top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Hijacked Voices, Broken Brands

There’s something deeply unsettling about having someone else speak on your behalf—especially when you didn’t ask for it.


We’ve all witnessed this. You’re in a room, capable of articulating your thoughts, yet someone decides they know you better than you know yourself. They start explaining your actions, justifying your choices, or answering questions meant for you. And while their intent may not always be malicious, the impact is far from helpful. In fact, it’s quietly damaging—not just for the one being spoken for, but also for the person doing the speaking.


Personal branding isn’t only about the image you project. It’s also about the space you hold for others. When you repeatedly override someone’s voice, it tells the world two things: one, that you don’t trust the other person’s ability to represent themselves, and two, that you may be seeking control, attention, or validation at the cost of someone else’s autonomy. That’s not leadership. That’s ego, poorly disguised.


It’s especially dangerous in professional settings. Imagine a manager speaking for a team member in front of senior leadership, interpreting their feelings, explaining their work ethic, or brushing aside their discomfort as if it’s irrelevant. What message does that send? It tells the room that the individual in question lacks agency. It also tells the room that the manager prefers domination over delegation, performance over empathy. And both impressions reflect poorly on the speaker’s brand.


On the other side of this scenario is the person being spoken for. They begin to shrink. Not because they lack confidence, but because they weren’t given a chance to show it. Over time, this leads to frustration, self-doubt, and disconnection. They begin to feel invisible, even when they’re right there. And here’s the kicker—others in the room notice too. They notice the person being overshadowed, and they notice the one doing the overshadowing. Neither walks away with their personal brand intact.


In high-stakes environments—boardrooms, negotiations, media interviews—every word you speak carries weight. And so does every word you shouldn’t have spoken. The art of building a strong personal brand lies not just in what you say, but also in what you choose not to say. Knowing when to stay silent, when to let others take the stage, and when to pass the mic is what separates powerful leaders from insecure performers.


HNIs, business owners, founders, and CXOs—this applies to you more than anyone. The way you treat people who are “below you” on the org chart speaks volumes to those who are “above you” in influence. Investors, clients, and future collaborators don’t just assess your business acumen—they assess your emotional intelligence. They look at how you listen. They look at how you delegate. They look at how you let others shine. Because that’s what sustainable leadership looks like.


Speaking on behalf of someone else without consent isn’t just a social misstep—it’s a branding blunder. It reveals insecurity masked as authority, control masked as support, and ego masked as expertise. The world today is too connected and too aware for such behavior to go unnoticed.


Instead, let your brand reflect restraint, respect, and radical trust. Build a reputation where people admire not just your success but the way you elevate others. That’s the kind of brand that attracts meaningful relationships, premium opportunities, and long-term loyalty.


If this made you think—even a little—about how you’re showing up in conversations and how your words are shaping your image, maybe it’s time for a reality check. Maybe it’s time to invest in your brand—not just as a business leader, but as a human being.


And when you're ready to discover how powerful your brand can truly be, you know where to find me.

LinkedIn: Divyaa Advaani

Instagram: @suaveu6 (Divyaa Advaani)

YouTube: @suaveu (Suave U – Divyaa Advaani)


(The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page