Connect with us

World

China-India Conflict a Potential Threat to BRICS Association

Published

on

BRICS leaders

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

The tension between China and India threatens to paralyse BRICS – the association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. While struggling to expand and influence on the global stage, China and India have locked horns over issues in their bilateral relations, ranging from border security to trade conflicts and information war.

The latest strains began in early May and culminated in hand-to-hand fighting in the Galwan Valley, a remote stretch of the 3,380-kilometre (2,100-mile) Line of Actual Control – the border established following a war between India and China in 1962 that resulted in an uneasy truce.

Punsara Amarasinghe, a former research fellow at the Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and now a PhD candidate in international law at the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, Italy, argues that this tension is rather ironic given that in the past the two countries shared many civilisational values and both were victims of Western colonialism.

When India gained independence in 1947 from the British, its first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru built a rapport with Communist China by accepting the government of Mao Zedong with great anticipation that both China and India would become the stalwarts in the global campaign against Western imperialism. For example, it was Nehru’s idea that China should be granted a place in the non-aligned movement despite some of opposition from some members at the famous Bandung Conference in 1955.

However, the comity between the two nations was short-lived as China claimed the territory near Arunachal Pradesh whereas India adhered to the line of control known as the McMahon Line established by the British under the 1914 Simla Convention with the consent of Tibet. From the 1950s onwards, China showed its interest in the Aksai Chin area albeit its cordial relations with Nehru’s India. This long dispute finally ended in military escalation in 1962 and became known as the Sino-Indian War.

While acknowledging that some other issues have marred their relationship apart from the current border conflict, Amarasinghe told this article author that “both China and India have longed for global governance as emerging powers, and particularly, the influence expanded by China in South Asia has rapidly increased India’s doubt on China’s presence. Secondly, China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative project has encircled India geopolitically, creating a plethora of doubts about India’s state apparatus.”

He added that the notion of nuclear weapon strategies and India’s affinity with the USA are the biggest dilemmas that China has persistently had in dealing with India. Moreover, India has been the sanctuary for Tibetan refugees, including the Dalai Lama.

As to the fundamental question of whether all these issues put together could reappear in future, Amarasinghe emphasized: “Having looked at the trajectories of the history of Indo-China conflict, one can ascertain that the India-China issue has always been imbued with a question of power. Both states are yearning for global governance. Yet India is ahead of the curve as the world’s largest democracy and a state with one of the strongest soft powers, making the Indian narrative stronger, whereas Beijing is known for its autocracy.”

On the other hand, he reminded, “We should not forget that the pact signed between China and India in 1996 clearly says that two states cannot use firearms in a border dispute escalation. However, there have been several events that have shown the acts of aggression in the Indo-China border conflict. The Chinese efforts to build a road in the Doklam area near the border created a tense situation in 2017. Three years after that event, the conflict erupted again.”

China’s Foreign Ministry stipulated measures that would be implemented to normalise the situation and prevent future armed conflicts. “The sides welcomed the developments of relations between defence agencies and the external affairs ministries, agreed to support such consultations in the future and implement agreements that were reached by the two sides during the talks between the border troops commanders, as well complete as soon as possible the process of frontline troop withdrawal,” read a ministry statement.

The Foreign Ministry noted that the sides also reached an agreement to implement measures to “prevent the reoccurrence of incidents which may influence the situation and peace in the border region.”

“The relationship of China and India underwent various trials and their progress towards modern development was not always swift. As had been recently demonstrated correctly, and at the same time incorrectly, by the recent incident in the western sector of the China-India border in the Galwan River valley, China will continue to assert its territorial sovereignty as well as peace and tranquillity in the border region,” according to the statement.

The sides expressed readiness to respect the agreements achieved previously by the heads of state, pay specific attention to the issue of state borders and prevent “disagreements from becoming conflicts.” The sides also confirmed their adherence to the earlier agreements on the state border and expressed readiness to implement measures to normalise the situation in the border region.

Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry is certainly not new, but today it has multifaceted implications for developments in the South Asian region and most possibly for BRICS. For example, in email discussions, Dr. Zhu Ming of the Institute for Global Governance Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS), noted that while there have been several disagreements between China and India, some have been resolved within the framework of international law but others have remained without comprehensive solutions.

Within the context of geopolitical alliances and emerging challenges, Tahama Asadis, a graduate of Strategic Studies from the National Defence University in Islamabad, noted the changing alliances and power equilibrium among the United States, China, India and Pakistan that bear key implications for inter-state rivalry and the consequent crisis dynamics in South Asia.

China has so far been successful in influencing South Asia because of many factors. One of the major reasons is that China has managed to project itself as a neighbour that would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, least of all, in the internal affairs of its friends and partners. In the light of its ‘Good Neighbour Policy’, China’s increased diplomatic and economic engagements in South Asia are aimed at enhancing its strategic influence in the region.

Professor Ian Taylor at the University of St Andrews in the United Kingdom explained that he did not see any long-term future for the BRICS as a coherent grouping on the world stage. According to Taylor, the China-India rivalry (as exemplified by border clashes) shows how shallow the alliance is. Furthermore, Brasilia has its own “Brazilian Trump” who sees alliance with the West as the way forward, not with other “developing countries”.

Originally, BRIC was a four-member alliance until South Africa officially became a member in December 2010, after formally being invited by China to join and subsequently being accepted by the founding BRIC countries. The group was renamed BRICS – with the “S” standing for South Africa – to reflect the group’s expanded membership. South Africa is a staunch member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

“South Africa is in terminal decline and was only admitted to the BRICS for politically expedient-politically correct reasons. Its membership damaged the group’s credibility. And of course, China will resist to the very end the notion that India be admitted to the UN Security Council as a Permanent Member,” Taylor explained, adding that so much for the vaunted “South-South solidarity” that the BRICS was supposed to represent and what all the noise was about when it was launched.

Zhu Ming holds conservative not so negative views on the future of BRICS amid India-China conflicts, giving two reasons. The first and most important is that Beijing is still keeping a low profile on this conflict. For instance, Chinese local media coverage of this conflict is still quite low, and Beijing has not revealed losses on the Chinese side in order not to form the impression of too huge a gap in losses between the two sides as to humiliate the Indian side. “Just imagine, if two people were fighting, the situation would be extremely hard to turn back to normal very soon. But if one side could keep relatively calm, the situation would be more optimistic.”

Secondly, the disputed land is not worthy of a war between the two countries. “However, the rising nationalist mood of India is a bit troublesome. BRICS is not nothing to New Delhi, it will not be a good option for India to quit BRICS. Since BRICS was formed jointly by five powers, China does not own BRICS,” he told this article author, adding, “It is a bit early to judge the prospects of BRICS. It is quite possible that the global and BRICS health governance system could be another rising cooperation field within the BRICS group after the forthcoming BRICS summit.”

“While there are no official claims from the Kremlin that Putin was brokering any negotiation between the two to reconcile the border dispute if Russia can make a good move in meddling with the Indo-China border conflict, I assume it will work to a greater extent. Given the history of Russia’s dominant role in South Asia since its Soviet past, Moscow has a greater capacity to play the role of mediator. Besides that, BRICS is a platform for emerging powers and its capacity cannot be discarded as a regional political talk shop. Thus, I believe BRICS would create some steps for a more amicable solution,” Amarasinghe concluded on an optimistic note.

Alicia Garcia-Herrero is Senior Research Fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel and Adjunct Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, noted in her article headlined “China Continues To Dominate An Expanded BRICS” published by the East Asia Forum that China has been the leading proponent of expanding BRICS to BRICS+. The main reason for the expansion was to make BRICS more representative of the developing world and give it a stronger voice on the global stage.

But the six countries invited to join — which has become five after Argentina’s withdrawal — are quite heterogeneous. Some are net creditors (such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), while others are net debtors and in a very weak financial position. Half of them are large exporters of fossil fuels (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran). Ethiopia and Egypt stand out as members from Africa, a continent that has become increasingly important for China’s and India’s foreign policy, according to Garcia-Herrero.

The BRICS countries are considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc of leading advanced economies, implementing competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS pay, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICS basket reserve currency. But in practical reality, China has large control and uses the platform to widen its economic influence. Most of the trade growth has been China-centric, with contributions from the rest of BRICS remaining quite flat until recently. Russia, with its limited economic impact, only remains an excellent public relations organizer for BRICS.

The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs, and all are members of the G20. Since its establishment in 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at several summits, with South Africa having hosted the most recent 15th BRICS Summit in August 2023. Currently, Russia is heading the rotating in 2024 and plans to push forward significant issues, particularly the association’s expansion and transforming it into an anti-Western coalition. Reports indicate about 40 countries, the majority in Africa and Asia have expressed readiness to join BRICS from the Global South. The association has three areas of strategic partnership: policy and security, economy and finance, and cultural and educational cooperation.

Between now and until October when Kazan will host the 16th summit, Moscow has scheduled various activities including the BRICS Games, BRICS Foreign Ministers, BRICS Academic and BRICS Parliamentary meetings, these aim at showcasing BRICS geopolitical influence and increasing coalition for building a fairer, better and multipolar world. It also operates based on non-interference and equality with the hope of ensuring members get mutual economic benefits in the world. BRICS has received both praise and criticism from academics, researchers, politicians geopolitical analysts and writers around the world.

The origins of BRICS — a bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and, as of 2024, new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — can be traced back to a 2001 publication by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill titled ‘Building Better Global Economic BRICs’. O’Neill argued that Brazil, Russia, India and China were poised to play an increasingly significant role in the global economy. BRIC was officially launched in 2009 and was renamed BRICS in 2010 when South Africa joined, and Russia will make history by admitting the largest ever in 2024.

The founding countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China held the first summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009, with South Africa joining the association a year later. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined on 1 January 2024 The five BRICS countries together represent over 3.1 billion people, or about 41 percent of the world population. The five nations had a combined nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 18.6 trillion dollars and an estimated 4.46 trillion dollars in combined foreign reserves.

World

Ukraine Reveals Identities of Nigerians Killed Fighting for Russia

Published

on

russia ukraine war

By Adedapo Adesanya

The Ukrainian Defence Intelligence (UDI) has identified two Nigerian men, Mr Hamzat Kazeem Kolawole and Mr Mbah Stephen Udoka, allegedly killed while fighting as Russian mercenaries in the war between the two countries ongoing since February 2022.

The development comes after Russia denied knowledge of Nigerians being recruited to fight on the frontlines.

Earlier this week, the Russian Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr Andrey Podyolyshev, said in Abuja that he was not aware of any government-backed programme to recruit Nigerians to fight in the war in Ukraine.

He said if at all such activity existed, it is not connected with the Russian state.

However, in a statement on Thursday, the Ukrainian Defence released photographs of Nigerians killed while defending Russia.

“In the Luhansk region, military intelligence operatives discovered the bodies of two citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria — Hamzat Kazeen Kolawole (03.04.1983) and Mbah Stephen Udoka (07.01.1988),” the statement read.

According to the statement, both men served in the 423rd Guards Motor Rifle Regiment (military unit 91701) of the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

UDI said that they signed contracts with the Russian Army in the second half of 2025 – the deceased Mr Kolawole on August 29 and Mr Udoka on September 28.

“Udoka received no training whatsoever — just five days later, on October 3, he was assigned to the unit and sent to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine,” the report read.

It added that no training records for Mr Kolawole have been preserved; however, it is highly likely that he also received no military training, but his wife and three children remain in Nigeria.

Both Nigerians, the report added, were killed in late November during an attempt to storm Ukrainian positions in the Luhansk region.

“They never engaged in a firefight — the mercenaries were eliminated by a drone strike,” UDI stated, warning foreign citizens against travelling to the Russian Federation or taking up any work on the territory of the “aggressor state”.

“A trip to Russia is a real risk of being forced into a suicide assault unit and, ultimately, rotting in Ukrainian soil,” the statement read.

In an investigation earlier this month, CNN reported that hundreds of African men have been enticed to fight for Russia in Ukraine with the promise of civilian jobs and high salaries. However, the media organisation uncovered that they are being deceived or sent to the front lines with little combat training.

CNN said it reviewed hundreds of chats on messaging apps, military contracts, visas, flights and hotel bookings, as well as gathering first-hand accounts from African fighters in Ukraine, to understand just how Russia entices African men to bolster its ranks.

Continue Reading

World

Today’s Generation of Entrepreneurs Value Flexibility, Autonomy—McNeal-Weary

Published

on

Tonya McNeal-Weary Today's Generation of Entrepreneurs

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) is the United States’ signature step to invest in the next generation of African leaders. Since its establishment in 2010 by Obama administration, YALI has offered diverse opportunities, including academic training in leadership, governance skills, organizational development and entrepreneurship, and has connected with thousands of young leaders across Africa. This United States’ policy collaboration benefits both America and Africa by creating stronger partnerships, enhancing mutual prosperity, and ensuring a more stable environment.

In our conversation, Tonya McNeal-Weary, Managing Director at IBS Global Consulting, Inc., Global Headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, has endeavored to discuss, thoroughly, today’s generation of entrepreneurs and also building partnerships as a foundation for driving positive change and innovation in the global marketplace. Here are the excerpts of her conversation:

How would you describe today’s generation of entrepreneurs?

I would describe today’s generation of entrepreneurs as having a digital-first mindset and a fundamental belief that business success and social impact can coexist. Unlike the entrepreneurs before them, they’ve grown up with the internet as a given, enabling them to build global businesses from their laptops and think beyond geographic constraints from day one. They value flexibility and autonomy, often rejecting traditional corporate ladders in favor of building something meaningful on their own terms, even if it means embracing uncertainty and financial risk that previous generations might have avoided.

And those representing the Young African Leaders Initiative, who attended your webinar presentation late January 2026?

The entrepreneurs representing the Young African Leaders Initiative are redefining entrepreneurship on the continent by leveraging their unique perspectives, cultural heritage, and experiences. Their ability to innovate within local contexts while connecting to global opportunities exemplifies how the new wave of entrepreneurs is not confined by geography or conventional expectations.

What were the main issues that formed your ‘lecture’ with them, Young African Leaders Initiative?

The main issues that formed my lecture for the Young African Leaders Initiative were driven by understanding the importance of building successful partnerships when expanding into the United States or any foreign market. During my lecture, I emphasized that forming strategic alliances can help entrepreneurs navigate unfamiliar business environments, access new resources, and foster long-term growth. By understanding how to establish strong and effective partnerships, emerging leaders can position their businesses for sustainable success in global markets. I also discussed the critical factors that contribute to successful partnerships, such as establishing clear communication channels, aligning on shared goals, and cultivating trust between all parties involved. Entrepreneurs must be proactive in seeking out partners who complement their strengths and fill gaps in expertise or resources. It is equally important to conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that potential collaborators share similar values and ethical standards. Ultimately, the seminar aimed to empower YALI entrepreneurs with practical insights and actionable strategies for forging meaningful connections across borders. Building successful partnerships is not only a pathway to business growth but also a foundation for driving positive change and innovation in the global marketplace.

What makes a ‘leader’ today, particularly, in the context of the emerging global business architecture?

In my opinion, a leader in today’s emerging global business architecture must navigate complexity and ambiguity with a fundamentally different skill set than what was previously required. Where traditional leadership emphasized command-and-control and singular vision, contemporary leaders succeed through adaptive thinking and collaborative influence across decentralized networks. Furthermore, emotional intelligence has evolved from a soft skill to a strategic imperative. Today, the effective modern leader must possess deep cross-cultural intelligence, understanding that global business is no longer about exporting one model worldwide but about genuinely integrating diverse perspectives and adapting to local contexts while maintaining coherent values.

Does multinational culture play in its (leadership) formation?

I believe multinational culture plays a profound and arguably essential role in forming the kind of leadership required in today’s global business environment. Leaders who have lived, worked, or deeply engaged across multiple cultural contexts develop a cognitive flexibility that’s difficult to replicate through reading or training alone. More importantly, multinational exposure tends to dismantle the unconscious certainty that one’s own way of doing things is inherently “normal” or “best.” Leaders shaped in multicultural environments often develop a productive discomfort with absolutes; they become more adept at asking questions, seeking input, and recognizing blind spots. This humility and curiosity become strategic assets when building global teams, entering new markets, or navigating geopolitical complexity. However, it’s worth noting that multinational experience alone doesn’t automatically create great leaders. What matters is the depth and quality of cross-cultural engagement, not just the passport stamps. The formation of global leadership is less about where someone has been and more about whether they’ve developed the capacity to see beyond their own cultural lens and genuinely value differences as a source of insight rather than merely tolerating them as an obstacle to overcome.

In the context of heightening geopolitical situation, and with Africa, what would you say, in terms of, people-to-people interaction?

People-to-people interaction is critically important in the African business context, particularly as geopolitical competition intensifies on the continent. In this crowded and often transactional landscape, the depth and authenticity of human relationships can determine whether a business venture succeeds or fails. I spoke on this during my presentation. When business leaders take the time for face-to-face meetings, invest in understanding local priorities rather than imposing external agendas, and build relationships beyond the immediate transaction, they signal a different kind of partnership. The heightened geopolitical situation actually makes this human dimension more vital, not less. As competition increases and narratives clash about whose model of development is best, the businesses and nations that succeed in Africa will likely be those that invest in relationships characterized by reciprocity, respect, and long-term commitment rather than those pursuing quick wins.

How important is it for creating public perception and approach to today’s business?

Interaction between individuals is crucial for shaping public perception, as it influences views in ways that formal communications cannot. We live in a society where word-of-mouth, community networks, and social trust areincredibly important. As a result, a business leader’s behavior in personal interactions, their respect for local customs, their willingness to listen, and their follow-through on commitments have a far-reaching impact that extends well beyond the immediate meeting. The geopolitical dimension amplifies this importance because African nations now have choices. They’re no longer dependent on any single partner and can compare approaches to business.

From the above discussions, how would you describe global business in relation to Africa? Is it directed at creating diverse import dependency?

While it would be too simplistic to say global business is uniformly directed at creating import dependency, the structural patterns that have emerged often produce exactly that outcome, whether by design or as a consequence of how global capital seeks returns. Global financial institutions and trade agreements have historically encouraged African nations to focus on their “comparative advantages” in primary commodities rather than industrial development. The critical question is whether global business can engage with Africa in ways that build productive capacity, transfer technology, develop local talent, and enable countries to manufacture for themselves and for export—or whether the economic incentives and power irregularities make this structurally unlikely without deliberate policy intervention.

Continue Reading

World

Russia Expands Military-Technical Cooperation With African Partners

Published

on

Military-Technical Cooperation

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

Despite geopolitical complexities, tensions and pressure, Russia’s military arms and weaponry sales earned approximately $15 billion at the closure of 2025, according to Kremlin report. At the regular session, chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 30, the Commission on Military and Technical Cooperation with Foreign Countries analyzed the results of its work for 2025, and defined plans for the future.

It was noted that the system of military-technical cooperation continued to operate in difficult conditions, and with increased pressure from the Western countries to block business relations with Russia. The meeting, however, admitted that export contracts have generally performed sustainably. Russian military products were exported to more than 30 countries last year, and the amount of foreign exchange exceeded $15 billion.

Such results provide an additional opportunity to direct funds to the modernization of OPC enterprises, to the expansion of their production capacities, and to advanced research. It is also important that at these enterprises a significant volume of products is civilian products.

The Russian system of military-technical cooperation has not only demonstrated effectiveness and high resilience, but has created fundamental structures, which allow to significantly expand the “geography” of supplies of products of military purpose and, thus strengthen the position of Russia’s leader and employer advanced weapons systems – proven, tested in real combat conditions.

Thanks to the employees of the Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation and Rosoboronexport, the staff of OPC enterprises for their good faith. Within the framework of the new federal project “Development of military-technical cooperation of Russia with foreign countries” for the period 2026-2028, additional measures of support are introduced. Further effective use of existing financial and other support mechanisms and instruments is extremely important because the volumes of military exports in accordance with the 2026 plan.

Special attention would be paid to the expansion of military-technological cooperation and partnerships, with 14 states already implementing or in development more than 340 such projects.

Future plans will allow to improve the characteristics of existing weapons and equipment and to develop new promising models, including those in demand on global markets, among other issues – the development of strategic areas of military-technical cooperation, and above all, with partners on the CIS and the CSTO. This is one of the priority tasks to strengthen both bilateral and multilateral relations, ensuring stability and security in Eurasia.

From January 2026, Russia chairs the CSTO, and this requires working systematically with partners, including comprehensive approaches to expanding military-technical relations. New prospects open up for deepening military-technical cooperation and with countries in other regions, including with states on the African continent. Russia has been historically strong and trusting relationships with African countries. In different years even the USSR, and then Russia supplied African countries with a significant amount of weapons and military equipment, trained specialists on their production, operation, repair, as well as military personnel.

Today, despite pressure from the West, African partners express readiness to expand relations with Russia in the military and military-technical fields. It is not only about increasing supplies of Russian military exports, but also about the purchase of other weapons, other materials and products. Russia has undertaken comprehensive maintenance of previously delivered equipment, organization of licensed production of Russian military products and some other important issues. In general, African countries are sufficient for consideration today.

Continue Reading

Trending