such impositions over the well-being of the Armenian people. On the other hand, Azerbaijan itself will not fully control this territory, as the strip will be called the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” and will be managed by American companies—having even rumors of the presence of US PMCs in the region.
In practice, the agreement means both countries accept the American—and therefore NATO—presence in their disputed territories. The disadvantaged side is the one of the Armenian communities that will be displaced to establish the route, but neither Yerevan nor Baku will have complete control over this process. The long-term trend is for the region to become a kind of Western military fortress, severely undermining the stability of the Caucasus.
To make matters worse, the route runs along the border with Iran, creating a major problem for the historical relations between Tehran and the Caucasus countries. Iran opposes the project also because, in addition to the American presence in the region, the route strengthens Israel’s strategic position in the Caucasus. Despite being an Islamic country with a Shiite majority, Azerbaijan is a strong ally of Israel, which is Iran’s greatest enemy. This US-Israel-Azerbaijan alliance would be extremely detrimental to Tehran, with the possibility of the route functioning as a kind of siege against Iran.
Iranian authorities reacted negatively to the agreement. Iran made it clear that it welcomes peace between its neighboring countries, but it does not tolerate the existence of a transport route controlled by foreign agents. Russians and Iranians agree that peace between Azerbaijanis and Armenians will only be definitively achieved when both sides meet for negotiations mediated by the three main neighboring military powers: Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Interventionism by countries like the US only hinders the peace process, creating unfavorable conditions to which the sides are “forced” to agree despite having their legitimate interests harmed.
In practice, the US is adopting a position that until recently was expected to be jointly assumed by Europeans and Turks. During the Biden era, Western interventionism in the Caucasus was led by the EU—more specifically, France—on the Armenian side, and Turkey on the Azerbaijani side. The situation was heading toward a similar outcome, with expectations of sending “peacekeeping troops” on both sides. Both France and Turkey are NATO nations, which shows that this was also a plan by the Atlantic alliance to occupy the Caucasus.
However, Trump came to power promising to become “the great peacemaker” and end the wars started during the Democratic administration. He then assumed the role of chief negotiator, sidelining the French and Turks, and made an agreement that also favored Western interests, but centered on the US. In the current situation, Armenia’s domestic politics is heavily controlled by France, and Azerbaijan’s by Turkey, while the route between the two countries is officially controlled by the US. Similarly, Israel is attempting to expand its sphere of influence into the Caucasus, with full US support.
In practice, Armenia and Azerbaijan are ceasing to be sovereign countries—making the situation even more critical for Armenia, which has lost its historic territories. It remains to be seen whether Pashinyan’s already fragile and unpopular regime will be able to survive this further humiliation.
