Canada as a whole should be proud of how we are being represented on the world stage right now. Clean, articulate, and direct verbage from a PM who is weathering a rough patch with dignity.
I don't see him as Liberal, or Conservative in these moments, I see him as a leader.… https://t.co/WCLgmMiS4Z
I really appreciate when journalists tell a story but maintain a respectful narrative. Thank you for highlighting our projects at Civaam AI and my humanitarian work as well.
How AI Startup Founder's Lost Laptop At Heathrow Airport Became 'MacBookGate' Sara Wahedi, CEO of Civaam, an Oxford postgrad, and a humanitarian has spent a few anxious days looking for her lost MacBook at London's Heathrow Airport. ......... Sara Wahedi, CEO of Civaam, an Oxford postgraduate and a humanitarian, has spent a few anxious yet eventful days on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) looking for her lost MacBook at London’s Heathrow Airport. Scavenging for a missing item is no joke, let alone at a place considered one of the busiest airports in the world. ........... This is a long, fascinating tale of sheer grit, one that has had its several highs and many disappointing lows. Fasten your seatbelts, this is going to be one emotionally turbulent ride .
The article ended abruptly. I would like the full story. Please write an article. Also, this proves your entrepreneurial bonafide.
You cannot scale intelligence without vast, cheap, and consistent energy. And right now, China leads. In just one year, it added more solar power than the United States has added in its entire history.
Just to set the stage: I'm literally an idiot when it comes to coding. I am decent at building systems, envisioning the end result, and building processes around them, but I am very bad at the actual coding piece.
Stop Blasting Everywhere. Start Building a Content Ecosystem.
The more you slice one pillar piece into native, platform-specific content, the more you dominate YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, and even AI search, without burning out.
Anyone who wants to understand Trump should read this book that details his negotiation playbook, media strategy, and pretty much everything else that is often treated as opaque or inscrutable. pic.twitter.com/Mh1qrhd9OQ
Canada to Join BRICS? Eh, Why Not? Maple Leaf May Crash the Emerging Economies Party!
In a plot twist that has left polar bears scratching their heads and moose shedding antlers in disbelief, Canada—yes, that Canada, the one famous for apologizing to snowflakes—might be packing its hockey sticks and heading straight into the BRICS bloc.
For those who’ve lost count, BRICS is the club where Brazil samba-dances through inflation, Russia plays geopolitical roulette, India spices up global supply chains, China constructs everything (including walls around hockey rinks), and South Africa brings the braai. And now, after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s barnburner of a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, insiders whisper that the Great White North is ready to trade its G7 membership card for a BRICS VIP pass.
Carney’s Davos Showstopper
It all began in snowy Switzerland, where Carney—our dashing PM who looks like he could model for a Tim Hortons ad while simultaneously solving climate change—took the stage. Flanked by billionaires sipping $50 lattes, he declared a “rupture in the world order,” a phrase that sounds less like geopolitics and more like the aftermath of too much fondue.
“The old order is not coming back,” he boomed, channeling his inner hockey coach at halftime. “Nostalgia is not a strategy!”
Ouch. Tell that to Canadians still nostalgic for the days when eh was our biggest export.
Carney painted a world where superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and China are playing geopolitical dodgeball—and middle powers like Canada are the dodgeballs. He even took a polite swipe at the U.S.’s former Greenland acquisition attempt, noting the folly of treating sovereign land like a Monopoly board.
“Compliance will not buy safety,” Carney warned, which in Canuck-speak translates to: “Sorry, folks, we’re done being your polite neighbor who mows your lawn for free.”
Why BRICS? Why Now?
With the rules-based international order wobbling like a maple syrup bottle in a sauna, why not join the bloc that’s essentially the Avengers of the Global South? Imagine the summits: Vladimir Putin challenging Justin Trudeau’s ghost to a shirtless arm-wrestle (Carney would win, obvs—banker biceps don’t lie). Xi Jinping offering to build high-speed rail from Toronto to Tuktoyaktuk, complete with panda-themed stations.
The economic perks could be equally eyebrow-raising: Canada could export poutine to India, where it might be rebranded as curd cheese masala, and import cheap knockoff Mountie hats from China that read, “Sorry, Comrade.”
Critics vs. Enthusiasts
Predictably, critics are howling.
“This is madness!” cried an anonymous Tory MP, probably clutching a beaver pelt. “We’ll have to rename the loonie to the ‘BRIC-oonie’!”
Meanwhile, Carney’s fans were ecstatic. The speech earned a standing ovation in Davos—a place where applause is usually reserved for tax loopholes.
“Carney’s the new spokesperson for the Free World!” gushed one attendee.
Free World? More like Freer Trade with Fewer Tariffs from Trump World.
A Strategic Feint—or the Real Deal?
Of course, this might all be a strategic feint. Maybe Carney just wants better Netflix subscription deals or a larger slice of maple syrup quotas. But if Canada does join BRICS, rebranding seems inevitable: BRICCS, with two C’s—Canada and… Courtesy? The new motto: “Building Roads in Cold Climates Swiftly.”
And hey, if it means hosting the next summit in Igloolik with ice sculptures of world leaders, sign us up.
In Carney’s words:
“The power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong.”
But let’s be honest—in this new world disorder, the real power might just lie in the poutine. Pass the gravy, comrades. Eh?
The 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin: A Landmark Gathering for a Multipolar World
The 25th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit, held in Tianjin, China, on September 1, 2025, marked the largest and most consequential gathering in the organization’s history since its founding in 2001. With the theme “Upholding the Shanghai Spirit: SCO on the Move,” the summit showcased the SCO’s growing ambition to serve as a central platform for regional cooperation, security, and the advancement of a multipolar global order.
Coming against the backdrop of escalating trade wars—particularly U.S. tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump—and persistent geopolitical tensions, the summit underscored the SCO’s role as a counterweight to Western-led blocs and its increasing influence in shaping Eurasia’s strategic landscape. Leaders from all 10 member states were present, signaling unprecedented solidarity around shared concerns over hegemonism, unilateral sanctions, and Cold War-style rivalries.
Key Attendees
The summit convened the heads of state of all current SCO members, collectively representing nearly 40% of the world’s population and a combined GDP of about $30 trillion:
Leader
Country
Xi Jinping
China
Narendra Modi
India
Vladimir Putin
Russia
Masoud Pezeshkian
Iran
Shehbaz Sharif
Pakistan
Alexander Lukashenko
Belarus
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev
Kazakhstan
Shavkat Mirziyoyev
Uzbekistan
Sadyr Japarov
Kyrgyzstan
Emomali Rahmon
Tajikistan
This lineup highlighted the SCO’s transformation from a narrowly focused regional security grouping into a broad geopolitical and economic alliance spanning Eurasia.
Xi Jinping’s Address: A Blueprint for SCO’s Future
In his keynote address, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented an ambitious vision for the SCO, rooted in the principles of fairness, justice, and inclusive globalization. Xi emphasized that the SCO should champion the interests of the Global South while resisting bloc politics and external interference.
Core Themes from Xi’s Speech
Security and Counterterrorism: A renewed focus on combating the “three evils”—terrorism, separatism, and extremism—through intelligence-sharing under the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS).
Economic Cooperation: A proposal to establish an SCO Development Bank to finance cross-border projects and promote trade in national currencies, thereby reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar.
Innovation and Infrastructure: Support for joint initiatives in energy, green industries, AI, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Cultural and Educational Ties: Expanded exchange programs, scholarships, and cooperative research to deepen people-to-people bonds.
Ukraine Conflict: Russian President Vladimir Putin seized the stage to reiterate Moscow’s stance that NATO expansion triggered the conflict. He praised mediation attempts by China and India, aligning with Xi’s call for a political solution.
China’s Pledges and Initiatives
China used the summit to unveil a package of concrete deliverables aimed at reinforcing the SCO’s cohesion:
2 billion yuan (~$280 million) in grants this year for 100+ “small but beautiful” development projects.
10 billion yuan (~$1.4 billion) in loans via the SCO Interbank Consortium over three years.
Establishment of an SCO Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Center.
Invitation for SCO members to join China’s International Lunar Research Station program.
Launch of 10 new Luban Workshops (vocational training centers) and 10,000 training opportunities for SCO citizens.
Doubling of SCO scholarships and creation of a new doctoral innovation program for young researchers.
These measures reinforced China’s intent to position itself as the economic engine and knowledge hub of the SCO.
Xi-Modi Meeting: In what many analysts saw as a turning point, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping discussed border de-escalation, expanded trade, and mutual non-rivalry, opening the door for more stable ties after years of tension. Modi called for a “stable Asian century” anchored by China-India cooperation.
Modi-Putin Dialogue: The Indian and Russian leaders reaffirmed their strategic partnership, focusing on energy security, arms cooperation, and Eurasian stability.
Xi-Putin Alignment: Xi and Putin projected unity, with Xi framing China as a counterbalance to U.S. global dominance, signaling tighter Sino-Russian coordination.
Summit Outcomes and the Tianjin Declaration
The summit concluded with the adoption of the Tianjin Declaration, a comprehensive communiquรฉ emphasizing:
Commitment to regional security and joint counterterrorism mechanisms.
Expansion of intra-SCO trade and reduction of barriers.
Endorsement of a multipolar world order based on equality and non-interference.
Strengthened cooperation on climate change, sustainable development, and digital transformation.
While the full details of the declaration remain under wraps, its broad thrust positions the SCO as an increasingly institutionalized Eurasian bloc, balancing Western alliances like NATO and the G7.
With Kyrgyzstan assuming the rotating presidency, the SCO is preparing to build on Tianjin’s momentum.
Why This Summit Matters
The SCO’s evolution reflects a larger shift in global power balances:
From Security Club to Geopolitical Bloc: Once focused narrowly on border security, the SCO is now a major economic and political platform, rivaling Western-led forums.
Counter to Western Tariffs and Sanctions: With U.S. tariffs disrupting trade and sanctions fragmenting supply chains, SCO economies are exploring alternative frameworks.
Eurasia’s Strategic Rise: By coordinating policies among China, India, Russia, and Central Asia, the SCO is strengthening Eurasia’s voice in shaping the rules of globalization.
As of 2025, the SCO is no longer just a regional grouping—it is an emerging pole of global governance.
✅ In summary: The 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin was a watershed moment, projecting unity among its members and positioning the bloc as a central actor in a more multipolar world. With China’s pledges, India-China rapprochement, and renewed focus on economic independence, the SCO has laid out a roadmap that could reshape Eurasia’s role in global affairs over the coming decade.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has often been described as the Eurasian counterweight to Western alliances. But is it essentially just RIC—Russia, India, China—the three great Eurasian powers standing on equal footing? To a large degree, yes. And that makes it fundamentally different from organizations like NATO, where U.S. dominance is so pronounced that meetings often resemble the American president “hustling” European leaders into the Oval Office, lecturing them like schoolchildren.
The SCO’s DNA: RIC at the Center
The SCO was founded in 2001, building on the earlier “Shanghai Five” format, which already placed Russia, China, and Central Asia in dialogue. But the organization took on a new identity when India and Pakistan joined in 2017, and later Iran and Belarus followed. Despite this expansion, the RIC triangle—Russia, India, China—remains the beating heart of the SCO:
Russia brings hard power, nuclear parity with the United States, and an enduring sphere of influence in Central Asia.
China provides the economic engine, infrastructure investment, and global clout through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative.
India balances the other two by bringing democratic legitimacy, vast economic potential, and strategic autonomy—refusing to align itself fully with either bloc.
Unlike NATO, where Washington’s word often sets the agenda, the SCO is a consensus-based organization. Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi operate as equals, each wielding veto-like influence.
Contrasting Cultures: SCO vs. NATO
The comparison with NATO is instructive. NATO is militarily integrated, with the U.S. as its uncontested leader. The White House routinely dictates strategy, and past scenes of President Trump scolding European leaders over defense spending symbolized this hierarchy.
By contrast, SCO summits project a different image:
Leaders sit around round tables as equals, not in subordinate rows.
The language of communiquรฉs emphasizes “multipolarity,” “non-interference,” and “respect for sovereignty.”
There is no equivalent of the Pentagon setting troop deployments for SCO members—because the SCO is not a military alliance. It is, instead, a security and development forum where Russia, India, and China act as co-pilots, with Central Asia, Iran, and others balancing the wings.
Multipolarity in Practice
The SCO’s RIC-centered design aligns with the broader global trend toward multipolarity. Unlike Western organizations where hegemony flows downward from Washington, the SCO attempts to showcase horizontal collaboration:
On security, the SCO targets terrorism, separatism, and extremism rather than creating NATO-style collective defense clauses.
On economics, the focus is on local currencies, connectivity, and avoiding overreliance on the U.S. dollar.
On diplomacy, mediation efforts—whether on Afghanistan or Ukraine—emphasize negotiation rather than sanctions and military pressure.
India’s role is crucial here: it prevents the SCO from becoming a mere China-Russia axis. Its presence forces balance and gives the grouping wider legitimacy across the Global South.
Conclusion: SCO as RIC-plus
At its core, the SCO is indeed RIC in institutional form—a platform where Russia, India, and China meet as equals, even as they bring along their regional partners. This makes it a different creature from NATO: not a hierarchical, U.S.-dominated bloc, but a looser, more pluralistic body that reflects the realities of a multipolar 21st century.
Where NATO reflects a teacher-student dynamic—sometimes with scolding from Washington—the SCO aspires to embody a council of peers. Whether it succeeds in that vision will determine how durable this RIC-centered order becomes in the decades ahead.
Russia and the West After the Cold War: A History of Missed Opportunities?
When the Cold War ended in 1991, the United States faced a choice in how it would approach a newly independent Russia. With the Soviet Union gone, Russia’s geopolitical and ideological role was in flux. Would it be integrated into Western institutions as a partner, much as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were? Or would it be left on the periphery, a defeated rival expected to sort itself out?
Three decades later, with U.S.-Russia relations locked in confrontation, it is worth asking: was the post–Cold War settlement a missed opportunity?
The Moment of Transition
In the early 1990s, Russia was experiencing a historic transformation. Boris Yeltsin presided over a fragile, chaotic state attempting to leap from a command economy to capitalism, and from a one-party regime to multiparty democracy. The U.S. and its allies provided financial aid and advice, but the scale was modest compared to what had been done for Western Europe after World War II through the Marshall Plan.
Eastern European states like Poland received significant Western support, both financial and institutional, to stabilize democracy and integrate into NATO and the EU. Russia, by contrast, was largely treated as a former adversary that had to prove itself before earning trust. Critics argue that this asymmetry bred resentment and suspicion in Moscow.
Why Didn’t the West Do More?
Several explanations compete:
Arrogance and Triumph
Many in Washington believed the “end of history” narrative—that liberal democracy had triumphed and Russia would inevitably converge with the West. Why spend enormous sums to accelerate a process that seemed preordained?
The Military-Industrial Complex
Skeptics point to entrenched interests. A cooperative Russia inside NATO could have undercut the rationale for large U.S. defense budgets. A rival, however diminished, sustained the need for America’s global military posture.
Policy Caution and Lack of Imagination
Across both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations, Russia policy was often reactive. The foreign policy establishment hesitated to push bold ideas—like NATO membership—fearing backlash both in Moscow and within NATO itself.
Putin’s NATO Gambit
A decade later, under Vladimir Putin, Russia reportedly floated the idea of joining NATO. The West rebuffed it. Was this another lost chance? Perhaps—but conditions were complicated.
Reforms and Preconditions: NATO is an alliance of democracies bound by certain standards. For Russia, that would have required deep reforms: stronger rule of law, civilian control over the military, reduced corruption, and limits on presidential power. Asking for those reforms might have appeared as Western meddling in Russian sovereignty.
Russian Sovereignty and Pride: After centuries as an empire, Russia was unlikely to accept the role of a junior partner in a U.S.-dominated alliance. For Putin especially, sovereignty became synonymous with resisting Western influence.
Putin’s Personal Trajectory: Over time, Putin consolidated power around himself, built a system of “managed democracy,” and cultivated nationalism. These choices made integration with NATO, premised on pluralism and military transparency, increasingly impossible.
Missed Opportunity—or Historical Inevitability?
So, was the failure to integrate Russia a missed opportunity? The answer lies in a balance of structural constraints and political agency:
The Soviet Collapse Was Colossal: The political, economic, and social disintegration of a superpower created chaos on a scale the West was ill-prepared to manage. Unlike smaller Eastern European states, Russia was too vast, too complex, and too proud to be remade by outsiders.
The West’s Half-Measures: Washington did not pursue a Marshall Plan for Russia. It expanded NATO eastward, but without an overarching vision of how Russia might fit into a new European security architecture. To Moscow, NATO enlargement looked like encirclement rather than partnership.
Putin’s Choices: While Western policies fueled mistrust, Putin himself foreclosed alternatives. His embrace of one-man rule, reliance on resource rents, and use of nationalism to bolster legitimacy made deep integration impossible.
Conclusion: A Tragic Road Not Taken
In retrospect, both sides bore responsibility. The United States and its allies lacked the imagination to design a post–Cold War order inclusive of Russia. At the same time, Russia’s size, history, and political trajectory made such inclusion extraordinarily difficult.
Could a more generous Western approach—something like a “Marshall Plan for Moscow” or conditional NATO membership—have stabilized Russia’s democracy and avoided today’s confrontations? Possibly. But it would have required immense political will, foresight, and trust on both sides.
Instead, mistrust deepened, opportunities slipped away, and by the time Putin had consolidated power, the window for integration had closed. What remains today is not a shared European security space, but a divided continent—where the ghost of that missed post–Cold War settlement continues to haunt global politics.
What If Russia Had Joined NATO? A Counterfactual History
History often turns on missed opportunities. Few are as consequential as the moment in the early 2000s when Vladimir Putin reportedly suggested that Russia might consider joining NATO. The idea was rebuffed. But what if the answer had been different? What if Russia had, against the grain of centuries of rivalry, entered the Western alliance system?
The Road Not Taken
Imagine this: In 2002, NATO leaders extend an invitation to Moscow, conditional on gradual reforms in governance, rule of law, and military transparency. Instead of expanding eastward in ways that alienated Russia, NATO expands to include it. Moscow commits to civilian control over its armed forces, deep economic liberalization, and greater respect for human rights.
The symbolic power of such a move would have been immense: the old adversary folded into the very alliance that was once created to contain it.
Geopolitical Consequences
European Security Transformed
With Russia inside NATO, the very rationale for NATO expansion into the Baltics and Eastern Europe would have shifted. Poland, the Baltic states, and others might still have sought protection, but the specter of Russian aggression would no longer loom as it did historically. Instead of a security dilemma, Europe might have enjoyed the beginnings of a common security architecture stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
No Ukraine Crisis
A Russia tied into NATO decision-making would have had less incentive to see Ukraine as a buffer zone. While tensions over identity and politics in Ukraine would still exist, the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 full-scale invasion might never have occurred. Instead, Ukraine might have developed as a neutral or even NATO-partnered state without existential threat from Moscow.
The U.S. Strategic Pivot
With Russia as an ally, the U.S. could have pivoted earlier and more decisively toward the Indo-Pacific, concentrating on the rise of China. Washington’s defense budgets might still have been robust, but the rationale would shift from a two-front rivalry to a single major strategic competition.
Energy Politics Redefined
Russian oil and gas exports would have been integrated into Western energy planning rather than used as leverage. Europe’s energy transition might have been smoother, without the recurring crises triggered by Moscow’s cutoffs or threats.
Domestic Russia in This Scenario
Would such integration have been possible without altering Russia itself? That is the key question.
Political Reform: Joining NATO would have required real reforms—independent courts, free elections, and stronger civil society. This would have checked Putin’s ability to consolidate one-man rule. Instead of “managed democracy,” Russia might have evolved into a flawed but genuine democracy, resembling countries like Poland or Hungary in the early 2000s.
Economic Modernization: Access to Western markets and capital, combined with NATO membership, would have accelerated Russia’s modernization. Moscow might have been less dependent on resource rents and more open to innovation-driven growth.
National Identity: Russia’s centuries-long ambivalence—Is it part of Europe, or apart from it?—would have tilted decisively toward the European side. This could have reshaped Russian nationalism into something less antagonistic toward the West.
Challenges and Obstacles
Of course, this rosy counterfactual is not without problems:
Sovereignty Concerns: Many Russians would have seen NATO membership as an unacceptable compromise of sovereignty, a humiliation after the Soviet collapse.
Western Resistance: Some NATO members, especially in Eastern Europe, would have opposed Russian membership, fearing it would dilute the alliance or give Moscow undue influence.
Putin’s Personality: Even with incentives, would Putin ever have allowed reforms that limited his power? His trajectory suggests otherwise.
The World Today, If It Had Happened
Had Russia joined NATO in the early 2000s, the global order today might look radically different:
No war in Ukraine, and no Cold War 2.0 between Russia and the West.
NATO transformed from a Western military alliance into a pan-European security community.
The U.S. and Russia aligned against terrorism post-9/11 and possibly against China’s growing assertiveness.
Russia, instead of being sanctioned and isolated, would be an anchor of stability in Eurasia.
Conclusion: A Dream Deferred
History rarely grants second chances. The early 2000s represented a fleeting moment when Russia and the West could have reimagined their relationship. NATO membership for Russia would have required enormous reforms in Moscow, and unprecedented imagination in Washington and Brussels.
It didn’t happen. Instead, mistrust, pride, and inertia won the day. Today’s divided Europe is the result. But imagining a world where Russia sat at NATO’s table reminds us of how much different—and perhaps safer—the 21st century might have been.
The Missed Opportunity: Why U.S. Arrogance Strengthens Multipolarity
The 25th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit comes at a moment when the world is decisively multipolar. Yet the United States continues to behave as if it is the only game in town. This does not restore unipolarity—it hastens America’s decline, leaving it with fewer friends, even in Europe.
The WTO and the Need for a New Bretton Woods
Much is made today of the World Trade Organization’s dysfunction. But the solution is not for the U.S. to demolish it and unilaterally set the rules of global commerce. That only fuels division. The answer is a second Bretton Woods, a new architecture for global trade and finance in which all economies participate equally. Such a system would reflect today’s realities—where SCO or BRICS countries already represent larger populations, larger combined economies, and significant military power compared to either the U.S. or Europe.
Better Relations Are Always Good
International relations are not zero-sum. India-China reconciliation benefits everyone, just as better relations between Russia and the U.S., or China and the U.S., would be globally stabilizing. Multipolarity offers opportunities for cooperation, not just competition. When countries improve ties, global growth, peace, and security all benefit.
But cooperation requires humility. When all you have is an attitude problem, it is hard to make friends. Even traditional allies like Canada are drifting away from Washington’s orbit.
Tariffs: Reverse Robin Hood Economics
The U.S. courts have now ruled the Trump tariffs illegal, affirming a principle as old as the American Revolution: no taxation without representation. Tariffs are not paid by foreign powers, despite the rhetoric. They are paid by U.S. importers, who pass them on to consumers. The result is a regressive tax: America’s poor and middle class pay more so that the super-rich can enjoy tax cuts.
This is Reverse Robin Hood economics, dressed up as a global trade war. It undercuts America’s credibility and weakens its claim to economic leadership.
Ukraine and the Path to Peace
The war in Ukraine remains one of the greatest obstacles to global stability. Yet Ukraine itself could take bold unilateral steps toward peace:
Constitutional Change: Removing the NATO accession clause would lower Moscow’s perceived existential threat.
Federalization: Reorganizing as a federal state with strong regional autonomy, language and culture rights, and Russian as a second official language could reduce tensions.
Referenda: Agreeing to UN-organized referenda in disputed territories would give residents the right to choose—remain in Ukraine, become independent, or join Russia.
Such steps would be politically daring but could transform the conflict’s dynamics.
The SCO’s Moment—and India’s Role
The SCO Summit is momentous precisely because the U.S. has grown too arrogant to build bridges. When India and China clashed on their border, it was Russia that mediated, preventing escalation. In Ukraine today, India could play that mediating role—bridging East and West, championing a peaceful settlement.
But such a role becomes viable only if the U.S. reconsiders its confrontational stance. The first step is obvious: roll back the self-defeating tariffs.
Conclusion: Humility or Decline
A multipolar world is already here. The U.S. can either adapt—working with other powers through dialogue, reform, and new institutions—or cling to outdated unipolar habits that accelerate its own isolation.
The SCO, BRICS, and other emerging forums are not threats to be contained, but partners in building a new global order. Humility, not hubris, is the path to lasting leadership.
The recent U.S. court decision striking down the Trump administration’s tariffs offers not only a legal rebuke but also a historic opportunity. Rather than doubling down on a failed approach, the administration should take this moment to rectify its mistake, roll back the tariffs, and pursue a new vision for global trade.
Tariffs as a Policy Dead End
The tariffs were sold as a way to punish foreign powers. In reality, they functioned as a regressive tax on American consumers and businesses. Importers bore the initial costs, which were then passed down the supply chain. The result: higher prices for ordinary Americans and strained relationships with trading partners. Courts have now confirmed what economists long argued—tariffs were not only bad economics but bad law.
Rolling them back would immediately ease inflationary pressures, rebuild trust with allies, and signal that the U.S. is ready to re-engage in cooperative trade leadership.
The Case for a New Bretton Woods
Yet repealing tariffs is not enough. The larger crisis is that the World Trade Organization (WTO) no longer functions effectively. Global supply chains are fraying under the weight of trade wars, protectionism, and unilateral sanctions. What is needed now is not American unilateralism, but a new international framework—an updated Bretton Woods for the 21st century.
The original Bretton Woods in 1944 laid the foundation for decades of prosperity by creating institutions like the IMF and World Bank. A second Bretton Woods would need to be broader, bringing in all major economies—advanced and emerging alike—to design rules that reflect today’s multipolar world. It would need to address digital trade, climate-linked policies, and equitable globalization in a way the WTO cannot.
Multipolar Realities
The U.S. cannot simply dictate terms anymore. SCO and BRICS countries already represent a larger combined economy and population than either the U.S. or Europe. Their voices matter. India and China improving ties shows that multipolar cooperation is not only possible but desirable. The U.S. must adapt to this reality or risk isolation.
From Confrontation to Leadership
If the administration seizes this moment, the rollback of tariffs could be reframed as the first step toward a new, cooperative trade order. By calling for a second Bretton Woods conference, Washington could reclaim the mantle of leadership—not by imposing its will, but by convening all powers to design a future system together.
This would be the ultimate expression of American confidence: moving from protectionist retreat to global stewardship.
Conclusion: The Door Is Still Open
The court decision is not just a legal technicality. It is an invitation. The U.S. can continue down the path of arrogance and decline, or it can embrace humility and build anew. Rolling back tariffs is the necessary first step. Organizing a second Bretton Woods could be the historic leap that restores U.S. credibility and creates a trade architecture fit for the 21st century.
