The IMEC holds immense potential for economic growth, regional connectivity, energy cooperation, and promoting cultural exchanges. But various geopolitical and financial hurdles must be overcome first.

Although the BRICS may hope for a more equal world-order, they may soon find out that the standard they rebel against may not actually have been the worst structure for governing the world’s resources.

As one geopolitical epoch gives way to another, Churchill’s old dictum rings true as always: “In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.”

The rise of IMEC as an alternative to Faw Port and the ‘Development Road’ project illustrates mounting US-China geopolitical rivalry over trade infrastructure in the Middle East.

Nuclear weapons play an essential if unspoken role in the Ukraine war: they keep the conflict from spilling its borders.

The BRICS grouping owes its ascent in large part to a shared disdain for the excesses of the unipolar moment, and this is making for some awkward comparisons in the shadow of the Ukraine war.

In cozying up to India, Washington is putting geopolitics over any shared commitment to democracy and human rights.

The BRICS grouping may have taken the world by storm, but the national interests of various member states continue to stymie the emergence of any meaningful pan-BRICS ideology.

The question of Ukraine’s ascension to NATO should be a matter of national interest, and while those interests are clear in the case of Europe, they are far less so for Washington.

A recent speech by Kazakhstan’s president outlines the growing importance of trans-national water and electricity generation issues; and nuclear energy is increasingly being floated as a potential solution.