&w=3840&q=100)
'Brics not aimed at any country', says China after Trump's tariff warning
'Brics is an important platform for cooperation among emerging markets and developing countries,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, as quoted by news agency PTI.
Mao emphasised that the Brics group stands for openness and mutual benefit. 'It is not a bloc for confrontation nor does it target any country,' she said. Asked specifically about Trump's threat of additional tariffs, Mao reiterated China's position on trade. 'Trade and tariffs have no winners and protectionism leaves nowhere,' she said.
Donald Trump warns of extra tariffs on Brics-aligned nations
Earlier, Trump warned that there would be no exception for any country aligning with Brics' "anti-American" stance and would face an extra 10 per cent tariff.
The announcement came just ahead of the end of a 90-day pause on new trade duties. Trump also said that letters outlining updated tariff policies and trade terms would be sent to governments starting Monday, July 7, at 12:00 pm eastern time (9:30 pm IST).
Brics Summit 2025
The 17th Brics Summit took place in Rio de Janeiro over the last weekend, with member nations discussing global governance reforms, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Israel's strike on Iran, and rising global protectionism.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during a session on global governance reform, said the Global South has long faced double standards in areas like security and development. He criticised global institutions for being outdated and ineffective. 'These institutions are like mobile phones with SIM cards but no network,' Modi said, urging reforms in governance, voting rights, and leadership roles.
Chinese Premier Li Qiang supported the view, saying Brics should lead efforts to make global governance more fair and efficient.
During the summit, the Brics grouping raised concerns about growing use of unilateral tariffs, without naming the United States or Trump directly. A draft declaration seen by Bloomberg reportedly condemns economic coercion and tariff actions that violate World Trade Organisation rules.
Originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, Brics has grown significantly since 2024. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates joined last year, and Indonesia became the latest member in 2025. The bloc continues to advocate for a more multipolar and equitable global order.
(With agency inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
The curious case of Xi's crackdown and stalled superpower ambition: PLA turmoil threatens 2049 military goal
Xi Jinping's sweeping purge of the People's Liberation Army reveals his deep distrust of China's armed forces, with some saying that his crackdown has stalled Beijing's military superpower ambition to rival the US When Chinese President Xi Jinping set 2049 as the year the People's Liberation Army (PLA) would match or surpass US military power, the choice was symbolic. The date marks the 100th anniversary of the People's Republic of China and reflects Xi's pledge of 'national rejuvenation' through economic, technological and military strength. In Xi's worldview, the PLA is a tool to further China's global imperial ambition. This has been on display in the South China Sea, relentless threat to invade Taiwan, and also in its needling of India, triggering a long-drawn military stand-off in eastern Ladakh. Xi is often projected to be working to achieve China's middle kingdom dream in a post-modern world. To achieve this, China aims to match the military muscle of the US. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This ambition now appears increasingly precarious. For all the outward shows of strength—stealth fighters unveiled at airshows, naval ships conducting blue-water drills and nuclear warheads added annually—the Chinese military faces a deep internal crisis. More from World 'China is very patient': Trump says Xi Jinping told him Beijing will not invade Taiwan during his presidency Turmoil within the PLA's high command has cast doubt on the coherence, loyalty and preparedness of a force that Xi has invested more than a decade reshaping, a New York Times report said. The paradox is stark. At the very moment when China's military looks bigger than ever from the outside, its leadership structure is experiencing its most severe disarray in decades. Crackdown on military leadership Since 2022, at least 21 senior PLA officers have been purged or disappeared from public life, including three members of the Central Military Commission (CMC)—the body that sits at the apex of Chinese military power, a Foreign Affairs report said. Among those removed were Defence Minister Li Shangfu, Vice Chairman He Weidong and Admiral Miao Hua, once considered untouchable and close to Xi. The removal of He Weidong, the PLA's second most senior officer, was particularly shocking. His disappearance in early 2025 suggested not only disciplinary action but also Xi's diminishing tolerance for mistakes, even from proteges. Similarly, Admiral Miao Hua, responsible for political work inside the military, was investigated for 'serious violations of discipline'—a euphemism often denoting corruption or disloyalty. The wave of purges appears systemic rather than selective. Beyond top commanders, more than two dozen officials in the armaments industry and other senior officers have also been targeted since 2023, signalling Xi's frustration with corruption, inefficiency and the PLA's perceived inability to meet his exacting standards. Scale of turmoil and historical comparisons The scale of this crackdown has led some analysts to argue that Xi's actions could eclipse the internal military upheavals under Mao Zedong. Mao's campaigns were notoriously destabilising, undermining trust and paralysing institutions, yet Xi's methodical purges of both allies and rivals suggest a more calculated form of coercion. In essence, Xi seems willing to dismantle senior leadership structures repeatedly to guarantee personal loyalty, even at the cost of continuity and expertise. What makes this round of purges more striking is that many of those ousted were once close to Xi, having served with him during earlier stages of his career. Their removal highlights the unpredictability of Xi's governance model: loyalty is never permanent and political survival depends on continuous demonstration of allegiance and competence. This environment, while consolidating Xi's dominance, risks breeding paranoia and instability at the very heart of the PLA. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Xi's grip and distrust According to Foreign Affairs, Xi's management of the PLA to that of a mafia boss. His power is undisputed, yet his behaviour betrays profound mistrust of his own lieutenants. By purging even allies, Xi sends the message that no officer is indispensable, ensuring dependence on his patronage. This style of rule reflects two central objectives. First, Xi insists on the PLA's absolute loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), treating the military as the ultimate guarantor of party survival in times of crisis. Second, he wants a combat-ready force capable of winning wars against advanced adversaries, particularly the United States. But his recurring dissatisfaction with the PLA leadership suggests that he doubts whether the force, despite vast resources, is truly prepared for such missions. The dilemma is that Xi's obsession with loyalty undermines professional confidence within the ranks. Constant fear of investigation or removal may ensure political conformity but erodes morale and initiative. In practice, officers are less likely to take risks or show creativity—an essential quality for modern warfare. Strategic uncertainty and Taiwan's shadow Xi's insistence on military modernisation is not abstract. He has set specific benchmarks: a 'basic modernisation' by 2035, a force capable of taking Taiwan by 2027 and a 'world-class' military by 2049, the South China Morning Post reported. These goals, however, now appear jeopardised by the leadership churn. The Taiwan contingency looms especially large. US officials believe Xi wants the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of the island within the next two years, the New York Times piece said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet the removal of senior commanders at this critical juncture raises doubts about the PLA's readiness. Even if China's arsenal is expanding, warfighting depends on stable, competent leadership. Analysts warn that the turbulence could disrupt command cohesion, slow modernisation and ultimately reduce the credibility of China's military threats. The irony is that Xi's heavy-handed approach, meant to ensure absolute reliability in wartime, may instead create uncertainty about whether the PLA can operate effectively in high-pressure situations. Historical roots of Xi's obsession Xi's fixation with the PLA is deeply personal and political. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, Xi grew up in the shadow of military influence. His father, Xi Zhongxun, was a revolutionary veteran, and many of Xi's princeling peers served in the armed forces. This background gave Xi both familiarity with military culture and an acute sense of its political importance. When Xi first entered the CMC in 2010, he encountered a military riddled with corruption and dominated by entrenched cliques loyal to Jiang Zemin. Early in his tenure, he declared that the PLA must be ready 'to fight and win battles'—a slogan that exposed his scepticism about its actual readiness. The memory of 1989, when the PLA hesitated before ultimately cracking down on student protesters in Tiananmen Square, also weighs heavily on Xi. The Arab Spring of 2011 reinforced his conviction that the survival of regimes depends on reliable military support. For Xi, ensuring the PLA's willingness to act against both domestic unrest and external threats is paramount. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Reforms and risks Xi's military reforms have been sweeping. In 2015, he overhauled the PLA command structure, reducing the dominance of the ground forces and creating a joint theatre command system more aligned with modern warfare. He has slashed troop numbers, invested heavily in the navy and air force and emphasised 'intelligentisation'—integrating artificial intelligence, machine learning and cyber capabilities into military operations. These reforms mirror the United States' post–World War II and Cold War restructurings, which sought to unify command and integrate services. Yet they also generated internal resentment, especially among ground force veterans who saw their influence eroded. By dismantling long-standing hierarchies and traditions, Xi has forced the PLA to adapt rapidly, but the transition has left scars. What makes the current purges so destabilising is that they follow these reforms. The removal of leaders at the very moment when structural changes are still bedding down risks compounding uncertainty. Officers who might have guided the PLA through this transformation are gone, replaced by figures whose main qualification is personal loyalty to Xi. Implications for superpower ambition History tells us that military modernisation is not a linear process. It requires decades of consistent leadership, doctrine development and institutional stability. By repeatedly resetting the PLA's leadership, Xi is undermining the very continuity needed for long-term transformation. Moreover, China's international environment is hardening. US alliances in Asia are strengthening, regional states are investing in their own militaries and technological competition is intensifying. In its 'world-class' goal, China lacks reliability in command structure, preparedness for complex operations and the ability to integrate political loyalty with professional competence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The current turmoil casts doubt on whether these shortcomings could be met. China observers say Xi's PLA may look formidable on paper but brittle in practice. With tensions building over Taiwan and in the South China Sea, Xi's China faces a dilemma of going forward with the purge or deal with its internal contradictions that, observers say, have come in the way of its military superpower ambition.
India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
How did Trump 'expose' Putin's 'exclusive' offer on the ceasefire? What is THE plan?
New Delhi: Monday, 19 August, was a crucial day as US President Donald Trump and European leaders discussed the probabilities of reaching a ceasefire on the Russia-Ukraine war that has been going on since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. After the meeting, it was revealed that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky are ready for a peace summit. US President Trump said that after a 'very good' meeting with European and Ukrainian leaders at the White House, he spoke to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on the phone. After the meeting, Trump wrote on his Truth social network that everyone is very excited about the possibility of a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire. What was the agenda of the meeting? Trump hosted a multilateral meeting at the White House to come to a logical and fruitful conclusion to the efforts being made to stop the Russia-Ukraine war and ensure security guarantees for Ukraine. The meeting was attended by seven European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, Finland President Alexander Stubb, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. How did Trump 'expose' Putin's plan to the world? Meanwhile, Trump inadvertently said something that 'exposed' Putin's plan to the world. Ahead of the meeting, a hot mic recorded Trump telling Macron that he thinks the Russian president wants to make a deal. In a conversation between the two leaders, Trump said, 'I think he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) wants to make a deal. I think he wants to make a deal for me, you understand?' Zelensky ready to meet Putin Zelensky confirmed to reporters outside the White House that he was ready for bilateral talks with Putin. Meanwhile, a Kremlin ally in Moscow said Putin was open to the 'idea' of direct talks with Ukraine. The USA and Russia could not reach a ceasefire during Trump's summit with Putin on August 15, held in Alaska.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dressing up for the bully: What Volodymyr Zelenskyy's ‘suit' says about appeasement in the age of Trump
If the art of managing Donald Trump is an exercise in deference, the European leaders gathered in Washington DC this week to discuss an end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict could be said to have achieved some level of mastery. Conversation at the summit hummed along, with a certain degree of cordiality evident in the exchanges, even if there were misgivings about the terms of the 'peace' proposed by the US President. Sufficient gratitude was expressed by all the guests for the host's attempts to end the three-year-long war. And, most notably, as observers of every political hue pointed out, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wore a suit (or something like one, but we will get to that). Given that Zelenskyy's refusal to dress 'appropriately' was blamed for playing a part in how poorly his February visit to the White House had gone, this could be seen as progress. Six months ago, Trump had been visibly irked by Zelenskyy's appearance in his army green sweatshirt and cargo pants, greeting him with the sarcasm-laden observation, 'Oh, you're all dressed up'. The military-inspired outfit has come to be closely associated with the Ukrainian president since the Russian invasion in 2022, a variation of which he wore each of the five times he met President Joe Biden in Washington during this time. Under the Trump presidency, however, the attire has only caused irritation, being described earlier this year as 'disrespectful to the highest office of the country' by Brian Glenn, a member of the White House press pool who works for the MAGA outlet Real America's Voice. The February episode was, in a way, a clash between two men with an intuitive understanding of spectacle, who know well how to dress to speak to their respective constituencies. Both Zelenskyy and Trump have showbiz history; the former, before he became president in 2019, had been a successful comedian and actor, noted for his lead role in the series Servant of the People (which is also believed to have inspired his political career). The change in his wardrobe, following the Russian invasion in February 2022, reflected his new position as a wartime leader, designed to show solidarity with his country's armed forces — in a December 2022 interview, he told The Financial Times' Christopher Miller that he would go back to wearing a suit and tie (and shave off his beard) only after Ukrainian victory in the war. Trump, the first reality TV star to become US president, also uses costumery to send out a message, garbing himself in the colours of the American flag — blue suit, red tie, white shirt — as a display of his brand of patriotism. This particular combination has, indeed, become something of a uniform for other notable members of the administration, particularly Vice President J D Vance and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (the women in Trump's orbit have their own 'uniform' of stiff, immaculately waved hair, body-hugging sheath dresses and, frequently, a small gold crucifix around the neck). Under a president who values loyalty above all else, such fealty in costume is a significant non-verbal indication of allegiance to the man himself. Which is why Zelenskyy's decision to suit up for his second meeting with Trump at the White House has been seen as a conciliatory gesture, signalling a great willingness to appease. As to whether the all-black, tie-less outfit with military elements qualifies as a suit at all — there has been considerable debate over this question at least since June 25, when the Ukrainian president attended a dinner before the NATO summit wearing the same outfit. It sparked a massive controversy on Polymarket, a cryptocurrency platform used for betting, where punters were asked to place their money on whether or not Zelenskyy would wear a suit before July. The dispute, with over $200 million at stake at one point, flared up when, after photos of the NATO dinner emerged, the gamble went the way of those who had betted against Zelenskyy wearing a suit. Those who had taken a punt on the opposite position claimed market manipulation and threatened lawsuits. Some sort of final word on the matter came from Derek Guy, editor of the menswear blog Put This On, who said that while the suit met the technical definition of a suit — in that it featured a jacket and pair of pants cut from the same cloth — the military-inspired details like the shape of the collar, lapels and the four patch pockets meant that it did not fit the social expectations of a suit. Ultimately, of course, all that really mattered was that Trump loved the 'suit'. In the Oval Office before the press, with fulsome praise this time from Glenn — 'you look fabulous' — the President touched his Ukrainian counterpart on the shoulder and said, 'I said the same thing.' Perhaps not the ceasefire that the beleaguered Zelenskyy had hoped for, but the only one he's likely to get.
