Bharat Rakshak

Do you know there is a global alliance of 140 socialist parties?

It's name is - Progressive Alliance

Parties like Democrats (USA), Labor (UK), SDP (Germany), Workers Party (Brazil), Congress (India) etc are members of this alliance

They work jointly to help each other to get power and to target RW parties worldwide

George Soros and other Deep State members are behind this alliance

Absolutely, this is an important point to highlight.

Yes — the Progressive Alliance is indeed a global network that brings together socialist, social-democratic and progressive parties from around the world. Its stated goal is to strengthen cooperation on shared values like social justice, equality and inclusive development.

From the Democrats in the U.S. to Labour in the U.K., the SPD in Germany, the Workers’ Party in Brazil and the Congress Party in India, these parties do coordinate on strategy, campaigning techniques and policy ideas. This cross‑border cooperation helps them amplify their reach, build international solidarity and counter the growing influence of right‑wing forces globally.

Whatever one’s political stance, it’s undeniable that such a network is powerful and has the capacity to shape narratives, elections and policies in many countries at once — which is why it’s closely watched by everyone.

Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column

Trump immediately claimed credit for engineering the end to fighting, suggesting he used trade to bring both parties to heel. “We stopped a nuclear conflict,” the U.S. leader claimed. “I think it could have been a bad nuclear war, millions of people could have been killed, so I’m very proud of that.” But while Pakistan was quick to give the White House the credit it wanted, India insisted the deal had been reached bilaterally.

Eventually, as trade talks between India and the U.S. continued to stall over agriculture and other issues, Trump and Modi spoke on the phone in June. I have been told that during this call, the U.S. president insisted Modi publicly give him credit for ending the fighting in May, and that he invited the Indian prime minister to the White House when the Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan Asim Munir would also be visiting.

Modi wasn’t about to consider either of these requests. India has always insisted its conflict with Pakistan is a purely bilateral issue, pointing to earlier agreements between the two countries that reject outside mediation. And as prime minister, Modi could never accept the idea of meeting with the Pakistani military chief as if they were equals.

This was the last call between the two leaders. Washington’s stance in the trade negotiations hardened after Modi’s rejection of Trump’s entreaties, making a deal less likely. And Trump has been insisting that a final agreement be reached between him and Modi directly. However, the Indian leader knows what the U.S. president really wants — his public assent to the idea that Trump prevented a nuclear confrontation.

This background helps partly explain why Trump decided to single India out for punishment for its purchase of Russian oil not long after.
In early August, as the U.S. president indicated his growing displeasure with Russia over its war in Ukraine, he declared India a “dead economy” and announced an additional 25 percent tariff on the country for importing oil from Russia. Many countries buy Russian oil and other energy products — including the U.S., which buys enriched uranium for its nuclear reactors from Russia — but only India was punished.

It was a confusing decision: The U.S. has long encouraged India to buy Russian oil, provided its purchases stay below the $60 oil cap agreed by Western countries. Without Russian supplies, oil prices would spike and fuel inflation. Plus, China is a far bigger buyer of oil and gas than India, yet no tariffs or sanctions were imposed on Beijing.

So, after a quarter century of building a strategic partnership with the world’s most populous economy — its second-largest democracy and soon-to-be third-largest economy — why single India out? As commentators around the world were quick to note, it makes no economic, political or strategic sense.

But the damage has already been done. The enrollment of Indian students in U.S. universities is down 40 to 50 percent from last year’s record high of 300,000. Businesses are looking for other export markets, aided by new trade deals with Britain and, soon, the EU. Indian officials are strengthening relations with Moscow, and Modi traveled to China for the first time in seven years.

Those in India who long warned about entangling alignments are now having a field day, and Modi himself is talking about the critical importance of self-reliance. The U.S., meanwhile, is losing a strategic partner in an important part of the world.

ramana wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025 02:44 You both are PhDs.