 The G20 summit in New Delhi is over as is India's presidency of the forum. As the dust settles, what came out of the event and what are its implications? It was a Grand Slam triumph for a veteran and a newbie at the US Open this year. Novak Djokovic won his 24th Grand Slam and 19-year-old Coco Gough won her first. What do these victories mean for the world of tennis? This is the Daily Debrief. These are our stories for the day. And before you go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. The G20 summit concluded in New Delhi on September 10th, amid quite a bit of fanfare. Now, while the G20 is supposed to be an economic platform, the question on everyone's mind was whether there would be a joint statement due to differences on the Ukraine war. Finally, a statement was released which would have given much satisfaction to India since G20 has been a major campaign plank domestically for the Narendra Modi government. Now the Western media is portraying the declaration as a concession or a gracious compromise made by the West to keep G20 alive. This is because it does not have any reference to the word aggression in relation to Russia. But is this enough to salvage G20? We have with us Praveer Purkhas, who has been watching the development of all these blocks. Praveer, thanks so much for joining us. You have been tracking the G20 summit very closely. Now a lot of people had expected that there would be no statement because all the signs indicated that, but a statement did come out. There was no reference to Russian aggression, of course, which seemed to have been the single biggest point of debate. Now what do you read out of this? The fact that there was actually a statement, all sections are claiming victory in various ways. So how do you sort of analyze this? Well, let's go with that that everybody has won. You know, that's a very nice feeling that we can carry. That this time, unlike Bali, where the Ukraine become an acrimonious divisive point in which Russia and China did not agree to that paragraph. This time everybody has come to a unified paragraph. Now, you know, if you are an international arena expert, then you will read from this the tea leaves. And there can be various arguments in favor of what has changed the last one year. Because it's a fact that the European Union and the United States, we're not counting the United Kingdom as a major independent player in this, did back off from saying no over our dead bodies, which is what they seem to have done in Bali, which finally led to the statement having that paragraph in which it was not a unified state, shall we say. This time they seem to have backed off. So there could be two interpretation of the tea leaves. One is that they are reading the scenario that the global South countries are not interested in choosing sides of this issue. They would like to build their trade relationships with both. They're not going to sanction Russia that is clear over the last two years. And they're not going to get into a military take this side or that side issue on Ukraine. So this is one issue on which countries like India, countries like South Africa, countries like Brazil would all be united on this particular position. And therefore keeping it out. Now the United States has claimed victory, of course, interpreting various clauses in it. We won't get into that. The fact that they did oppose dropping of that particular paragraph, which was there in Bali, that this took a lot of negotiations before it was decided, as I said, could be due to the fact that the world opinion is increasingly unwilling to become a party to the conflict. It is between Russia and NATO countries and its allies. And others would like to continue the trade economic relationships with Russia. It's a big player in terms of oil and natural gas. It's also a big player in terms of coal, in terms of food, in terms of fertilizers. So a lot of countries have a stake in their continued economic relationships with Russia. So that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it, and if you've been following Ambassador Bhadrakumar's pieces, that since essentially the Ukrainian offensive has run out of steam. And this is what the American media also seeming to suggest with, shall we say, whistling in the dark statements, we should fight continual, the fight should continue until 2025. And then Ukraine may win, et cetera, et cetera. But the idea that Russia is going to be defeated shortly, Crimea will be taken back. All of this doesn't seem to be a possibility. So Ambassador Bhadrakumar has argued, there are some signs now that possible discussions of either leading to a frozen conflict or a larger peace accord may be a possibility. And maybe discussions may start. Therefore, again, I'm saying maybe. Again, reading tea leaves is not my profession. So I would say the possibility that this come down in some sense of the Western powers in the G20 may be an indication of not taking such a hard position because they would like to now start at least getting other intermediaries in the process of getting to talk to Russia. Because as it stands, that they have really almost foreclosed as of now. And they need somebody to start the discussion. Zelensky's response to this does show that he at least is very unhappy, but the West has not backed him as he thought they would and as they did in Bali. So yes, and we also have to give Indian team the credit that they did manage to hold on and try to get everybody to agree on a statement. And they seem to have had that leverage to be able to do this. So yes, I think credit to the Indian team for having also come out and negotiated what has been a unified G20 statement, unlike the Bali statement, which had differences writ large in terms of Ukraine. Praveen, one of our focus points on this show and in many other shows, People's Dispatch, this is also the larger, shall we say, future of some of these blocks. Now, in the past, we talked about, for instance, the economic factors itself indicate that the G20 is a bit shaky as opposed to some of the other blocks we are seeing in the world. Do you think this summit really has changed anything as far as that is concerned or is that a much more long-term process which is unaffected by individual summits and joint statements and stuff like that? Well, the joint statements and summits of this kind of blocks would also indicate the shift of the economic and political power. Now, the fact that African Union has come in, the European Union came in long back, the African Union has come in just now, would seem to indicate again the growing economic leverage of the global South. This, if you remember, 50 years back, the European powers and of course the United States really ruled the economic world. They decided the rules and ultimately with the fall of Soviet Union and the founding of WTO, it seemed that the US writ and its allies, the writ would run large on particularly the geostrategic but also the economic sphere. After all, the IMF and the World Bank have enshrined the power of both the United States and Europe, the ex-colonial powers in that power structure that exists. So if an economic change takes place, then the IMF and the World Bank changing those structures may be quite difficult. So either we have alternate structures come up and then the question is, in this alternate structures which may come up, which bricks of course is one of them, but there could be many others, ASEAN, West Asia, they're all trying to work out their economic future as well as Africa. So where do they all meet? So G20's original writ, if you remember from what was originally G8 and then G7 was economic issues and it came in the context of 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which is really the crisis of the American and European banks. So given that, the fact that we have a G20 as a talk shop but still a talk shop in which discussions can take place, the issue of whether a realignment of economic forces will take place is a place where G20 could still play such role. But of course, let's place it this way. The stake that Mr. Modi had had in a successful G20, I don't think other countries will have or even Brazil would have. So therefore, this is something which Mr. Modi needed much more than any other leader of a country may need, partly because of the fact that he still wants to show that he has enormous, what shall we say, leverage in the global world, the Vishwa Guru image which India now wants to project somehow that we will lead the world. We don't have to take it internationally so seriously, but domestically it has at least increased his stature that he led a successful G20 initiative. India played a role, a big role and the fact that India spent a lot of money, but that is given a country of India size, we could disregard that. Yes, it did cause problems of different kinds, but I don't think that should be in that sense, be contraposed to what is an international event and what is the outcome of that. So I don't think I would give up the idea that G20 doesn't have any role. It was supposed to be dealing with economic issues and the economic issues are important today. Restructuring of the economic world, outside the WTO, outside the IMF and outside the World Bank, how will it proceed? We don't know. As you know, IMF World Bank restructuring is almost impossible, okay? They have had no attempt to do that over the last 20, 25 years, enough discussion is taking place, no movement at all on that and I don't very much, it's far feasible. On the question of WTO, the United States, given the fact it is an sanctions war against different countries. WTO's days, it seems unnumbered or at least it will go into cold storage for the time being. So G20 is about the only place where two sides can meet and have a discussion and with African Union coming in. I think that's a welcome development to let's see where it goes. And finally, very briefly, one of the announcements was also for Corridor that they're talking about connecting India, West Asia and then Europe. Do you see that actually sort of transforming anything? Of course, I think even the protagonist said that it's gonna take a lot of time, but it's still interesting that even the proposal has come up. Well, I have not understood the proposal because though there is a line on the map showing a connection between Europe, what it appears to the Mediterranean Ocean, a Mediterranean Sea, connecting actually to Israel and then going through West Asia, like Saudi Arabia and so on, and then to India. Now, actually, if you look at the map, there is already a Suez canal, okay? The ships do, and as we know, from the amount of traffic that goes to the Suez canal, ships, container ships do go through that in large numbers. The huge traffic on that. So I don't see a corridor of the kind, for instance, which Russia is trying to develop through Central Asia and Iran, then to the Indian Ocean. How that is relevant to a West Asia, Europe and South Asia, Southeast Asia scenario. So if there wasn't any such Suez canal, yes, but there is. And large tankers, of course, go around Africa. So the only question would be if West Asia wants to link through pipelines to Saudi, from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates to Israel, and then use that as a conduit to Europe. Now that would be in Saudi Arabia and Israel's relationships have to change. And at the moment, Saudi Arabia has not shown any inclination to join what is called the Abrahamic chords, unlike, for instance, United Arab Emirates. So given that, I don't really understand the dimension that they're talking about this corridor, except to say, well, there seem to be the European side has good wishes or optimistic about trying to get oil out of West Asia into Europe. But I think in the West Asia scenario and West Asia is emerging as an independent set of players. You have Qatar, you have Kuwait, you have United Arab Emirates, all players and particularly UAE and Qatar are very much players. And let's not forget Turkey is very much there. So I think that dynamics is not a European, South Asian dynamics. It's a very different dynamics, which is playing out to be in West Asia. And if you look at West Asia, they would like to control their future by themselves. I don't think they would give the leadership of West Asia either to the United States or to European Union or to South Asia for that matter. So I think this is very much kite flying by European Union and United States to get something out of this summit and talk about some alternative to Belt Road Initiative. Use that as a peck to dam the Chinese a little more and all of that. They're most welcome to do that. And India has no love loss for the Belt Road Initiative either. But the point is that does it make sense to link what is already linked? So Belt Road Initiative comes to link Central Asia to China, to Russia and to Europe. And if Western Europe doesn't want that to submit, but what does India gain in addition to the linkage it already has to West Asia? It's quite closely linked to West Asia and it is also linked via Suez Canal to Europe. So I have not understood this corridor honestly. Thank you so much for being, of course I guess the implications will play out for quite some time and we'll be watching it. Thank you so much for talking to us. A 24-time Grand Slam Victor and a first-time Grand Slam winner. The men and women's US Open tournaments were a picture in contrast. On the one hand, we have Coco Goff all of 19 years old who became the youngest winner of a US Open since Serena Williams. On the other hand, there is Novak Djokovic at Grand Slam number 24 and promising that he'll be around for quite a while longer. We have with us Siddhantane for an analysis. Siddhantane, thanks so much for joining us. So let's start with the women's tournament first dream run for Coco Goff at 19 years old, winning her first Grand Slam tournament. And in some senses, I think let's take the women's tournament as a whole as not just the US Open, but also previous Opens as well. It indicates a fresh generation of players. It looks like a lot of challenges emerging, quite a tough contest. So how do you sort of analyze this victory? Yeah, absolutely. You're spot on with your analysis Prashant because we've talked about this quite often in the context of various Grand Slams whenever it comes up on DP. That actually the openness that there is in the WTA which is the women's professional tour after the departure of, let's say, or the dominance of Serena Williams and the like has been great to see over the past few years, Arena Sabalenka, who's Coco Goff played in the final herself has had an incredible run. We've seen Ornce Jabor, we've seen so many young players emerging and playing finals of major, major events. It's actually also testament to how the WTA itself is organized and how despite tennis being this sport or maybe because tennis is a sport still reserved for the super elite, that so much care is taken of athletes who exist within the system. And in many ways they are the prime stakeholders in the overall structure of the sport. So their interests are taken care of irrespective of where they might come from or of course ranking and all of those things matter in this as well. And younger or sort of lower ranked players do tend to struggle. But overall the kind of system that they're trying to create is one that encourages the growth of the sport and structures it in such a way that athletes are able to emerge and with young players emerging now on both sides of tennis men and women. The men's draw also if you take Novak Djokovic out of it, everyone else is still very much in there early to mid 20s. So a great deal of young talent on the men's side as well. Prasanth, but overall it's been progressively more interesting to watch the women's side because you never know who's going to emerge. You're likely to see new champions and new storylines emerging. And also the fact that so many things happened over the course of the tournament with Koko Gov on the sidelines. There was a protest by some environmental activists at one of our games where the game was actually stopped for a long time and the match was in the balance. So there are several players who've in the past gone out and said that this is not the stage for people to protest and raise other issues that don't necessarily belong on the tennis court because it disrupts us and the work that we are trying to put in and all of that. But Gov in the post-match press conference said that if this is a platform where others can also find a way to express their voices and their opinions on important issues that make an impact to all of us then more power to them essentially. So these kinds of things also indicate Prasanth how athletes are no longer always in this super bubble where only their sport and those things matter. They are more and more in tune with what's happening in the world outside and are less afraid I think especially those who achieve some level of understanding of how the system is and how fleeting anyway the fame and the popularity in all of those things are unless you back it up with something of greater substance. So many of them coming out and doing that and I think women actually it's across the board have taken that leadership role in the sports scene in general. Of course Sitaan going to the men's draw we're not going to be talking about the goat debate or anything of that sort but 24 grand slams is a remarkable achievement for Djokovic in this point and he seems to indicate very clearly that he's going to be around for many, many more years. I think at some point he said he's going to be around for 20 years and then we'll see or something but no sign of him slowing down. Absolutely not. In fact just I think on some physical metrics and because together with his longevity or the longevity of his career other athletes in the sport Prashant have also up their levels consistently. So the technology that Djokovic and his team employ maybe he's on another level but other athletes also have access to similar technologies in terms of sense and conditioning in terms of recovery and how you manage the wear and tear on your body along with getting some kind of peak training level so that you can perform when it comes to these big events. So the science of it is being worked on greatly and millions and inside billions of dollars goes into all of that. So there's a huge amount of kind of structure that supports these athletes and on some of these metrics Nova Djokovic looks like he's at the age of 36 at his prime or we don't even know whether his prime might be stage to come. So we often disagreed on aspects of his politics and all of that, this has nothing to do it's not an endorsement necessarily of how Nova Djokovic has used the tennis system to his own advantage when it suits his convenience. But just to kind of demonstrate what a super athlete he is and hopefully it remains the doping science remains a step ahead of whatever other science is going on so that we can be assured that all of these athletes are of course clean and just putting the right kind of work in the right places to do the kind of stuff they're doing but yeah, if he continues at this pace 35, 40 grand slams might be a realistic possibility. Thanks so much Adhan for talking to us quite intriguing in some senses and we're gonna have a fresh set of grand slams next year as well to sort of see how and we can see how many of these players where do they reach exactly. Thank you so much. And that's all we have time for today in this episode of Daily Deep Brief do visit our website peoplesdispatch.org do go to YouTube, hit that subscribe button and make sure to watch more episodes of this show until tomorrow.