Czech Republic
Source: www.project-syndicate.org

More than a month into the US-Israeli war against Iran, the broader strategic implications are coming into sharper focus. While the two-week ceasefire has provided Donald Trump with a possible off-ramp, China, India, and other powers suddenly find themselves in a much stronger geopolitical position.

LONDON—With the United States and Iran agreeing to a two-week ceasefire, many are using this pause to wonder what, if anything, would allow US President Donald Trump to declare victory and end the fighting. One necessary condition, it seems, is the permanent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around one-fifth of the global oil supply flows. But even with the ceasefire temporarily reopening the Strait, Trump has not secured lasting stability for shipping. Of course, had Trump simply refrained from attacking Iran in the first place, the Strait never would have been closed.

The first month of the war delivered several other lessons. One concerns the Israeli leadership’s thinking. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knew that he could get Trump’s attention by presenting him with the prospect of a big, showy victory, and that this US administration would not pause to consider the second- or third-order consequences. Perhaps it was merely a coincidence that the strikes on Iran came soon after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, but perhaps not.

The apparent lack of US strategic planning points to a second lesson: The Gulf states’ trust in US security guarantees may not have been justified. While some leaders are quietly hoping that the war will still lead to a dramatic, positive change in Iran, hope is not a strategy—and their desired outcome looks increasingly unrealistic. The Iranian regime has already shown that there is no line it will not cross to ensure its survival and deter its enemies.

That is why it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this conflict will shift the region’s strategic balance eastward, toward rising powers like China and India. Along with Russia, both are central players in the BRICS+, which now includes Iran, and which has an opportunity to present itself as an inevitable leader of whatever new global order is emerging.

China is especially likely to play an important role in whatever follows from the war. Both it and Russia were almost certainly behind the push to include Iran in the BRICS’s expanded membership. At the same time, India will host the next BRICS+ summit this September, and it is relishing its newfound role as the de facto champion of the Global South, owing to its central geographic position in the 21st-century economy and its massive population.

Of course, India’s relationships with its immediate neighbors remain complicated. But even longstanding historical tensions are not deal-breakers. As Heiwai Tang and Brian Wong Yue Shun show in their edited volume Towards a Future for BRICS+, India has a strong interest in mining the potential for mutual benefits within the bloc. A top concern is access to Middle Eastern energy supplies, both for itself and for its neighbors.

In the new issue of our magazine, leading thinkers examine how recent developments, from the AI revolution to intensifying geopolitical volatility, are reshuffling the economic and financial deck and generating new winners and losers across the global economy.

Asian economies have been hit especially hard by both the energy price shock and the supply shortfall, and Iran knows that. Occasional statements over the past month suggest that Iran would welcome pricing oil destined for friendly countries in renminbi. These dynamics are even more pertinent in light of the increased role that Pakistan has played as a mediator between the US and Iran. If the Pakistanis help bring the energy crisis to a close, not even India could complain.
The war, if it continues, also has obvious implications for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s planned bilateral meeting, which has been rescheduled for mid-May. Whenever it does take place, Xi will probably feel that China has a strong hand, not only to apply leverage on Iran but also to drive a hard bargain with the US. Markets will be watching closely for any hints of possible developments ahead of the summit.

Given these converging forces, the rising efficiency of oil consumption, and the ongoing increase in alternative energy sources, I continue to doubt that this crisis will cause as much market turmoil as the 2008 financial crisis, the arrival of COVID-19, or the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
After all, Trump cannot afford to preside over rapidly rising gas prices as Americans head into their peak driving season—and then head to the polls for the midterm elections coming in November. His increasingly unhinged social-media posts suggest that he is beyond frustrated with the situation and desperate for an off-ramp. If the ceasefire doesn’t provide him with one, China may have a potential trump card.

South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

BRICS leaders at the 2025 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 7, 2025. BRICS 2026 offers host India an opportunity to deepen a global agenda rooted in the UN Charter and the Pact for the Future, says the writer.

THE current raging war in Iran and the wider Middle East once again raises pertinent questions about the coherence and feasibility of the BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and six other countries — namely Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Indonesia — which joined them over the past year).

These questions revolve around how feasible and coherent the group is and whether it can be, given the divergent and conflictual interests within and between its countries.

This question once again confronted the group when India, which presently chairs it, reportedly signed multibillion-dollar defence deals with Israel just hours before the United States and Israel launched heavy military attacks on Iran, killing its leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and other senior figures of the government.

Though the very conservative and indeed repressive and reactionary government of India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was always the weak link in the group, it is this action that raises this most important matter more sharply than anything he said or did before.

Indeed, it must represent a crucial turning point for the group. How the rest of the group and especially its founding leaders regard this matter will be of critical importance, upon their reflection on what happened.

There must be no doubt whatsoever that the unjustifiable, unlawful and terribly destructive war on Iran will invest the response of the rest of BRICS+ with an unprecedented sharpness. But the fact that it took place before this most brutal aggression against Iran will itself raise questions about the feasibility of the BRICS+ coalition as it is currently constituted.

The fact that Modi did not see a very serious violation of the integrity of BRICS+ by those military deals with Israel is itself very revealing of the incoherence and indeed fragility of the group. It also said much of him and his leadership, especially given the blatantly genocidal war of Israel in Gaza since October 2024.

While there are many other things that leaders of the group said and did in the past, which raised alarm bells about its makeup and purpose, this is the most damning and revealing development within BRICS+ to date.

Aiming to substantially increase its global influence, especially in relation to the West, led by the US, and its economic and financial domination since the late 1940s, the strategic significance of BRICS+ must be very clear. In fact, in opposition to global imperialism, led by the US, the birth and growth of BRICS+ is the most important development since the end of World War II.

But how is a coalition with many internal problems, weaknesses, and, in fact, fractures going to sustain itself and gain an appreciable momentum in its mission to build a formidable coalition against the Western world and forge a new world order?

While there might be weaknesses with the socialist Left who see BRICS+ in several respects as a sub-imperialist coalition, as in the book BRICS: An Anti-capitalist Critique, edited by Patrick Bond and Ana Gracia, there are certainly important elements in the book which draw sharp attention to instances which appear to lend credence to the notion.

For example, some actions by BRICS+ countries, such as South Africa, China and Russia, do indeed raise legitimate questions of sub-imperialism which we need to constructively and openly discuss and debate.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2024 and its dynamics are just one example of the kind of issues that we must openly discuss and debate. There are many other examples, such as relations between China and Taiwan or between China and African countries, as there might be between South Africa and other African states.

In fact, given our strong anti-apartheid history of activism, especially by trade unions, community organisations and social movements, it is incumbent to address any questionable or problematic issues in BRICS+ openly and honestly.

But the socialist Left also has to realise that given the enormous weight of the historical differences within it, it is inevitable that there will be many weaknesses, failures, inconsistencies and even contradictions within BRICS+, as alluded to earlier.

My point is that these matters must be raised in an open, constructive and fraternal spirit and not be exploited for ulterior motives. BRICS+ is here to stay, whether some on the Left like it or not. These are contentious matters that the socialist Left must itself openly debate among themselves and indeed with BRICS+ itself.

The main thing is that the more countries join BRICS+, the greater the impetus will be to pose, confront and answer those difficult questions.

It is also vitally important to acknowledge the fact that, for whatever weaknesses and failures there might be in BRICS+, it represents a very important development on the global stage and especially in forging an alternative anti-imperialist global order, which is based on equality, mutual respect and the sovereignty of each state.

It is these matters, even if we wish to point fingers at the countries mentioned above, as examples, that matter very much. It is within BRICS+ that these issues must be openly discussed, debated and decided upon, and not conveniently avoided.

But a major matter around which much common purpose and solidarity could be built and harnessed in BRICS+ and outside it is its New Development Bank (NDB), founded in 2015. Though there were great and indeed worrying teething problems, the NDB has become a very important institution for the funding of various projects, especially infrastructural.

The NDB was a critically important development because it gave rise to using it to progressively lessen its dependency on the nakedly imperialist International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US dollar, both of which have made great strides over the past few years.

The huge achievements of the de-dollarisation movement over the past few years are a direct consequence of the leading role in this regard by China and Russia, the biggest powers in BRICS+.

Today, with all its weaknesses, failures and indeed inconsistencies and contradictions, BRICS+ has achieved a lot under very difficult global circumstances, especially from the menacing aggression of the US, particularly since President Donald Trump was re-elected in 2024. It provides a potentially powerful fulcrum around which solidarity between civil society and itself can be built in the years ahead.

However, one of the big challenges facing civil society is that it is itself divided on how BRICS+ is seen and its own wider struggles against the imperialism of the West and its policies. On the other hand, there is the socialist left in civil society who are aware of the composition of BRICS+ and leaders such as Modi, which somewhat discredits it.

Yet Modi also earlier played an important part in the formation of BRICS and stressed then that it must be based on meeting human needs and aspirations. But on the other hand, he has done more than any previous leader of India to impose unprecedented repression on civil society activism there.
However, the global importance of BRICS+ is vividly evident from its size, geographic spread and control of and access to global resources. It represents around 45% of the global population, accounts for roughly 36% of global GDP and 20% of global trade.

Furthermore, its expansion in 2024 brought in the major oil producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE.

What furthermore enhances the strategic importance of BRICS+ is the indisputable fact, especially after the terrifying attacks on Iran by the US and Israel since February, that the legal framework governing disputes between countries has been increasingly under attack for a long time.

In this regard, the US and Israel have openly defied the authority of the United Nations. In fact, they don’t have any respect for it, and that has been a widely evident fact for many years.

What this means is that BRICS+ provides a platform not only for its own vision and mission, but also engages with wider issues which a new global order must represent. This noble objective fits in neatly with its overriding aim, which is to build a new world order, with a complete and irrevocable break from that past and all it represented.

On a sobering note, unless BRICS+ forges strong and enduring links with the organisations of civil society, especially the trade unions and community, their future will be imperilled. In fact, it must itself take the lead in building BRICS+ from below. This can only mean that it must turn more decisively towards the civil society currents which want to build BRICS+ from below.

The final few words are to call attention to the fact that the broad media urgently needs to place BRICS+ and the issues raised in this article much more often and more prominently in the media.

And did BRICS+ say and do enough to make its voice heard loud and clear about the brutal and ongoing war waged by the US and Israel against Iran? I don’t think so. Is it a result of a crucial crossroads? Yes.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: According to the latest data from OpenRouter, a global platform for working with APIs of large language models, last week the global volume of requests to such models reached 27 trillion tokens, an 18.9 percent increase compared to the previous week. At the same time, the total volume of requests to Chinese language models rose to 12.96 trillion tokens, up 31.48 percent week-on-week. Growth has now been recorded for five consecutive weeks.

How do you assess China’s achievements in the field of artificial intelligence? Do they open up new opportunities for expanding cooperation between Russia and China in the digital economy and technological innovation?

Maria Zakharova: Russia and China have traditionally shared similar approaches to information and communication technologies, including artificial intelligence. We are united in our conviction that attempts by certain countries to impose a neocolonial – now digital – dependence, to impose their values (or rather anti-values) and standards in the field of artificial intelligence on others without their consent or against their wishes, and to restrict others in developing their own technologies, are unacceptable. This is not our approach. We advocate the development of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in this sphere, aimed at strengthening digital sovereignty.

China’s significant achievements, which have placed it among global leaders in a number of areas of digital development, provide a solid basis for building systematic and long-term cooperation between our countries in digital technologies, including artificial intelligence. The successful practical application of advanced technological solutions makes it possible not only to exchange experience, but also to jointly develop new approaches to digital transformation and to adapt to current challenges.

In coordination with Beijing, we consistently promote, at international platforms, shared views on the need to create trusted artificial intelligence solutions, to respect state sovereignty, to uphold the central role of the UN in organising and coordinating relevant discussions, to ensure the responsibility of developers, and to recognise the right of states to exercise control over data flows within their jurisdictions. The establishment of a World Organisation for Cooperation in Artificial Intelligence could help consolidate these principles. The heads of government of Russia and China agreed to work jointly towards its launch following their 30th regular meeting in Hangzhou on November 3, 2025. We also intend to closely coordinate our actions within the recently established specialised UN platform, the Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance, whose first meeting is scheduled to take place in Geneva on July 6-7.

Our countries’ commitment to cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence is also reflected in international agreements. Last year, relevant documents were adopted within BRICS and the SCO: the Tianjin Declaration of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (September 1, 2025) and the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on Global Governance in Artificial Intelligence (July 7, 2025).

It is precisely this kind of cooperation that creates opportunities for the implementation of joint projects, the development of innovative products, and the introduction of advanced technologies in key sectors. Further priorities for cooperation have already been charted. Issues related to cooperation in areas such as the digital economy, artificial intelligence, and cross-border commerce are included in the agenda of the upcoming talks between our countries’ leaders.

In addition, just recently – only yesterday, in fact – our experts informed me that a textbook published by the Diplomatic Academy (now in its second edition), devoted to artificial intelligence and international security, has attracted the attention of SCO experts. As I understand it, the possibility of translating it into Chinese is currently under discussion as a practical step in advancing cooperation on international platforms.

South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

The United Nations has urgently appealed for international assistance for Cuba, where a worsening humanitarian crisis, driven by an energy blockade and compounded by natural disasters, is placing severe strain on public services. The call for support comes amid escalating political tensions between Havana and Washington, where US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are pursuing a hard-line yet diplomatically mixed strategy toward the island.

Humanitarian Needs Amid Fuel Shortages

UN Resident Coordinator Francisco Pichon said Cuba’s humanitarian situation has “reached a critical point” after a US-imposed oil blockade introduced in January 2026 disrupted fuel imports, causing prolonged electricity outages and limiting basic services. The shortfalls have forced the postponement of more than 96,000 surgeries and delayed childhood immunisations, with the elderly, disabled and women among the most affected. Although a Rus­sian fuel shipment arrived in late March, officials stress that urgent aid is still needed, particularly for healthcare, water and sanitation.

The UN has launched a Plan (Action Plan) to deliver assistance and promote more sustainable energy infrastructure, in solar power and water-pumping systems. However, the success of the plan depends on reliable access to fuel and additional funding, stifled by an unattained $68 million budget gap.  

A Trumpian Two-Pronged Strategy

Since early 2026, under Trump, the White House has expanded sanctions, declared the Cuban regime a national security threat and blocked most fuel imports, part of what critics describe as a strategy aimed at weakening Havana’s hold on power.

At the same time, Washington has engaged in undisclosed negotiations with Cuban officials, signalling a willingness to ease some measures. A recent Russian oil tanker was permitted to dock in Cuba, and the administration has indicated that future shipments could be reviewed “on a case-by-case basis.” Havana confirmed that talks with the US have taken place in an effort to address bilateral differences amid the crisis, though details remain scant.

This dual track, combining economic coercion with back-channel dialogue, reflects Trump’s bid to extract concessions from Havana while maintaining leverage. Secretary Rubio has framed any potential agreement in terms of both economic reform and political change in Cuba, urging that the island’s governance structures must evolve.

Escalating Rhetoric Between Leaders

Tensions this week were underscored by a public exchange between Rubio and Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel. In an exclusive Newsweek interview, Díaz-Canel warned that Cuba would resist any US military aggression with “guerrilla warfare,” declaring that while the nation strives for peace, it would defend itself if attacked.

Responding to that threat, Rubio dismissed Díaz-Canel’s warnings with a stark remark: “I don’t think much of what he has to say,” signalling a refusal to be swayed by Havana’s rhetoric and illustrating Washington’s confidence in its position.

Domestic Reactions and Opposition

Back in Cuba, public demonstrations have erupted in response to US policy. Hundreds of women marched in Havana, chanting support for the Castro legacy and denouncing “Yankee imperialism,” even as the government grapples with shortages of food and fuel. 

The situation remains fluid. UN and civil society actors continue to call for humanitarian access and an end to policies that exacerbate hardship for ordinary Cubans. In Washington, debates over how best to balance pressure and negotiation persist, with some lawmakers advocating for a reduction in rhetoric and increased dialogue.

As both humanitarian and geopolitical dynamics unfold, Cuba stands at a crossroads, confronting acute domestic needs while navigating one of its most complex foreign policy challenges in decades.

South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

The next generation of blood-thinning medicine might not come from a laboratory synthesising new chemical compounds.

The next generation of blood-thinning medicine might not come from a laboratory synthesising new chemical compounds. It might come from a forest. Specifically, from the wood of the common spruce and a breakthrough by Russian chemists at the Krasnoyarsk Science Centre of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences that has turned forestry waste into a molecule with pharmaceutical potential.

The research, published in February 2026, centres on galactoglucomannan, a natural biopolymer, or complex carbohydrate, that makes up a significant portion of spruce wood's structure. In softwoods like spruce, galactoglucomannan constitutes between 20 - 25% of dry wood, making it one of the most abundant natural polymers on earth and until recently, one of the most underutilised. The Siberian team extracted it directly from spruce sawdust, then subjected it to a chemical process called sulphation: the introduction of sulphate groups into the polymer's molecular structure. What emerged was not the same molecule. By varying the sulphation process duration from 30 - 180 minutes, the researchers obtained six novel sulphated derivatives with different degrees of substitution and the results at the higher end were remarkable.

The most heavily sulphated samples demonstrated anticoagulant activity, the ability to prevent blood clotting, that was a hundredfold greater than the original, unmodified polysaccharide. At the same time, those same samples were able to neutralise model free radicals by 96%. Two distinct therapeutic properties, amplified simultaneously by a single chemical modification. That combination matters enormously in pharmaceutical terms, because blood clotting disorders and oxidative stress frequently occur together in conditions like cardiovascular disease, stroke, and post-surgical recovery. A molecule that addresses both simultaneously, from a single natural source, is the kind of finding that justifies years of further research.

The significance goes beyond the numbers. Sulphation of the polymer proceeded without degradation of the main polymer chain, meaning the molecule was enhanced, not broken. This structural integrity is critical for biocompatibility: a material that fragments unpredictably in the body creates its own risks. The fact that the chain held while its biological activity was amplified suggests a level of chemical control that opens the door to precision design, what the researchers describe as the ability to specifically "tune" the properties of biopolymers for specific tasks in the future.

This is where the research sits at the intersection of two of the most important trends in modern pharmaceuticals. The first is the urgent search for alternatives to heparin, the most widely used anticoagulant in clinical medicine today, derived from animal tissue, with significant side effects including a dangerous immune-mediated condition called heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Plant-derived sulphated polysaccharides have been studied as candidates for heparin alternatives for decades precisely because they are biocompatible, non-toxic, and can be obtained without animal processing. What has held the field back is achieving the level of anticoagulant potency that clinical use demands. A hundredfold increase in activity over the base polysaccharide is a significant step toward closing that gap.

The second trend is the circular bioeconomy, the push to extract high-value products from what industry currently discards. The starting material for this research was a sawdust fraction from spruce wood grown in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, in other words, waste from the timber industry. The implications for sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing are real. If a molecule with strong anticoagulant and antioxidant properties can be derived from forestry byproduct at scale, it sidesteps both the ethical concerns of animal-derived medicines and the supply chain vulnerabilities of fully synthetic ones. Russia, with the largest forested land area on earth dominated by coniferous species, holds a significant natural advantage in this raw material.

There are caveats worth naming. The tests conducted were in vitro, meaning in controlled laboratory conditions rather than in living organisms. The path from a promising lab result to a clinically approved drug is long, expensive, and littered with compounds that performed brilliantly in a test tube and failed in a human body. Toxicity at therapeutic doses, bioavailability, and interaction with other medications all remain to be rigorously tested.

But the architecture of this discovery is sound, and its logic is compelling. Nature spent millions of years building complex carbohydrates into tree wood for structural reasons. Scientists are now learning that those same structures, with careful chemical modification, can perform functions the body needs urgently, stopping dangerous clots, neutralising the free radicals that accelerate cellular damage and disease. The spruce tree, it turns out, may have been quietly holding one of medicine's next answers all along.

South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

Trailing humanity like a shadow, war,sometimes justified as liberation, sometimes condemned as conquest, yet always leaving devastation in its wake. Across continents and centuries, it has uprooted families, erased homes, and fractured identities. The defeated are often dispossessed, vilified, or forced into exile, while the victor, at times, becomes the next oppressor. These cycles rarely disappear; they merely change form.

For generations, scholars, diplomats and peacebuilders have searched for ways to prevent such catastrophic eruptions. Political literature offers frameworks and warning signs: power imbalances, economic distress, nationalism, arms races, ideological extremism. Yet at its core, the analysis returns to a simple truth: war is waged by humans against other humans. Its ignition, escalation and restraint are ultimately shaped by the minds of those who lead and those who follow.

A Persistent Pattern in History

Recorded history offers no sustained era entirely free from armed conflict. Analysts examining roughly 3,400 to 3,500 years of documented history estimate that periods of relative global peace may have totalled only between 230 and 268 years. Conflict, in one form or another, has been a constant companion to civilisation.

The hope that the devastation of the Second World War would become “the war to end all wars” proved tragically optimistic. Rather than direct large-scale conflicts, the period after 1945 saw the rise of proxy battles, independence movements, internal conflicts, and tense global rivalries. Although international organizations were created to maintain peace, warfare evolved; becoming more about ideology, economics, technology, and irregular tactics.

Consequences of Fighting for Freedom

Wars are frequently portrayed as struggles for noble causes such as liberty, independence, justice, or protection. Movements for liberation have certainly brought down colonial regimes and overthrown oppressive rulers. However, history also shows that wars waged in pursuit of freedom sometimes end up substituting one form of dominance with another.

The aftermath frequently exposes a paradox. Infrastructure lies in ruins, economies collapse, and social trust erodes. Generations inherit trauma. Displaced people cross into foreign countries, searching for acceptance and a new home. Even after triumph, the price paid in human suffering can outweigh the achievements celebrated. While the flag of liberation may wave proudly, the wounds left by conflict persist long after the rhetoric fades.

Perspectives from Political Thought

Thinkers from ancient times to the present have debated the causes of war and how it might be prevented. Realists see conflict as a result of states competing for power in a world lacking a central authority. Liberals believe that democracy, economic ties, and global organisations make wars less likely. 

Marxist and critical scholars point to economic exploitation and deep-rooted inequalities as sources of violence. 

Meanwhile, psychological and behavioral perspectives focus on factors like fear, misjudgment, pride, and identity. Although these approaches differ, many agree on one key point: war is not always unavoidable, but rather arises from human decisions. While systems and structures matter, it is often the choices of leaders; shaped by pressure, ideology, or ambition; that determine whether nations pursue peace or conflict.

The Impact of Leadership

Those in positions of power have a profound influence on decisions about war. Leaders who hold concentrated authority, whether at the helm of authoritarian regimes or in fragile democracies, often encounter fewer obstacles when opting for military action. Factors like personal ambition, nationalist sentiment, or a drive to secure control can accelerate conflict.

On the other hand, political systems that distribute authority, promote transparency, and invite public scrutiny typically offer resistance to rash decisions about war. While these checks do not ensure lasting peace, they introduce moments for reconsideration and negotiation before violence erupts.

Humanity’s Turning Point

Armed conflict reveals both the vulnerability and the decision-making power of people. It demonstrates how easily emotions like fear and pride, along with power dynamics, can overshadow empathy and rational thinking. Yet, the same human traits that can ignite wars also provide avenues for peace: such as communication, diplomacy, understanding, and strong institutions.

Because humans are the ones who start wars, preventing them depends not just on formal agreements or deterrence, but on the ethical and emotional development of both leaders and societies. Human nature may swing between conflict and collaboration, but history shows that our path is shaped more by our decisions than by fate

China
Source: www.ndb.int

On April 8, 2026, the New Development Bank (NDB) successfully priced a dual-tranche Panda Bond totaling CNY 7 billion in the China interbank Panda Bond market, comprised of CNY 6 billion 3-year tranche at a fixed rate of 1.74% and CNY 1 billion 5-year tranche priced at 1.84%.

The transaction attracted robust demand from a diversified investor base, with the 3-year tranche achieving the oversubscription ratio of 1.69. For the 5-year tranche, the oversubscription ratio reached 2.27.

The NDB became the first Sovereigns, Supranationals and Agencies (SSA) issuer to use a claw-back structure in the China interbank Panda Bond market, allowing the Bank to reallocate bonds between tranches thereby optimizing both price and size.

“We are grateful to the diverse group of investors who continue to support the NDB on its mandate of mobilizing resources for sustainable development projects. The transaction deepens the Bank’s presence in the China Interbank Panda Bond Market with a cumulative issuance to date of RMB 87.5 billion, and it further strengthens NDB’s role as an innovative and regular issuer in the China interbank Panda Bond market,” said Mr. Monale Ratsoma, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, New Development Bank.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (ICBC) acted as the lead underwriter for the transaction, with Agricultural Bank of China Ltd. (ABC), Bank of China Ltd. (BOC), China Construction Bank (CCB), Export-Import Bank of China (China Exim Bank), CITIC Securities and China Galaxy Securities acting as joint lead underwriters.

Russia
Source: dialog.russia.ru

The Politics of the First Job: Designing a Common Platform for Opportunity in BRICS+

PREAMBLE: In a world that calls itself interconnected, the most valuable resource remains unevenly distributed: orientation. Never before has information been so abundant, and yet the ability to act on it has rarely been so unevenly distributed. The AI revolution has accelerated this divergence and compressed timelines across every sector. Studies already suggest what common sense confirms: those able to learn quickly, reposition themselves, and interpret fast-moving signals will thrive; those who cannot will face sharply reduced chances of upward mobility.

Yet the paradox remains that the group most capable of adaptation, the youth, is also the group least integrated into strategic planning. 

International development discourse still assumes that talent speaks for itself. It does not. Talent needs a structure. Without it, inequality is reproduced through something far more subtle than income or technology: access to the pathways that shape a life. Most young people can pass an exam, but cannot draft a CV. They complete degrees, but are never taught how to enter the labour market. They scroll through oceans of content, but cannot find the one scholarship or internship that would alter their horizon. BRICS+ states educate millions of capable students, offer thousands of funded study places, and invest heavily in human capital, yet large parts of their own youth remain unaware of these openings. In geopolitical terms, this informational fog obscures the landscape of talent mobility.
As Andrey Kortunov observed, BRICS faces a choice between remaining an international club or evolving into a laboratory that produces intellectual and institutional outputs. Human capital is precisely the field where this laboratory approach is needed[1].This is where our proposal begins.

BRICS+ Next-Gen Careers Hub aims to create a shared digital space where young people under 35 can access internships, jobs, research placements, scholarships, conferences, and early-career opportunities across all BRICS+ states. A place where orientation itself becomes infrastructure.

RELEVANCE: Youth unemployment remains persistently higher than adult unemployment, while broader indicators such as NEET[2] rates show millions of young people stuck outside both education and formal employment, particularly in developing regions. At the same time, severe shortages of skills in precisely those sectors that should anchor future growth like AI, data, advanced manufacturing, green technologies and healthcare creating a paradox of simultaneous youth underemployment and unfilled vacancies.​

A lack of integrated talent infrastructure fuel both domestic shortages and virtual brain drain via Western platforms. In other words, shortages and surpluses coexist because there is no common architecture that systematically matches young people’s skills with cross‑border demand inside the bloc

The BRICS Youth Careers & Skills Hub is a direct response to this problem: it provides a shared, skills‑driven infrastructure where youth can see, compare and access internships, training and early‑career roles across the bloc, while institutions use the same system to align education, guidance and active labour‑market programmes with real demand. In doing so, it reframes youth employment from a series of isolated national challenges into a coordinated BRICS‑level solution, turning informational equality and joint career pathways into core components of the bloc’s growth strategy.​

Three strands of evidence point to the same structural problem.First, global research on youth employment shows that traditional “active labour market programmes” (ALMPs) rarely fix the transition from school to work on their own. A major World Bank review [3]finds that most training schemes have modest effects at best, because they add marginal skills on top of weak general education and almost never address the matching problem between young people and real vacancies.The same paper notes that the interventions which work best are those that combine counselling, job-search support and direct links to employers, reducing the time spent in unemployment even when they do not transform long-term earnings.

The logic is simple: without organised pathways, skills have nowhere to go. Young people spend an unnecessary number of months not because they lack competence, but because they cannot see vacancies, do not know how to apply, and have no structured support connecting them to real employers.This fragmentation deepens inequality by rewarding only those with pre-existing networks and digital literacy. 

Second, research on platform employment [4]shows both the potential and the risks of the digital shift. Across China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia, tens of millions of people now earn income through online platforms. This has expanded access to work, especially for youth and vulnerable groups, but at the cost of unstable contracts, low social protection and extreme information asymmetry: workers often accept tasks without understanding career prospects, rights or long-term skill trajectories. The same studies warn of “algorithmization” of behaviour and the erosion of standard employment if no public institutions shape this space.Platform employment expands access to tasks, but not careers. In other words, digital ecosystems democratise entry, but not progress. This is precisely the structural gap a transnational careers hub can repair.

DESCRIPTION: The Hub operates through two integrated functions:1. What youth can do (opportunity layer)

A unified portal where a young person can search and apply for:internships, apprenticeships and graduate programmes in BRICS companies and public institutions; scholarships, exchange semesters and research placements at BRICS universitiesjunior and trainee positions in priority sectors;curated remote projects suitable for early‑career profiles, not just senior freelancers.​

Every opportunity is tagged and filtered by: skills required, sector, work mode (on‑site/remote/hybrid), language, location, and whether it is open to applicants from other BRICS countries, so that cross‑border options are visible. For example, internships in Russian and Chinese companies, scholarships via Rossotrudnichestvo and analogous programmes, conferences and fellowhips organized by the Gorchakov Fund and other public diplomacy bodies, graduate schemes in Indian and Brazilian firms, placements in South African public projects, etc.

An AI-assisted matching engine that suggests opportunities based on profile, skills, language and mobility constraints, modelled on the intelligent talent-matching architecture developed for the BRICS remote-employment platform.

What Youth Need to Grow) (Guidance & Skills layer): Youth create a single profile that records: formal education, courses, certificates, competitions, portfolio projects and informal work.​AI tools turn this into a skills map: clustering competencies into families, identifying missing skills for target roles, and suggesting “closest‑fit” occupations rather than only exact matches.​Optional personality and preference questionnaires are used only to refine guidance (for example, project‑based vs. routine work, people‑facing vs. analytical roles), not to automatically exclude candidates, reflecting evidence that personality tools should be advisory, not gatekeeping.​[5]

Important to note, the Hub does not replace national employment services or private platforms. It sits in between them as a connective tissue.The platform is also deliberately integrated with existing BRICS initiatives rather than competing with them. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGNOSIS: Mid Term Effects

1.Unified Opportunity Space: By consolidating early-career openings across BRICS+ and linking them to verified youth profiles, the Hub transforms a fragmented landscape into a single, navigable opportunity space. What had previously been dispersed across ministries, universities, private firms, scholarship portals, embassy programs and informal networks is brought into one place.This transparency produces a positive reinforcement loop: once institutions see that partner entities are attracting strong candidates through the Hub, they are incentivised to expand their own offerings, which in turn draws more entities into the ecosystem. Because all participating organisations undergo verification, both sides — institutions and young applicants — operate with greater trust, reducing informational noise and raising overall market quality. The result is not only higher visibility of internships, research placements and first jobs, but a self-sustaining system where opportunity generation becomes cumulative rather than episodic.

2. Knowledge, skill, and standards exchange: Users are brought into contact with international expectations: intercultural communication, digital professionalism, portfolio-building norms, and the quality standards of remote and hybrid work. This raises competence on both sides of the market — employers gain better-prepared applicants, and young professionals acquire skills that general education systems rarely teach.

3. Strengthening economic and human ties: Regular cross-border mobility of talent creates denser networks between universities, companies, and public institutions. Over time, this produces a more resilient ecosystem of shared projects, investment flows, and cultural-political interaction

Long-Term Effects: 1. Balanced Labour Mobility: The Hub helps redistribute demand for skilled labour away from a narrow set of Western markets toward a wider BRICS+ space. This directly benefits countries with high youth unemployment and those facing structural shortages of qualified workers.

3. Positive demographic and macroeconomic spillovers: Stable early-career trajectories correlate with higher household formation, improved fertility intentions, and stronger long-term productivity. A more predictable youth labour market contributes to healthier demographics, reduced unemployment, and—over time—an expanded tax base and higher GDP growth potential.

To conclude, great powers shape the international system, but it is young people who will inherit it. 
In that sense, no resource yields more than an empowered generation. For BRICS+, the coming decades will be defined not only by resources, technologies or institutions, but by whether its young generation can move, learn and build inside a shared space.


[1] Andrey Kortunov, “BRICS Can Transform from an International Club into a Global Lab,” Russian International Affairs Council, October 22, 2024, https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/brics-can-transform-from-an-internatio...
[2] See: Eurofound, “NEETs,” https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/topics/neets
[3] David McKenzie, “How Effective Are Active Labor Market Policies in Developing Countries? A Critical Review of Recent Evidence,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8011 (Washington, DC: World Bank,2017).https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/63c7308f-e900-5580-a62c-de54de90b7d9
[4] Olga Zolotina, “Approaches to the Development of Platform Employment in the BRICS Countries,” BRICS Journal of Economics 4, no. 4 (2023).
[5] Sherrie Haynie, “Should Personality Assessments Be Used in Hiring?” Forbes Coaches Council, Forbes, June 3, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2021/06/03/should-personality-assessments-be-used-....

Russia
Source: bricscouncil.ru

On 7 April 2026, a press conference was held at the Rossiya Segodnya International Multimedia Press Centre to present a groundbreaking textbook, titled Socio‑Economic Characteristics of the BRICS Countries. Prepared with the support of the BRICS Expert Council‑Russia, the publication aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the main development trends in BRICS member states.

The press conference featured Victoria Panova, Head of the BRICS Expert Council‑Russia, Vice Rector at HSE University, and Russia's Sherpa to the Women 20 (W20); Alexandra Morozkina, Associate Professor at the School of World Economy under the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at HSE University; and Marina Sheresheva, Head of the Laboratory for Institutional Analysis and Director of Research Centre for Network Economy under the Faculty of Economics at Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Victoria Panova noted that the publication of the first comprehensive textbook on the BRICS countries represents an important step in advancing the academic agenda and training a new generation of professionals.

"BRICS today is surrounded by myths. Many of those who write about the group lack a genuine understanding of its nature and objectives. That is precisely why an academic textbook—rooted in systems analysis and scientific standards—is so essential. Such a book does more than organise knowledge; it helps build a more objective understanding of BRICS's role in the modern international system. The textbook presented today is valuable not only for students and researchers specialising in BRICS. It can also serve anyone interested in global processes who wants to understand how this group is evolving and where it fits into the global economy. Systematising such a large body of information is a major contribution to the development of BRICS studies." - Victoria Panova, Head of the BRICS Expert Council‑Russia, Vice Rector at HSE University, and Russia's Sherpa to the Women 20 (W20)

Alexandra Morozkina presented the key textbook sections and highlighted its practical value for the educational process.

“There is a vast amount of material on BRICS, but it is very diverse. Some works provide in-depth analysis of individual aspects, others offer a brief overview, and many are quite complex for students. We wanted to create a structured textbook that would allow for a systematic study of the BRICS economies. Developing the textbook came with significant challenges, primarily related to the group expansion. When BRICS membership nearly doubled during the preparation process, we had to quickly bring in new experts and adapt the content. Ultimately, this allowed us to make the textbook more relevant and better reflect the current realities of BRICS development." - Alexandra Morozkina,
Associate Professor at the School of World Economy under the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at HSE University

Marina Sheresheva, who served as the academic reviewer of the publication, emphasised its timeliness, given the growing role of BRICS in the global economy.

“Today, BRICS is increasingly seen as a group that can play a key role in the global economy. Just a few years ago, many doubted its sustainability, but now it is clear that BRICS is an important platform for international cooperation. That's what makes this textbook so timely." - Marina Sheresheva,
Head of the Laboratory for Institutional Analysis and Director of Research Centre for Network Economy under the Faculty of Economics at Lomonosov Moscow State University

The book details the key indicators and development trends of the BRICS countries, covering demographics, economic growth, public finances, foreign trade, investment processes, regional economic structure, and the social sector.

In the textbook, special emphasis is placed on economic reforms across the BRICS nations, exploring how these changes have shaped long‑term development paths and what they mean for each country's potential output. Separate sections are devoted to demographic processes and the position of the BRICS members within the global innovation system.

The publication marks an important milestone in the development of academic and expert dialogue on BRICS topics, as well as a contribution to training a new generation of specialists—professionals who will be equipped to analyse and make sense of the complex processes shaping the global economy.

South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

At a time when global discourse has been dominated by conflict, shifting alliances, and competing geopolitical narratives, a quieter transformation has been underway - one that carries far greater long-term consequences. India chose to build.

In 2026, India’s indigenously developed Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam achieved criticality, marking a decisive milestone in its three-stage nuclear energy programme and its pursuit of long-term energy sovereignty. There were no dramatic announcements and no geopolitical signaling - only capability built patiently over decades.

This achievement is deeply rooted in the vision of Homi Jehangir Bhabha, widely regarded as the architect of India’s nuclear programme. Decades ago, Bhabha laid out a long-term three-stage strategy designed not merely to generate power, but to secure energy independence through the effective use of India’s limited uranium and abundant thorium reserves.

The PFBR represents the realisation of that vision - a system where fuel is not only consumed but created, enabling a sustainable and self-reliant nuclear future. On this milestone, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised that India’s progress in advanced nuclear technology reflects the country’s commitment to self-reliance, clean energy, and scientific excellence, noting that such achievements are the result of decades of dedication by Indian scientists and engineers.

The PFBR project, initiated in 2004, took over 20 years to reach criticality. The project was developed by BHAVINI (Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd) with 200 Indian industries participated, making it one of the most extensive examples of coordinated industrial and scientific collaboration in the Global South.

PFBR was developed indigenously, representing a key milestone under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat (Self-reliant India) initiative This was not just a reactor; it was an ecosystem. The technical barriers were formidable, including the mastery of liquid sodium cooling technology, the safe handling of plutonium-based Mixed Oxide fuel, the development of a closed fuel cycle, and the establishment of stringent safety and regulatory benchmarks.

According to the World Nuclear Association, fast breeder reactors represent one of the most complex nuclear technologies, with only a handful of countries achieving operational success. Yet India persisted, guided by long-term policy consistency rather than short-term outcomes, reinforcing the principle that energy security is ultimately built on domestic technological capability.

Unlike conventional nuclear reactors, the PFBR is designed to produce more fuel than it consumes, fundamentally changing the economics and sustainability of nuclear power. It operates using plutonium-239 and uranium-238 in the form of Mixed Oxide fuel, employs fast neutrons to sustain the chain reaction, and converts fertile material into fissile fuel.

The reactor uses liquid sodium for efficient heat transfer and enables reprocessing of spent fuel within a closed cycle. The defining outcome is a breeding ratio greater than one, positioning nuclear energy not just as a power source but as a self-sustaining system. The reactor, which can produce more fuel than it consumes, highlights India's technological advancement, placing it as the second country after Russia with a commercial fast breeder reactor.

Globally, fast breeder reactor technology remains limited to a few nations. Russia has demonstrated long-term operational maturity, while India represents a strategic evolution of the technology.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, fast reactors and closed fuel cycle systems are essential for reducing long-lived nuclear waste, improving fuel efficiency, and enabling sustainable nuclear expansion.

For BRICS nations, particularly South Africa, India’s achievement carries immediate and practical relevance. South Africa remains the only African country operating a commercial nuclear power plant, the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, with an installed capacity of approximately 1,860 megawatts, contributing roughly four to five percent of national electricity supply. However, the broader energy system remains heavily constrained by structural dependence on coal and a centralized utility model dominated by Eskom.

Coal continues to define South Africa’s energy reality, accounting for roughly 70–75% of electricity generation and an even higher share of the broader energy mix. This dependence, combined with aging infrastructure, has resulted in recurring load shedding and reliability challenges that have constrained economic growth and industrial productivity. While operational improvements have provided temporary relief, the structural challenge remains unresolved.


Recognising this, South Africa has begun transitioning toward a more diversified energy mix. Renewable energy is expanding, and nuclear remains part of long-term planning. However, an equally important development is emerging in the gas sector through Transnet. Transnet is positioning itself as a key enabler of the country’s energy transition through the development of liquefied natural gas infrastructure, including the Zululand Energy Terminal at Richards Bay, which is expected to become South Africa’s first LNG import terminal. This initiative is designed to address future gas supply gaps, support industrial demand, and enable gas-to-power projects that can complement renewable energy.

In parallel, Transnet is planning to repurpose existing pipeline infrastructure to transport regasified LNG from coastal terminals to inland economic hubs, reflecting a strategic shift toward integrated energy logistics. While LNG offers a critical transition pathway away from coal, it also introduces considerations of import dependence and price volatility, reinforcing the importance of balancing short-term flexibility with long-term energy sovereignty.

In this context, India’s PFBR offers a powerful lesson. It demonstrates not only technological achievement but the ability to build, sustain, and execute complex national programmes over decades. It reflects a transition from dependence to capability - something that South Africa, and indeed many BRICS nations, are still striving to achieve.

The broader implication for BRICS is clear. Collectively, these nations possess vast natural resources, growing energy demand, and significant industrial potential. What is required is alignment - where technological capability, industrial participation, and long-term policy converge. India contributes indigenous reactor design and a future-ready thorium strategy, Russia provides decades of operational expertise in advanced nuclear systems, and South Africa brings strategic geography, logistics infrastructure, and emerging gas sector development.

The implications extend far beyond electricity generation. They encompass energy security, industrial development, technological sovereignty, and climate resilience. Nuclear energy, alongside transitional fuels such as LNG, forms a critical part of a balanced and resilient energy strategy. According to the International Energy Agency, nuclear power remains one of the most reliable sources of low-carbon electricity and is essential for achieving stable and sustainable energy systems.

While much of the world debated power, India chose to create it—not through rhetoric, but through engineering, not through dependency, but through capability. It built systems, skills, and sovereignty.

Power is not claimed in headlines. It is created through sustained effort.

The enduring relationship between India and South Africa finds one of its strongest foundations in the legacy of Nelson Mandela, who, soon after his release from prison, chose India as one of his early international engagements. This symbolic gesture reflected deep historical solidarity and a shared vision for development and self-reliance.
Over time, this relationship has evolved into practical collaboration, particularly in the energy sector. Eskom has strengthened ties with Indian partners through technical cooperation and knowledge exchange, including a formal collaboration with NTPC focused on operational excellence, training, and best practices in power generation. Indian companies such as Adani Group have also shown strategic interest in South Africa’s energy infrastructure, while Eskom engineers have benefited from specialised training programmes in India. This builds on a long-standing relationship, as Eskom had previously contributed to transmission projects in India, reflecting a two-way exchange of expertise.

Building on this foundation, deeper collaboration in advanced energy technologies presents a significant opportunity. If South Africa decides to develop complex systems such as advanced nuclear reactors, it could unlock participation for more than 200 direct companies across engineering, manufacturing, and construction, while enabling thousands of subcontractors across the supply chain.

Such an initiative would not only support job creation but also stimulate industrial growth, enhance local technical capability, and strengthen long-term energy independence. Within the BRICS framework, this represents a natural progression - from historical solidarity to strategic co-development - where shared expertise between India and South Africa can translate into tangible economic and technological advancement.

For BRICS nations, the message is both clear and urgent. The future will not belong to those who merely possess resources, but to those who can transform them into enduring capability.