#brics new members

[workersolidarity]

Interesting new graph from Visual Capitalist on the BRICS expansion.

BRICS has agreed to accept the following six new Members States:

Egypt

Ethiopia

Argentina

Iran

UAE

Saudi Arabia

Together, BRICS will now encompass 46% of the Global population, representing 29% of Global GDP, 25% of Global Exports, and 43% of Global Oil Production.

[kazifatagar]

PM Anwar: ASEAN Nations Eye BRICS Membership

Several ASEAN countries have shown interest in joining the BRICS grouping after Malaysia expressed its intention to be part of the economic bloc, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The prime minister said ASEAN has no intention of becoming an arena for the power struggles of major powers, and the bloc will maintain its focus on the regional economy with dialogue partners to ensure…

[xtruss]

BRICS Summit in Xiamen, Southeastern China's Fujian Province on September 5, 2017. © Mark Schiefelbein/POOL/AFP

Dmitry Trenin: The Founder Members of BRICS Face a Historic Decision as They Attempt to Reshape the World Order

Expanding the membership and working towards financial independence from the West are two important challenges to be discussed at the Johannesburg summit

— Monday August 21th, 2023

Never has the BRICS group attracted so much interest around the world as in the run-up to the 15th leaders’ summit this week in Johannesburg.

This in itself shows the growth of the bloc's importance since its first gathering – at the level of economics ministers – on the margins of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in 2006, and the initial proper summit in Ekaterinburg in 2009.

About 20 countries are reportedly seeking admission to the five-member organization and the list of countries that will be represented at the meeting in South Africa is three times as long. This is a sign of the times and points to two things: the yearning of many non-Western nations to become more consequential to how the world is run, and the growing pushback against self-serving Western dominance in global politics, economics, finance, and the media.

This does not mean, however, that BRICS (an acronym made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) will have an easy run in reshaping the world order. Ahead of the Johannesburg summit, two issues emerged as the main challenges to the group’s further evolution. One is expanding membership. A number of countries from all over the globe have lined up at BRICS' door, ready to walk in. These include Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Going for a big-bang enlargement would be a loud statement, to the effect that an alternative to the US-led system of alliances and partnerships is being built. However, the question is would such an expansion make a much more diversified BRICS immediately stronger or not?

Within BRICS itself, views on enlargement differ. Yet, there is a model that can prove useful. Another non-Western group, with some of the same participant states, did manage the enlargement issue without diluting effectiveness. This was the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which started with Russia, China, and three Central Asian states. Over time, the SCO has found a formula for categories of participating countries and criteria-cum-processes for admitting new full members. The organization was able to extend its full membership to India and Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Iran, with a number of others in line for admission. If the SCO approach is adopted by BRICS, this could be a solution.

The other challenge for the bloc is coming up with new financial instruments to reduce the non-Western economies’ dependence on the dollar. Washington’s weaponization of its currency in its Hybrid War against Russia and its concurrent manipulation of trade and technology against China have made the issue urgent. Western restrictions have hampered the activities of the BRICS’ New Development Bank. Calls have been made for the group to create a common currency, to break the dollar's monopoly in world finance. Yet, it is self-evident that creating a reserve currency for five very different economies, of which China accounts for two-thirds of the combined nominal GDP of the group, will run up against the jealously guarded principle of national sovereignty. The original goal of achieving financial independence will not be met.

A more practical way would be to improve the currently growing practice of using national currencies in trade between BRICS countries. The yuan and ruble account for more than half of Sino-Russian commercial turnover; Russia accepts the rupee for the oil it ships to India; Brazil trades in yuan with China; and so on. While these transactions have the merit of being free from third-country interference, they can and do incur costs, due to the problems with convertibility of some currencies, their limited use outside the issuing country, and the instability of the exchange rate. These are the issues that need to be addressed. While a BRICS currency is still a long way off, it would make more sense to work on improving the system of international payments and settlements within the group.

BRICS is often compared to the G7. Yet, although is some ways the comparison can be justified, the two groups are fundamentally different in their ambition, structure, and evolution. The G7 is politically, economically and ideologically homogenous, while BRICS is rich in diversity on all counts; the G7 is essentially led by the United States, with the others, the ex-great powers, unquestionably accepting that leadership, whereas in BRICS, China’s economic weight does not translate into a Beijing hegemony. The G7 is globalist in the sense of seeking to project its models and morals on the rest of the world, and BRICS countries are wholly focused on their national sovereignty. At the same time, the G7 is clearly exclusive, with the West sitting clearly above the rest, while BRICS is just the opposite: it embraces the diversity of different civilizations and cultures.

The G7’s role is to preserve the old order in which the West is dominant; the BRICS members’ ambition is to build elements of a new, more diversified and better-balanced world order – first of all among themselves and then to further impact the evolution of the world system. BRICS is not an attempt to create a zero-sum alliance. It is the core of what one can call the World Majority that aims at development rather than dominance. The going will be hard and not unopposed but, with more pieces to the puzzle affixed, the foundation of a more open and inclusive world order will eventually emerge.

— Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

[faultfalha]

Rumors spread like wildfire among the diplomatic circles that South Africa's Foreign Minister had whispered something about the BRICS Bloc's possible expansion. Though no one could confirm what exactly it was, the suspicion that it involved a substantial number of new members was enough to get people buzzing. Of course, that was no surprise, as the BRICS alliance had been gaining momentum for years, ever since it was founded just a short decade ago. What could the foreign minister's statement mean? Speculation ran rampant, and the possibilities were endless. Was it the dawn of a new era, or an ominous sign of things to come? The details remain wrapped in mystery, and only time will tell as to what this sudden announcement could portend. It's only certain that those within the diplomatic circles must've sensed a shift in the winds, and the ripples of the turmoil are sure to spread far and wide. What the future holds is still unknown, and the truth may never be revealed. But as the speculation rages on, one thing is abundantly clear: the BRICS Bloc is about to become something entirely new.

[enarei]

I don't have a strong affection for the term either way because I remember the years when it was nothing more than an acronym used on the title of my schoolbook chapter to convey the concept of rapidly developing nations and I still feel organizationally very little has changed from then, it has just become more widely known outside of the vocabulary of middle schoolers from the member states, but I do find it funny how euro-american media keeps describing BRICS as a fringe concept, and even when they're not trying to portray it as the new axis of evil they still fail to afford it any degree of proportionality considering HALF OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION is part of it. it's just like "oh hey this group of five stupid nations thinks they can go against the US dollar lol what a buncha fucking losers but hey trump bad so we're not gonna go too hard on them" like. that's 45% of the world's population.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

For Lula, Milei Has Gone From Being a Nuisance to Being a Problem

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has aspirations for regional and global leadership. Standing in Lula’s way is the fact that he cannot even get a meeting with his counterpart from neighboring Argentina, President Javier Milei.

Seven months after Milei’s inauguration, the two leaders have met only once and even then briefly, on the sidelines of the G7 meeting last month in Italy. Otherwise, they have unartfully dodged each other as they have darted around the region and the world promoting their opposing ideological views.

Lula’s global agenda is expansive. He wants Brazil to have a permanent United Nations Security Council seat. He plans for the country to take a leading role in climate change negotiations as he hosts the U.N. COP30 Climate Change Conference in Brazil next year. He has tried to insert himself as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict. And when BRICS—the political grouping that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—moved to expand last year, Lula made sure to bring along Argentina under then-President Alberto Fernandez as one of its new members.

Milei withdrew Argentina from the BRICS expansion process as soon as he took office in December. That’s consistent with his desire to move the country away from China and closer to the United States. Besides that, he has not clearly outlined an international agenda for his country. But Milei definitely has an international agenda for himself. He has portrayed himself as an ally of Israel and Ukraine, a contrast to Latin America’s left-wing leaders who have opposed the former’s war in Gaza and mainly attempted to remain neutral on the latter’s fight against Russian aggression.

Ideologically, Milei is attempting to turn himself into a global icon for free market libertarianism, speaking at conferences in South America, the U.S. and Europe, and meeting with venture capital investors and social media stars. He uses strong rhetoric in favor of capitalism and against any form of what he views as socialism or Marxism. His relatively extreme views, which only appeal to a small minority of Argentine voters who comprise his base, get him wild cheers overseas.

Continue reading.

[mariacallous]

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

[ptseti]

FVCKING FACTS

DOLLAR IS JUST PAPER

At the 16th annual BRICS summit (22-24 October), member states adopted the ‘Kazan Declaration’, with provisions to strengthen multilateralism, enhance cooperation for global and regional stability and security, foster economic and financial cooperation, and strengthen people-to-people exchanges for social and economic development. They also approved a BRICS ‘grain exchange’ to ensure food stability.

Some, like Zimbabwe-born motivational speaker Joshua Maponga in this clip, argue that fiat currencies, like the US dollar, Euro, British pound and Japanese yen, should be abandoned in favour of a gold-backed system.

At the summit, the bloc of five original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) plus four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) welcomed using local currencies for transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners.

Many African presidents have called for de-dollarisation, but the biggest win may be when Saudi Arabia pulls away from a decades-old petrodollar deal with the US.

The US dollar was pegged to gold’s value until US President Richard Nixon (1913-94) removed the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the US has printed the world’s reserve currency at will, sealing its status as a global hegemon.

So, how can countries break free of the US dollar's grip? Maponga argues gold is the answer.

[mapsontheweb]

BRICS admits six new members

Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are set to join the core group of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These 11 countries have a combined population of 3.7 billion.

[gusty-wind]

China, India and Russia have ALREADY been doing 70% of their Trade in their own Sovereign Currencies.

At the BRICs Summit in 8 days in Kazan, MOAR countries will be allowed to join BRICs.

Dozens of countries have formally applied.

Current BRICS Nations already account for 70% of the Oil trade.

Notice the Western CABAL Owned Media has been totally SILENT about how the rest of the World has shifted to BRICs, which means that the US PetroDollar based world hegemony is effectively OVER.

At the BRICs Summit, they will announce their new BRICs currency, called a BRICs Unit, it will be 40% Gold Backed, the rest a basket of member nations' currency.

Educate yourself.

[readingsquotes]

"Despite a global propaganda machine working overtime to tell us that targeting hospitals is not targeting hospitals and killing civilians is not killing civilians, awareness of Israel’s crimes is spreading like wildfire across the globe. This is due in no small part to the tenacity of the Palestinian armed resistance, which has managed to defy containment by Israel’s 40-mile long ‘iron wall’ and continues to resist an Israeli invasion on the ground. At the same time, Palestinian artists, writers, journalists, and academics have worked tirelessly to dismantle zionist colonization of the global- particularly Western- imaginary, with story, with song, with music, and with art.   This resistance in all its forms is having ripple effects. Since October 7, people have continued to flood the streets in every nation with chants of ‘In our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinians.’ Josephine Guilbeau, a former member of the US military, said on Monday at a vigil for Bushnell that ‘I don’t think this is going to be the last of our military members resisting. I feel like there are many, many Aarons out there. Who will speak for them?’ Israel’s lies have long lacked legitimacy among the peoples of the Global South, and particularly the Middle East. But today Taylor Swift fans show up to protests holding signs declaring ‘Swifties for Palestine‘ and videos of lawyers proclaiming the Israeli occupation ‘existentially illegal‘ before the International Court of Justice go viral on Twitter. Palestinian journalists reporting from Gaza have bigger online followings than the US president, and buildings in the West are emblazoned with their images and quotes. In a statement responding to Bushnell’s protest the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) stated “(Bushnell’s act) indicates that the status of the Palestinian cause, especially in American circles, is becoming more deeply entrenched in the global conscience, and reveals the truth of the zionist entity as a cheap colonial tool in the hands of savage imperialism.” Israel’s legitimacy is crumbling, and it is taking the US empire with it. This is not to suggest that Israel is pulling the strings- rather, it shows how far the US is prepared to go before it will risk its hegemony in the region. The refusal of all but a handful of states to join the US-led coalition ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ to defeat Yemen in the Red Sea (notable among absentees was Saudi Arabia, which has since joined the BRICS group of nations alongside China, Russia and Iran) was telling. Increasingly, the imperialism of the Western media is being exposed, and voices from the Global South locating these lies within much longer histories of Western colonial violence are being heard in new ways, by a new generation.  In a talk he gave on October 21st, 2023, historian Ilan Pappé stated: ‘Before October I wrote an article saying this is the beginning of the end of Zionism…after last week in fact I’m even more convinced. As happened in apartheid South Africa, this is a very dangerous period. The regime fights for its life….historically I have no doubt that this is what we are experiencing, we are experiencing cruelty and brutality because a certain regime is losing it, not because it’s winning, but because it’s losing.’ Israel’s attacks on Iran and Lebanon, attempting to lure the US into a broader regional war, are another sign of that desperation. "

-

In our thousands, in our millions: On Aaron Bushnell’s final act

What Aaron Bushnell did was an act of fierce, principled love in a situation of extreme desperation. It unflinchingly declared that even in the heart of the empire the lies of Zionism no longer hold.

by Britt Munro March 1, 2024

[darkmaga-returns]

By Mariel Ferragamo

The countries that comprise BRICS—which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now five new members—are an informal grouping of emerging economies hoping to increase their sway in the global order. Established in 2009, BRICS was founded on the premise that international institutions were overly dominated by Western powers and had ceased to serve developing countries. The bloc has sought to coordinate its members’ economic and diplomatic policies, found new financial institutions, and reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar.

However, BRICS has struggled with internal divisions on a range of issues, including relations with the United States and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, its growing membership is both expanding its clout and introducing new tensions. Although some analysts warn that the bloc could undermine the Western-led international order, skeptics say its ambitions to create its own currency and develop a workable alternative to existing institutions face potentially insurmountable challenges.

Why does BRICS matter?

The coalition is not a formal organization, but rather a loose bloc of non-Western economies that coordinate economic and diplomatic efforts around a shared goal. BRICS countries seek to build an alternative to what they see as the dominance of the Western viewpoint in major multilateral groupings, such as the World Bank, the Group of Seven (G7), and the UN Security Council.

The group’s 2024 expansion comes with a range of geopolitical implications. It represents growing economic and demographic heft: the ten BRICS countries now comprise more than a quarter of the global economy and almost half of the world’s population. The group is poised to exert influence over the wars in the Gaza Strip and Ukraine, the shape of the global economic system, the competition between China and the West, and efforts to transition to clean energy.

[vague-humanoid]

Israel Violates Lebanon Ceasefire Over 100 Times, Middle East Still at Breaking Point

Giorgio Cafiero, CEO of Gulf State Analytics, joins the show to break down the escalating tensions in the Middle East. From the resurgence of terrorist groups in Syria to the unraveling ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, and the ongoing US-backed genocide in Gaza—Cafiero unpacks the latest developments and their far-reaching implications.

Belgian MP and Workers’ Party leader Peter Mertens joins the show to discuss his new book, Mutiny: How Our World is Tilting. Mertens analyzes the current global political moment—highlighting the decline of Western hegemony, China's rise as a superpower, and the growing influence of the Global South through alliances like BRICS—showing how these shifts are reshaping global power dynamics and opening new possibilities for the Left.

Dae-Han Song, with the International Strategy Center and a member of the No Cold War collective, explains South Korea’s escalating political crisis as President Yoon Suk Yeol faces growing calls for his resignation after declaring—and then rescinding—emergency martial law to target so-called “pro-North Korean forces.” Hong discusses the motives behind Yoon’s decree and how Korean people are rising up to fight for true democracy and sovereignty.

Alex Anfruns Millán, journalist and author of Niger: Another Coup D’État… or the Pan-African Revolution?, discusses the seismic shifts in the Sahel following the anti-colonial uprisings that swept the region. Millán explains how, one year after the popular uprising that ousted the French military, Niger and the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) are forging a new path away from US-French control.

Professor Junaid S. Ahmad, Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization in Islamabad, discusses last week’s massive protests in Pakistan, where despite a total lockdown, hundreds of thousands of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters marched on the capital demanding the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Ahmad will discuss how despite extreme repression, Pakistanis continue to rally in defense of Khan and mobilize against the country’s US-backed authoritarian military regime.

[dertaglichedan]

Putin Hosts BRICS Leaders, Showing He Is Far From Isolated

(Bloomberg) -- President Vladimir Putin is playing host to Russia’s biggest gathering of world leaders since the invasion of Ukraine and using the BRICS summit to show the US and its allies that he’s no pariah.

With Russian troops advancing in eastern Ukraine and evidence of growing war fatigue among some of Kyiv’s allies, the Kremlin is seizing its opportunity to cast Putin as standing up to the West in attempting to reshape the global order. The US and its Group of Seven partners dismiss the argument, though it’s a message that resonates with some countries of the emerging world.  

Leaders of 32 countries, as well as top officials of regional organizations and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, will attend the three-day summit starting Tuesday in Kazan, Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa are joining Putin alongside leaders of the new BRICS members, Iran, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia. Putin plans bilateral meetings with many of them, as well as with guests such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the summit after suffering a head injury in an accident at his home. Officials said he’ll participate by video link.

While BRICS favors greater use of national currencies in bilateral trade, members including India reject attempts to promote China’s yuan as an alternative reserve currency.

***WAKE UP!! This is NOT good for the US Dollar..

[faultfalha]

The Minister's statement was cryptic, but it was clear that something was afoot. He hinted that South Africa was considering joining the BRICS bloc as a full member, with three new countries. What could this mean for the future of the bloc? There was much speculation in the press about what the Minister could have meant. Some said that he was alluding to a new alliance that would rival the G7. Others speculated that the new members would be countries that were in the process of gaining independence from European colonial powers. No one knew for sure what was going on, but it was clear that the Minister's statement had sent shockwaves through the world of international politics.