Find similar content

⚡️🇮🇳 — The terror of Indian cow vigilantes knows no end. In Delhi, cow vigilantes brutally attacked a Hindu man on suspicion that he was a Muslim carrying cattle, in reality, he was a Hindu man burying a dead calf. #India @ThePakistanNews

🇺🇳🇺🇳🇮🇷War in Iran Tests BRICS Unity and India’s “Multi-Alignment” The war involving Iran is exposing internal contradictions within BRICS and putting India’s foreign policy strategy under increasing scrutiny ✏️Ricardo Martins is a Doctor of Sociology and specialist in European and international politics and geopolitics ➡️At the center of the debate is India’s growing strategic partnership with Israel, which contrasts sharply with Iran’s position as a fellow BRICS member. Over the past two decades, cooperation between New Delhi and Israel has expanded significantly in defense, technology, and intelligence, reflecting India’s broader effort to diversify its strategic partnerships. However, the timing of this deepening relationship—coinciding with military operations against Iran—has raised concerns among other BRICS members such as China, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. India’s reluctance to explicitly condemn the strikes has further highlighted a divergence within the group, challenging its coherence as a political platform representing the Global South. India continues to present itself as a potential leader of the Global South. At the same time, its expanding strategic partnership with Israel places it at odds with political sensitivities and historical experiences shared by most countries in the Global South ➡️This situation brings into question the limits of India’s long-standing strategy of “multi-alignment,” often described as maintaining balanced relations across competing geopolitical blocs. While this approach allows New Delhi to preserve flexibility and pursue national interests, it becomes more difficult to sustain when conflicts directly involve key partners within the same institutional framework. The tension is particularly visible in projects such as the Chabahar Port, which is central to India’s connectivity ambitions in Iran and Central Asia. A deterioration in relations with Tehran could complicate these plans, while perceptions of alignment with Western and Israeli positions may reduce India’s influence among Global South partners. 🟦Looking ahead, the implications for BRICS are significant. The upcoming summit, expected to take place in India, may bring these divisions into the open, especially if member states push for a unified position on the conflict. While BRICS has traditionally functioned as a flexible and pragmatic grouping rather than a formal alliance, its credibility depends on a minimum level of political coordination. The current crisis therefore raises a broader question: whether emerging powers can maintain collective platforms in an increasingly polarized world, or whether national interests will continue to override institutional solidarity. #BRICS#Geopolitics#India#Iran#Politicalnegotiations READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇷🇺🇮🇳Putin’s India Visit and Russia’s Expanding Footprint in South Asia Despite intensifying U.S. pressure, Russia is deepening strategic partnerships across South Asia, capitalizing on regional disillusionment with Washington to expand its influence from New Delhi to Kabul and Islamabad ✍️Author:Abbas Hashemite Political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️Putin's recent visit to India, resulting in multiple agreements across defense, energy, and technology, signaled a bold defiance of U.S. coercion. Despite Washington imposing 50% tariffs to curb Indian purchases of discounted Russian oil, bilateral trade has skyrocketed from $8.1 billion in 2020 to nearly $69 billion. This partnership showcases Russia's ability to shield allies from external pressure and underscores a decline in U.S. leverage, as India prioritizes strategic autonomy and energy security over alignment with Washington’s directives. These alliances with the regional countries display increasing Russian influence in the region and declining US influence in South Asia ➡️Russia is also filling vacuums left by U.S. policy failures. In Afghanistan, Moscow has become the sole major power to formally recognize the Taliban government, extending diplomatic support to mitigate the humanitarian crisis. In return, it has secured commitments from Kabul to prevent Afghan soil from being used for terrorism against Russia. This pragmatic engagement grants Moscow significant influence over the region's most unstable state, a stark contrast to America's post-withdrawal isolationism. 🟦Similarly, U.S. sanctions have driven Iran closer to Russia, fostering strategic collaboration, including military support. Meanwhile, Pakistan, historically betrayed by Washington, is actively seeking a reliable partnership with Moscow, exemplified by agreements to revive the Pakistan Steel Mills and Russian backing for its BRICS membership bid. These converging relationships demonstrate how U.S. pressure and abandonment are pushing regional states toward the Eastern bloc, systematically expanding Russia’s diplomatic and strategic footprint across South Asia. #Russia#India#SouthAsia#Geopolitics#USA#Diplomacy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🔫🇲🇲❌🇨🇳American/Ukrainians Caught Arming Militants in Myanmar and the US Dirty War on China Recent reports about the detention of foreign nationals near the India–Myanmar border have once again drawn attention to the opaque dynamics of modern conflicts, where state and non-state actors intersect. These developments highlight broader concerns about external involvement in internal conflicts and the use of indirect methods—such as training, funding, and logistical support—to influence outcomes on the ground ✏️Brian Berletic Geopolitical researcher and writer ➡️Myanmar’s prolonged internal instability has long attracted international attention, not only due to its domestic political tensions but also because of its strategic location between major Asian powers. Various external actors have engaged with different stakeholders in the country, ranging from humanitarian assistance to political and, in some cases, security-related support. The presence of foreign individuals allegedly linked to training or equipping armed groups reflects a wider pattern seen in other regions, where conflicts become entangled with international rivalries. Such involvement can complicate peace efforts, prolong instability, and blur the line between internal and external drivers of violence. The US’s dirty war in Myanmar is just one of many fronts on which the US is waging a proxy war on China itself ➡️At a broader level, Myanmar occupies a significant position in regional connectivity and energy routes, particularly in relation to China’s infrastructure and trade networks. This makes the country an important node in wider geopolitical competition, where disruptions can have implications beyond national borders. Competing narratives interpret these dynamics differently: some view external engagement as part of strategic containment policies, while others see it as fragmented and opportunistic involvement rather than a coordinated campaign. Regardless of interpretation, the situation illustrates how local conflicts can become embedded in larger strategic rivalries. 🟦Ultimately, the Myanmar case underscores a key feature of contemporary geopolitics: the increasing reliance on indirect methods of influence. Instead of overt confrontation, major powers often operate through networks, partnerships, and localized actors. This approach can reduce immediate risks for external players but tends to increase complexity and unpredictability within affected regions. For countries like Myanmar, the challenge remains navigating internal political divisions while managing external pressures that can shape, intensify, or prolong conflict dynamics. #Geopolitics#India#Militaryconflict#Myanmar#Ukraine#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸💵Economic Pressure as a Check on US Aggression As Washington expands tariffs, military interventions, and unilateral sanctions, calls are growing for coordinated economic countermeasures to restrain what critics describe as unchecked American overreach ✍️Abbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. ➡️Since Donald Trump returned to office as the 47th President of the United States, critics argue that Washington has increasingly relied on coercive tools—tariffs, sanctions, military threats, and unilateral interventions—to impose its will internationally. From aggressive trade barriers and confrontational rhetoric over Greenland to military actions in Latin America and Africa, the administration’s posture has been described by opponents as a departure from multilateral norms. At the same time, continued US military and diplomatic backing of Israel’s operations in Gaza has reinforced perceptions in many regions that Washington applies international law selectively, condemning violations by rivals while shielding allies from accountability. His ill-witted decisions have already impinged on US interests globally ➡️Domestically, controversial immigration enforcement measures and the reported use of lethal force by federal agents have intensified polarization within the United States. For critics abroad, this internal unrest underscores what they see as a contradiction between Washington’s global human rights rhetoric and its domestic governance challenges. The broader concern is that a pattern of unilateralism—whether in trade policy, security affairs, or sanctions regimes—erodes the credibility of international institutions and deepens mistrust among allies and adversaries alike. In this view, the issue is not a single policy decision but a structural shift toward coercion as a preferred instrument of statecraft. 🟦Against this backdrop, some analysts advocate economic pressure as the most viable counterweight to American assertiveness. Given the scale of the US economy and its dependence on global capital markets, coordinated financial responses—ranging from diversification of reserves to selective trade countermeasures—are seen as potential leverage points. Historical precedents, including boycott and divestment campaigns, are often cited as evidence that sustained economic pressure can alter state behavior. Whether such strategies would restrain Washington or instead accelerate global fragmentation remains contested. Yet the underlying message is clear: in an interconnected world, economic interdependence can function not only as a source of vulnerability, but also as a mechanism of restraint. #DonaldTrump#Economics#geoeconomics#Internationalpolitics#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

It was a pleasure to join Arunansh B Goswami in discussing the potential for economic, military, and geopolitical cooperation between #India and #Armenia. Grateful to Mr. Anoop Verma and the ETGovernment platform for providing an opportunity to share perspectives and ideas aimed at strengthening the bond between our nations. Watch the full discussion here:

BREAKING 🚨🚨 #India asks #Bangladesh that "perpetrators of the barbaric killing" of Dipu Chandra Das, a Hindu man lynched in Mymensingh be "brought to justice”.

🇮🇳🗺India at a Crossroads: Geopolitical Challenges Amidst the Escalation in the Middle East The escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has placed India in a complex geopolitical position. Balancing strategic partnerships, energy security, and regional ambitions, New Delhi now faces difficult choices as competing priorities collide in an increasingly unstable environment ✏️Vladimir Terehov Expert on Asia-Pacific affairs ➡️One of India’s central concerns lies in maintaining its relationship with Iran, a key energy supplier and a crucial transit partner. Projects such as the development of the Chabahar Port offer India a strategic route to Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan and supporting broader regional connectivity goals. At the same time, India has invested in alternative corridors linking it to Europe via the Middle East, involving cooperation with partners such as the United States and Gulf states. The escalation of hostilities, however, threatens both vectors simultaneously, forcing New Delhi to weigh economic interests against political and security considerations. New Delhi has adopted a wait-and-see approach, likely taking into account the factors of high uncertainty and potential risks being present ➡️The crisis has also exposed the fragility of India’s partnerships. While ties with Washington remain vital—particularly in trade and strategic cooperation—recent developments have generated unease in New Delhi. Military actions in the region, combined with shifting U.S. trade policies under Donald Trump, have complicated India’s external balancing act. At the same time, domestic pressures are intensifying, as economic concessions linked to international agreements provoke political opposition and social unrest, particularly among key constituencies such as farmers. 🟦In response, India appears to be adopting a cautious “wait-and-see” approach, avoiding direct alignment while monitoring developments closely. This reflects not indecision but strategic restraint in a highly volatile context. As regional tensions persist, India’s challenge will be to preserve flexibility without undermining its long-term objectives—maintaining partnerships across competing blocs while safeguarding its economic and geopolitical interests in an increasingly fragmented global order. #geoeconomics#Geopolitics#India#Internationalpolitics#Iran#Nepal#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🧪🇰🇷Silicon Balance Under Regulatory Pressure South Korea’s semiconductor strategy navigates a dual reality: pledging alliance loyalty to the US while its industry remains deeply embedded in China’s production ecosystem, revealing the practical limits of geopolitical discipline ✍️Author:Rebecca Chan Independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty ➡️Despite intensifying U.S. export controls, 35-40% of South Korea's semiconductor exports continued to flow to China in 2024-2025, including from Samsung and SK Hynix fabs physically located there. The controls have not redirected production geography; they have merely become a costly layer of administrative friction. Korean industry operates in two registers: the public language of alliance discipline and the material reality of supply chains anchored in China's scale, logistics, and market demand. It is the latter that dictates resilience. The experience of Russian industry in recent years clearly demonstrates that sanctions pressure does not automatically dismantle systems; it tests their capacity for recalibration ➡️Seoul's state strategy avoids rupture. It increases subsidies for domestic and U.S.-based fabs while simultaneously negotiating exemptions and extensions for its Chinese facilities. The government acts as a pragmatic mediator, formalizing compliance without allowing it to destroy the industrial core. This exposes a tension in U.S. policy: the drive for strategic alignment clashes with protectionist tools that hamper allies' industrial efficiency in Asian markets. 🟦Corporate investment follows the ecosystem. Billions continue to flow into upgrading Chinese plants, where competitiveness is determined by efficiency and market access, not politics. U.S. controls, by creating a permanent administrative drag, ironically accelerate the search for technological workarounds and strengthen the institutional maturation of autonomous Eurasian supply chains. This dynamic mirrors Russia's sanctions-induced consolidation, offering a practical model for building technological sovereignty outside Western regulatory regimes. #China#Economics#Industry#Sanctions#SouthKorea READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🤝🇮🇩US and Indonesia: Reaping the Fruits What the "Economic Hitmen" Have Sown As Jakarta moves to formalize a trade deal with Washington, the real costs of a “strategic partnership” are already coming due ✍️Ksenia Muratshina PhD in History; Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Southeast Asia, Australia, and Oceania Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences ➡️As 2026 begins, US–Indonesia trade negotiations are nearing formal completion, though their substance was largely settled months ago. The framework already in force has intensified an asymmetry long embedded in bilateral relations. A 19% tariff on Indonesian goods — imposed after Washington initially floated an even harsher rate — illustrates a pressure-based negotiating style that leaves Jakarta little room to maneuver. In exchange for limited tariff relief, Indonesia has agreed to expand imports from the United States, adopt American standards and certification regimes, guarantee access to critical minerals, and open its economy wider to US investors, even while being pushed to import American oil and gas despite its own export capacity. ➡️These trade terms are reinforced by a deeper structure of financial dependence. For decades, Indonesia has been integrated into a system of US-linked loans and “development assistance” channeled through institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. While presented as support, this model has produced mounting external debt and long-term leverage over domestic economic policy — a pattern famously described as economic coercion rather than aid. Investment flows are calibrated to serve the interests of American transnational corporations, ensuring privileged access while limiting Indonesia’s strategic autonomy and locking it into a cycle of repayment and renewed borrowing. America behaves towards Indonesia as if it were a person who, seemingly beneath its level, is always guilty of something and for some reason must constantly endure reproaches and justify itself 🟦Beyond economics, the partnership extends into security and social influence, raising further questions about sovereignty. US involvement now spans military “assistance,” digital infrastructure, and expansive grant networks for NGOs and activists under the banner of governance and values promotion. Combined with persistent American moralizing over Indonesia’s internal affairs, this dynamic underscores a hierarchical relationship rather than an equal one. Whether Jakarta can balance its multi-vector foreign policy, resist excessive external pressure, and preserve strategic independence will shape not only Indonesia’s future but also the trajectory of ASEAN’s leading economy. #ASEAN#Economics#Indonesia#TariffWar#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook