World order in Trump era

The Strategic Pivot: Why India Must Play Its BRICS Card in a Shifting World Order

By Digvijay Mourya

For decades, the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy aspiration has been strategic autonomy—the ability to navigate the global stage on its own terms, unbound by the dictates of any single power bloc. Yet, the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century presents a paradox. While India’s economic and demographic heft is undeniable, its freedom of manoeuvre is increasingly constrained, particularly within a key relationship: that with the United States.

The Trump administration laid bare a uncomfortable truth: alliances are transactional. The past remarks and unpredictable diplomacy created a scenario where high-level engagements risked embarrassment rather than assurance. This wasn’t merely about personal chemistry; it signalled a deeper, structural shift. The American security strategy began to visibly diminish India’s once-hyphenated role, and platforms like the Quad, while important, saw their status fluctuate with political winds. The message was clear: in the American calculus, India is a partner of convenience, not an indispensable ally.

This reality check, however, is not a dead end. It is an opportunity for a profound strategic pivot. India stands at a unique confluence of attributes: a massive consumer market, a critical geographical position in the Indo-Pacific, and a military that, while aligned with U.S. frameworks for interoperability, maintains its independent core. But to truly "turn the tables," we must look beyond the traditional West.

Our crucial card is not in Washington; it is in BRICS.

The true game-changing potential of BRICS lies not in its political declarations, but in its foundational economic project: challenging the monopoly of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. For India, leadership in advancing this agenda is a masterstroke of strategic autonomy. It is the leverage we currently lack with the West. By actively shaping mechanisms for bilateral trade in national currencies and strengthening the New Development Bank, India can position itself as a pivotal bridge in the emerging multipolar financial system.

This necessitates a bold and pragmatic reassessment of our relationship within the bloc, particularly with China. The Himalayan standoff cannot be wished away; it is a serious territorial dispute. Yet, a foreign policy frozen in permanent hostility is a policy of diminished potential. We must compartmentalise. Can we engage in robust, frank dialogue on the border while simultaneously collaborating with Beijing on infrastructure investment in the Global South, climate technology, or digital governance frameworks within BRICS? The answer must be a calculated yes. Engagement based on specific, mutual benefit does not signify capitulation; it signifies mature statecraft. It allows India to balance its concerns at the border with its continental and global economic ambitions.

The path forward is clear:

1. Leverage the BRICS Presidency Aggressively: Use this platform not just as a diplomatic event, but as a launchpad for concrete initiatives on currency cooperation, climate finance, and digital public infrastructure exports. Make BRICS a vehicle for Indian solutions.

2. Become the Swing State: India’s unique position—engaged with the West but rooted in the Global South—makes it the ultimate swing state in the new world order. We should nurture this, refusing to be boxed into any single alliance.

3. Master the Art of Compartmentalisation: Pursue defence and technology partnerships with the U.S. and Quad members with vigour, while simultaneously building economic and institutional alternatives with BRICS. This multi-vector approach is the new strategic autonomy.

4. Invest in Continental Connectivity: Our future leverage relies on being a connected hub, not a isolated peninsula. This means proactive and relentless diplomacy to unlock projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor, reducing our strategic dependency on any single geography.

The era of waiting for a seat at the high table is over. India must now focus on building its own table, with chairs for many. The strained moments with a transactional U.S. are not a sign of our weakness, but a wake-up call to our unparalleled opportunity. By boldly playing our BRICS card—with pragmatic engagement, financial innovation, and unwavering focus on our own developmental power—we will not just adapt to the new world order. We will have a decisive hand in shaping it.

The question is no longer about how to manage great power rivalries. It is about how to become the power that manages the rivalries.

$38 trillion money magic

Title: The $38 Trillion Mirage: How "Money Magic" Could Erase Your Savings

Author: Digvijay Mourya

Date: October 28, 2025

A number just crossed our national dashboard that should freeze every American in their tracks: $38 Trillion. That’s the U.S. national debt, a figure so vast it feels abstract, a distant concern for economists and politicians. We’re told not to worry. "We owe it to ourselves," some say. "It's manageable," claim others.

But what if the plan to manage this crushing debt isn't about fiscal responsibility at all? What if the strategy involves a form of financial sorcery that directly targets the value of the dollar in your wallet and the savings in your bank account?

The terrifying truth is that traditional solutions—deep spending cuts or significant tax hikes—are now seen as politically untenable. So, the path of least resistance is being laid, and it runs straight through the Federal Reserve's money printer. This process is called debt monetization.

In simple terms: The Treasury needs to pay its bills and service its debt. Instead of finding the money through real economic growth or tough choices, it sells bonds. But who buys them? Increasingly, the Federal Reserve does—by creating new digital dollars out of thin air to purchase them. The government gets its cash, the debt is "held" by another part of the government, and the cycle continues. It’s borrowing without an obvious immediate consequence. A free lunch.

But as any student of history knows, there is no free lunch. The consequence is inflation. Not the transient kind we blame on supply chains, but a sustained, corrosive devaluation of currency. When you dramatically increase the money supply without a corresponding increase in goods and services, you dilute the value of every existing dollar. Your paycheck, your retirement fund, your life's savings—they all quietly lose purchasing power. This is a stealth tax, the most insidious kind, paid not to the IRS but to the relentless engine of monetary devaluation.

The accelerator on this engine is interest. The interest on our national debt is now the fastest-growing line item in the entire federal budget, outpacing defense and Medicare. As rates rise, the cost to service the debt explodes, forcing more borrowing just to pay interest—a classic debt spiral. To escape this spiral, the temptation to monetize becomes irresistible.

This isn't just doomsday speculation; it’s being dressed up in academic theory. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) provides the intellectual cover. It argues a country like the U.S., which borrows in its own currency, can never truly go bankrupt because it can always create more of that currency. Proponents see this as a tool for achieving public policy goals. Critics, myself included, see it as a blueprint for debasement, divorcing government spending from any real-world constraint.

So, how does a government enact this while maintaining an illusion of stability? Enter the concept of the "great repricing."

To offset the perception of a weakening dollar balance sheet, the state could orchestrate a massive revaluation of assets like gold or even Bitcoin. By changing accounting rules or embracing them as "strategic assets," their dollar value could be artificially inflated on official ledgers. Suddenly, the nation's balance sheet looks stronger—not through productivity, but through ledger-demain. This could coincide with a global shift as BRICS nations and others actively seek to dethrone the dollar, fleeing U.S. Treasuries and building alternative trade systems. The dollar's dominance, long our greatest financial shield, is cracking.

The endgame is a reset. A "great repricing" of everything. The true value of the dollar—the trust it represents—is recalibrated downward on the global stage. Foreign holders are impacted, but the real victim is the American saver, the worker on a fixed income, anyone who trusted that a dollar saved would be a dollar kept.

This is the core argument we must confront: The unsustainable debt will not be paid in today's dollars of equivalent value. It will be "paid" through inflation and a redefinition of value itself, eroding the real burden of the debt at the direct expense of your economic security.

The $38 trillion isn't just a number. It is a harbinger of a profound shift in how our government values its promises and our prosperity. To ignore it is to believe in magic. And in economics, when the government plays magician, the people are often the ones disappearing—along with the value of everything they've worked for.

Stay Vigilant. Stay Informed.

— Digvijay Mourya

The Geopolitical master strategy

A Faustian Bargain on the Steppe: How Trump’s Proposal Hands Putin the World

By Digvijay Mourya

In the high-stakes theatre of geopolitics, a single proposal can unravel decades of carefully constructed order. The recent suggestion from former President Donald Trump’s camp—to link peace talks in Ukraine with nuclear arms reduction negotiations with Russia—is not merely a policy idea. It is, in my analysis, a strategic capitulation disguised as diplomacy. It represents a monumental, and perhaps unwitting, victory for Vladimir Putin, one that risks rewriting the rules of global power in favor of autocrats.

At its core, Trump’s logic appears transactional: secure a flashy foreign policy win (a “deal”) to bolster domestic political standing. The premise is that by offering Putin the prospect of coveted nuclear negotiations—a long-standing Russian objective—the U.S. can extract concessions on Ukraine. But this is a profound miscalculation. It mistakes tactical maneuvering for strategic wisdom.

The Dangerous Precedent: Rewarding Aggression

The central, catastrophic flaw in this linkage is the precedent it legitimizes. It signals that a nuclear power can:

1. Violate international law and sovereignty by launching a brutal war of territorial conquest.

2. Use its nuclear arsenal as a shield, ensuring the West’s direct military response remains limited.

3. Then, sit at a negotiating table not as a pariah, but as an equal, trading its nuclear stockpiles for de facto acceptance of its stolen land.

This is not diplomacy; it is extortion rewarded. The post-World War II and post-Cold War norms—however imperfectly upheld—have been predicated on one non-negotiable principle: borders cannot be changed by force. To collapse Ukraine’s existential struggle for survival into an arms control chat is to dismantle that principle brick by brick. It tells the world that sovereignty is negotiable if you have a big enough gun.

Putin’s Masterstroke: The Long Game

While Trump may believe he is negotiating from a position of strength, he is playing directly into Putin’s long game. For the Kremlin, this linkage achieves multiple objectives:

· It Legitimizes the War’s Gains: Framing Ukraine’s territory as a “concession” Russia can make in a grand bargain inherently validates its illegal annexations.

· It Splits the West: It creates a rift between the U.S. and Europe, whose security is most immediately threatened by any deal that compromises Ukrainian sovereignty and emboldens Russia.

· It Resets the Power Dynamic: It elevates Russia to the sole, indispensable negotiating partner for the U.S. on the world’s two most critical issues: nuclear arms and European security, sidelining Ukraine and NATO in the process.

Putin doesn’t just want a piece of Ukraine; he wants to dismantle the U.S.-led security architecture. This proposal advances that goal exponentially.

The Domino Effect: An Invitation to Chaos

The repercussions would echo far beyond the Black Sea. What message does this send to Beijing watching Taiwan? To Tehran eyeing the region? To Pyongyang, forever brandishing its missiles? It tells them the American resolve is transactional and temporary. That perseverance pays off. That nuclear threats are the ultimate currency, and territorial aggression can be sanctified at the negotiating table.

The era of "might makes right" would be formally inaugurated. Why would any nation trust U.S. security guarantees if the ultimate lesson is that, under pressure, America might barter away an ally’s land for a headline-grabbing deal?

The Critical Test: Principles vs. Political Expediency

This moment is a critical stress test for American statecraft. The question before us is stark: Can the United States uphold the principles of a rules-based order that has, despite its flaws, provided relative stability and prevented great power war for decades? Or will it succumb to short-term political pressures, conceding to nuclear blackmail and trading another nation’s sovereignty for a perceived domestic win?

The stakes could not be higher. This is not about “ending a war” through a quick fix; it is about defining the nature of peace that follows. A peace built on rewarded aggression is a ceasefire before a larger storm. It undermines American global leadership, betrays allies, and emboldens adversaries in a single stroke.

True strength lies not in cutting a deal at any cost, but in defending the order that prevents stronger nations from devouring weaker ones. To abandon that now is not a display of pragmatic dealmaking. It is a retreat from the very idea of a just and stable world. For the sake of global security and the future of sovereignty itself, this Faustian bargain must be seen for what it is and rejected.

Kidnapping of president and strategic depth

The Caracas Gambit: How a "Victory" in Venezuela Became America's Strategic Trap

By Digvijay Mourya

The headlines screamed of triumph. The bold, clandestine U.S. operation that culminated in the capture of Nicolás Maduro was painted as a masterstroke – a reassertion of raw American power and a vindication of a "get tough" foreign policy. To the casual observer, it was a clean win: a dictator removed, a thorn plucked, dominance restored. But in the silent corridors of global strategy, where moves are calculated decades in advance, a very different sound echoed: the soft click of a trap snapping shut.

What the world witnessed was not a spontaneous American victory, but the meticulously staged climax of a geopolitical play designed to entangle the United States in its own backyard, to its ultimate detriment. The real victors aren’t in Washington; they’re in Moscow and Beijing.

The Engineered "Decisiveness"

The conventional narrative credits a resurgent, unilateral America for acting where others dared not. But ask a simple question: Why this moment? The instability in Venezuela was not new. The answer is that the casus belli was not organic, but engineered to force America’s hand at a time of maximum global vulnerability. The U.S. was not seizing an opportunity; it was reacting to a proviso baked into a larger equation. When we moved, we did so on a timetable set by our adversaries, not by our own strategic choosing.

The Orchestrated Backlash & The BRICS Pivot

The immediate, coordinated response from Latin America was the first clue this was no ordinary diplomatic fallout. Brazil and Argentina, regional giants, didn't merely issue statements of condemnation—they formally applied for BRICS membership within days. This wasn't panic; it was a plan executed from a pre-written script. Other nations, from Mexico to Chile, initiated a swift diplomatic distancing from Washington. The "Cuban military casualties" – whether tragic accident or cruel calculation – were amplified and framed not as collateral damage, but as a symbol of Yankee imperialism reborn, a potent emotional trigger to unite the hemisphere against the colossus of the north.

This collective shift wasn't spontaneous solidarity; it was the activation of a long-prepared contingency plan, a network of diplomatic and strategic agreements waiting for the catalyst. Russia and China, through years of economic investment, military cooperation, and political dialogue, had built the rails on which this backlash would travel. The U.S. operation simply provided the locomotive.

The Silent S-400s: A Masterstroke of Deception

Perhaps the most telling detail was the silence of the Russian air defense systems guarding Caracas. The formidable S-400 batteries, capable of turning the skies into a firestorm, remained dormant. They were not defeated; they were switched off.

This was psychological warfare at its most sophisticated. By allowing the U.S. operation to proceed unmolested, Russia created a devastating dual perception:

1. For the U.S. Public: An illusion of overwhelming, unchallengeable military supremacy.

2. For Latin American Militaries: A terrifying demonstration of American willingness to bypass sovereign defenses and a stark revelation that their own Russian/Chinese-supplied systems might be unreliable or subject to remote political control.

The result? Washington grows overconfident in its military dogma, while regional states lose faith in both American restraint and the absolute integrity of their non-American security partnerships. It sows distrust in all directions, except toward the architects of the chaos.

The Grand Strategic Diversion

The Caracas gambit’s true genius is its role in the global chessboard. As the U.S. is forced to pour diplomatic capital, military resources, and national attention into stabilizing Venezuela (a quagmire by any definition), its capacity to support Ukraine is inevitably diluted. This relieves immense pressure on Russia, allowing it to consolidate gains and outlast Western resolve.

Simultaneously, as American carriers and policymakers look south, China moves. Its incremental, bold advances in the South China Sea continue unabated. Military installations are fortified, gray-zone tactics intensify, and regional neighbors are left with the chilling certainty that America’s focus—and its protective umbrella—is elsewhere.

The Foreshadowing: Taiwan and the Pattern of Traps

Venezuela is not an anomaly; it is a blueprint. It is a live-fire exercise in how to manipulate American tactical reflexes into a strategic defeat. Observe this pattern closely, for it will be refined and reapplied.

The ultimate test will be Taiwan. Can we not foresee a scenario where a crisis is engineered, seemingly demanding a decisive U.S. military response, only to reveal itself as a calibrated trap? A trap designed to stretch U.S. forces thin, shatter its alliance system in Asia, and provide cover for simultaneous aggression elsewhere? The playbook has been written in Caracas.

The Urgent Need for Deeper Sight

The capture of a single man is a headline. The reshaping of a hemisphere’s allegiance and the diversion of a superpower’s focus is history. We must learn to see beyond the "victory." We must train ourselves to look for the second- and third-order effects, the silent systems, and the prepared responses.

In the 21st century, victory is no longer captured on camera with a defiant figure in handcuffs. It is achieved in the quiet aftermath, in the treaties signed, the alliances shifted, and the resources diverted. By that measure, in the hills of Caracas, America won a battle. And in the process, it may have taken a fateful step toward losing something far greater.