Latest news with #anti-Western
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
On Donald Trump's ‘dead economies' remark, ex-Russia president's ‘Dead Hand' comeback
Former Russian President and deputy chairman of Russia's security council Dmitry Medvedev issued a warning to US President Donald Trump, reminding him of how dangerous those he labels 'dead' could be. Dmitry Medvedev (R) said that Donald Trump's remarks only showed that Russia was doing everything right, and it should continue on the same path.(Reuters) In a post on Truth Social, Trump had said, "I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together." The US President further singled out Medvedev in his post and took a swipe at him: "Let's keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!" Trump's remark on the two nations' economies came a day after he announced 25 per cent tariffs on India, plus a penalty for its purchases from Russia. He had disapproved of India's defence deals with Russia and said, "Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE — ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!" Meanwhile, Medvedev said that Trump's remarks only showed that Russia was doing everything right, and it should continue on the same path. "If some words from the former president of Russia trigger such a nervous reaction from the high-and-mighty president of the United States, then Russia is doing everything right and will continue to proceed along its own path," Medvedev said in a post on Telegram. Responding to Trump's remarks on Russia's economy, Dmitry Medvedev said, "As for the talk about the 'dead economies' of India and Russia, and 'entering dangerous territory' - maybe he should recall his favourite movies about 'the walking dead', and also remember how dangerous the fabled 'Dead Hand', which doesn't even exist, could be." The 'Dead Hand' is a reference to a secret semi-automated Russian command system, which is designed to launch Moscow's nuclear missiles if its leadership is eliminated in a deadly strike by an enemy, a Reuters report said. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Medvedev has emerged as one of the Kremlin's most outspoken anti-Western leaders. Though some Kremlin critics ridicule him as an 'irresponsible loose canon', some Western diplomats say that his remarks give a flavour of thinking in Russia's policy-making circles. Earlier as well, Trump had hit out at Medvedev, accusing him of throwing around the "N (nuclear) word" after Russian officials criticised the US strikes on Iran and said that a "number of countries" were ready to provide Iran with nuclear warheads. "I guess that's why Putin's 'THE BOSS'," Trump had said.
NBC News
14 hours ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Russia claims capture of Ukrainian stronghold Chasiv Yar; Kyiv denies loss
Russia claimed Thursday to have captured a key Ukrainian town after more than 16 months of intense fighting, while unleashing a deadly seven-hour drone assault on Kyiv that offered no hint of agreeing to President Donald Trump's demands to end its war. One Ukrainian military spokesman denied Moscow's claims that it had captured Chasiv Yar, saying Russian troops had only raised their flag over a part of the strategically important town they had occupied months ago. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced its capture in a short statement, another sign the Kremlin shows little appetite for the ceasefire that Trump has demanded. On Tuesday, Trump — whose historical warmth toward Putin has chilled significantly in recent weeks — said that he would start imposing tariffs and other measures on Moscow if it did not agree to a peace plan in 10 days. While Russia was declaring victory in Chasiv Yar, it was launching hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv. It fired at least 308 drones and eight cruise missiles, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Most of these were shot down, but more than two dozen struck their target, it said. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at least six people had been killed, including a 6-year-old boy. 'Today, the world again saw Russia's response to our desire for peace with America and Europe: new demonstrative killings,' he said in his nightly address. He said that 'peace without strength is impossible' — reiterating his war-long mantra that Ukraine needs more arms 'to force Moscow to peace' and 'to make them sit at a real negotiating table.' Ukraine denies key town has fallen With a pre-war population of just 12,000, Chasiv Yar today lies in ruins following more than a year of attritional warfare between the Russian invaders and Ukraine. Its significance owes to its key position en route to key "fortress" cities in the Donetsk region, including Kostiantynivka, Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. Victor Trygubov, spokesman for Ukraine's troops in the Khortytsia region, denied that Russia had made the key gain. "As usual, they once again raised a flag at the occupied part of the town, which they took about a half year ago," he said, while spreading "false information information that they control all of the town." It was not immediately possible to independently verify either sides' statements. NBC News has visited Chasiv Yar several times before, including in Feb. 2024 when its remaining residents expressed their frustration at what they saw as an insufficient amount of aid being contributed by the West. One piece of graffiti in the town read: 'We are not asking too much. We just need artillery shells and aviation. Rest we do ourselves," signed: "Armed Forces of Ukraine.' Ukrainians do not see this as charity: For them, and many of their supporters in the United States and Europe, Ukraine's fight against Russia is synonymous with the wider struggle to contain President Vladimir Putin's anti-Western aggression. 'During the last two years I got used to keeping my emotions inside, but sometimes you just want to scream,' the town's mayor, Serhiy Chaus, said back then of his frustrations at this perceived insufficient support.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Can China save South Africa from Donald Trump?
SOUTH AFRICA is a country with a dark past and a frustrating present. In such a society, to represent the future is a glorious thing. For many South Africans, China holds the keys to a better tomorrow. To its admirers, China represents a timely alternative to a West that is turning inwards, cutting aid and tightening border controls. If America imposes 30% tariffs on South Africa on August 1st, as it says it will, their country has options, they say. China long ago overtook America as South Africa's largest trading partner, with two-way trade growing 25-fold this century. A Chinese maker of electric cars, BYD, is said to be scouting for South African factory sites. Public opinion is marked by racial divides. Asked by the Social Research Foundation, a think-tank, whether Russia and China provide more investment and jobs than America and the EU, 59% of black South Africans agreed, but only 34% of whites. Geopolitics inspires more caution. Asked whether South Africa should pursue anti-Western foreign policies aligned with China, Iran and Russia, 41% of black respondents and 12% of whites said yes. A narrow majority of all said no. In Johannesburg boardrooms and Cape Town cafés where politicians gossip and scheme, there is agreement about China's importance and alarm at lopsided trade. South Africa exports mainly raw materials and minerals to China while importing manufactured and capital goods, running a trade deficit of $9.7bn in 2023. Diplomatically, South Africa has moved away from a tradition of non-aligned pragmatism. It now often backs Chinese positions in the BRICS, the G20, the UN and other forums. But centrist politicians and business leaders reject the notion, heard on the left of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), that closer alignment with China avoids the need to mend fences with the West. South Africa's relations with America, notably, are at their worst since apartheid ended. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have threatened sanctions for some invented crimes, starting with what Mr Trump falsely claims is a genocidal campaign, egged on by South African officials, to kill white farmers and take their land. But real disputes have soured relations, too. These touch on everything from South Africa's sponsorship of genocide charges against Israel at the International Court of Justice, to its commercial and diplomatic ties with Russia and Iran. Relations with Europe have also been frosty in recent years, says a Western envoy, though the EU is currently wooing South Africa as a swing state in the global south. In his capacity as agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen sees 'huge opportunity for South Africa in China', with farmers eager to sell citrus fruit, wine and nuts to Chinese city-dwellers. But as the leader of the Democratic Alliance, a business-friendly party in coalition with the ANC, Mr Steenhuisen says: 'Those who think we can say goodbye to the West and look at China haven't checked the numbers.' He notes that 75% of foreign investment to South Africa is from America, Britain and the EU, which will be hard to replace 'in the short and medium term'. Morris Mthombeni, dean of the University of Pretoria's Gordon Institute of Business Science, calls it 'naive' to think that South Africa can afford to lose its trade with the West. China buys large volumes of commodities, but 'in terms of diversity of trade, the West is more important. Trade with China and with the US are not substitutable.' A researcher at the China-Global South Project, Cobus van Staden, sees ideological affinity guiding some ANC politicians. As veterans of a liberation movement with Marxist roots, they admire China's Communist Party for combining economic growth with central planning and a big state-owned sector. 'The problem is that China builds that on top of a hugely competent technocracy, which isn't the case in South Africa,' he notes. Modern-day Chinese party cadres are more entrepreneurial than South African bureaucrats. 'The line you hear from Chinese diplomats is they would like to do more with South Africa, but they find it over-regulated. They're frustrated at the number of hoops they have to jump through,' reports Mr van Staden. For that matter, it is common to hear South Africans frustrated at the reluctance of Chinese firms to transfer technologies and high-value skills when they open factories in South Africa, or to promote Africans to senior positions. In his embassy in Pretoria, its design a nod to grey-walled Chinese courtyard mansions, China's ambassador, Wu Peng, denies that his government imposes any 'artificial technical barriers' to technology transfers by companies. On the contrary, he says, China encourages firms to bring capital, technology and skilled personnel to South Africa, for instance in such fields as automobiles, batteries, renewable energy and pharmaceuticals. Yet conditions must be ripe. 'You cannot reach industrialisation in one day. You need your economic structure to be more competitive,' advises the ambassador. China's model of modernisation holds 'strong appeal' for many African countries, Mr Wu avers. But China 'never, ever' lectures African governments about the best path to take. China: not a trump card against Trump South Africa's dysfunction and red tape (eg, rules requiring ownership stakes for non-whites) harm it. Because electricity is so expensive and unreliable, it is profitable to mine chromium ore in South Africa and ship it to China for smelting, laments Songezo Zibi, the head of a small centrist party, Rise Mzansi. He describes China's current relationship with his country as 'unhelpfully extractive', urging South Africa to seek deeper, more sustainable ties with both China and the West. Bluntly, there is no magic China solution. Hard reforms are needed, as well as balanced foreign relations. Otherwise, whether the future is Chinese or not, South Africa will be left behind. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Economist
2 days ago
- Business
- Economist
Can China save South Africa from Donald Trump?
SOUTH AFRICA is a country with a dark past and a frustrating present. In such a society, to represent the future is a glorious thing. For many South Africans, China holds the keys to a better tomorrow. To its admirers, China represents a timely alternative to a West that is turning inwards, cutting aid and tightening border controls. If America imposes 30% tariffs on South Africa on August 1st, as it says it will, their country has options, they say. China long ago overtook America as South Africa's largest trading partner, with two-way trade growing 25-fold this century. A Chinese maker of electric cars, BYD, is said to be scouting for South African factory sites. Public opinion is marked by racial divides. Asked by the Social Research Foundation, a think-tank, whether Russia and China provide more investment and jobs than America and the EU, 59% of black South Africans agreed, but only 34% of whites. Geopolitics inspires more caution. Asked whether South Africa should pursue anti-Western foreign policies aligned with China, Iran and Russia, 41% of black respondents and 12% of whites said yes. A narrow majority of all said no.
The Print
7 days ago
- Business
- The Print
India uses BRICS to push reforms—not to challenge the US
These nations are now challenging the hegemony of the West. Calls for de-dollarisation—reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance— are becoming prominent, posing a threat to America's financial and geopolitical dominance. It gives China and Russia (and India too) a louder voice on the world stage. It fuels global economic realignment away from the dollar and Western institutions, pointing to a multipolar world order—something that US President Donald Trump doesn't support. Although forming groups of countries to promote cooperation is common globally, BRICS is more than a conventional grouping. It is a group of countries challenging the clout of the developed powers, particularly the US and European nations. In 2010, the first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—constituted 18 per cent of the global GDP. Their collective share has risen to 26.5 percent in 2025. The latest edition of the BRICS Summit was significant because all 10 member countries participated. It included Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, which attended as member states for the first time at the 2024 summit in Russia, and Indonesia, which joined in early 2025 as the first Southeast Asian country in the bloc. With its expansion, the group is now known as BRICS Plus—a term first used at the 2024 summit. Trump's worries with BRICS The recent expansion of BRICS, with five new members joining, has increased the worries of the West, particularly the US. And without mincing words, Trump has started expressing his unhappiness over the developments happening in BRICS. Here are the key reasons why Trump opposes BRICS: The primary reason is that both the original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and new entrants like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia are openly discussing reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance. Trump's long-standing 'America First' stance makes any move away from the dollar a direct challenge to U.S. economic influence and its ability to enforce sanctions. The second point that irks Trump is BRICS' geopolitical opposition to the West. BRICS increasingly positions itself as a counterweight to Western institutions like the G7, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. The deepening ties between China and Russia within BRICS are seen as part of a broader anti-Western alignment. Third, Trump has consistently taken a hardline stance on China, through trade wars, tariffs, tech and investment restrictions, etc. BRICS giving China a leadership platform to challenge the US on the global stage agitates him. He views BRICS as a vehicle for China's global expansion under the guise of multipolarity. Fourth, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Iran gives BRICS influence over global energy markets. There is growing potential for oil trade to be conducted in non-dollar currencies (e.g., yuan or BRICS currency), which would weaken the petrodollar system—a critical pillar of US global economic power. Fifth, Trump perceives BRICS expansion as a sign that the 'Global South' is drifting away from Western influence, forming its own independent bloc. This runs contrary to Trump's vision of negotiating 'from strength,' where US dominance is unquestioned. Sixth, Trump views global influence in zero-sum terms. Any rise of a non-Western grouping that excludes the US is seen as a personal and national affront. BRICS summits that propose alternative visions for world order without US involvement are perceived as a threat to 'American prestige'—something Trump values highly. He has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries siding with the BRICS. He has already announced the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on Brazil. Also read: BRICS nations resist 'anti-American' label after Trump tariff threat India's pragmatic approach Although India is a member of BRICS, its approach is more nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic compared to other members. India's stance is shaped by its national interests, strategic autonomy, and growing global ambitions. While it has been trying to promote its economic interests by promoting international trade and settlements in rupee—thereby reducing dependence on dollar—India is not anti-dollar. It supports a broader effort to diversify the global financial system, reduce dependency on a single currency, and promote a multipolar world order. India has initiated bilateral trade in rupees with countries such as Russia, the UAE, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius to reduce its forex outflows. So far, more than 20 countries have opened Vostro accounts to facilitate trade settlement in domestic currencies. India backs BRICS to create alternative payment mechanisms, like using local currencies or discussions around a potential BRICS currency, but remains cautious about their practicality. India understands the dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance and has not called for its outright replacement (or de-dollarisation). Instead, it favors the coexistence of multiple reserve currencies (like the euro, the yuan, and the rupee). India does not see BRICS as an anti-US bloc. It views the grouping as a platform for reforming global institutions, not for confrontation. India supports a world with multiple power centres, where the voices of emerging economies are better represented. India has been pleading for long to bring reforms in institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, which it believes are West-dominated and don't reflect current global realities. In this context, under India's G20 presidency, an expert group was formed to prepare a report on reforms for global financial institutions. This group was co-convened by economists Larry Summers and NK Singh. Their report focused on strengthening Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Guided by its own objectives, India uses BRICS to promote cooperation in technology, finance, infrastructure, and sustainable development. If the US is irked by Chinese dominance in BRICS, India too remains wary of China's influence in the bloc and rejects any behaviour that undermines its sovereignty or aligns too closely with Chinese interests. At the global level, India's balanced approach is to serve its national objectives and achieve its goals of protecting its national sovereignty. By promoting international settlements in Indian currency, reducing dependence on dollars, it's also trying to stop the de-weaponisation of dollars. India is promoting self-reliance through 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat', and discourages efforts of others (both the West and China) to weaponise global value chains. By promoting digital rupee payments, India is also trying to de-weaponise payment systems. These efforts protect our own national interest by not allowing others to dominate India. In the past, India has been able to demonstrate its clout by purchasing oil from Russia and Iran, promoting digital payments and pushing for reforms in global institutions at international fora. It's interesting that the US has not objected to these moves—perhaps looking at India as a force to balance the dominance of other countries, including China. Ashwani Mahajan is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
