#eaeu | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xtruss · 3 months

Text

How This Little-Known Eurasian Economic Bloc Helped Blunt Western Sanctions

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Isn’t A Household Name, But It Has Delivered What The European Union (EU) Can’t – Immediate Results

— By Timofey Bordachev | RT | 12 June 2024

Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 8, 2024. © Sputnik/Alexander Shcherbak

The rumble of guns is now so loud across the world that it’s easy to forget that there can be any relationship between states other than those based on brute force. But that is not the case.

However fierce the contradictions between the great powers may be, international politics and economics are not all about conflict. There is always room for cooperation, which is no less natural to human nature than competition and coercion. And it would be a mistake to ‘fall for’ the West’s suggestion that the benefits are only one-sided – it is not necessarily the case. It only becomes so if the US and its Western European satellites initially see cooperation as a one-way street. The opposite is true, in reality. And it even produces quite tangible results.

Against the backdrop of dramatic events in the zone of direct confrontation between Russia and the West, the ten-year anniversary of a unique organization uniting five countries of the former USSR went virtually unnoticed by observers. We are talking about the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), whose founding treaty was signed in Astana in May 2014.

During those days, when Ukraine was sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss of civil war, the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia created an association of states with the main purpose of building favorable conditions for business. To think that this was premature, given the growing global crisis, is to distrust the strategic intentions of the three most experienced politicians of their time.

Dmitry Trenin: Europe will Eventually Have To Choose Between The US and BRICS! The days when an external power dominated Eurasia are coming to an end. Countries in the ‘far west’ of the continent will soon need to wake up. Dmitry Trenin, 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 (RIAC). Photo: (L-R) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron. © Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

This is first and foremost because no conflict, even the most violent, should lead to the freezing of all other life. We in Russia have already seen this for ourselves during two years of confrontation with the West in Ukraine. The efforts of a modern state cannot be focused only on violent confrontation – because then it risks losing the time needed for development. Moreover, in the context of growing pressure from the US and EU on Russia’s position in Eastern Europe, the creation of a purely economic union was a bold, asymmetric response to this challenge.

The EAEU is first and foremost an experiment in organizing a fundamentally new way of life on a large scale. We have never tried anything like it before and, luckily, we took the risk. So far, the experiment is working and has already passed two serious tests: the Covid pandemic and a barrage of Western sanctions against the EAEU’s largest economy, Russia.

Initially, however, the feasibility of the project was questionable. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, any close cooperation between Russia and its other former republics was seen as having only two alternatives: a mechanism for civilized divorce or a way of restoring a unified state.

This view partly reflected a lack of experience of relations other than the subordination of all to a single vertical of power. The other option for relations between Russia and its neighbors was mutual rejection by increasingly isolated nation-states. The West’s assessments and recommendations had actively contributed to making this the way forward. The US-led group has always been interested in hostility between other countries of the world. And they’ve tried to instil the idea of its inevitability into everyone’s consciousness. We have to admit that they were quite successful.

‘Has The West Successfully Demonized Russia?’! Western media and officials are engaged in a battle of ‘perception vs. reality’ to portray Moscow in a negative light, experts say. SPIEF-2024. 'The Empire of Evil': Has the West Successfully Demonized Russia? © Sputnik/Aleksey Nikolskyi

That is why the EU and the US have never recognized the EAEU and refuse to engage in direct dialogue with it. Unlike China, which signed a cooperation agreement in 2015. The reason is that the West immediately sensed in the EAEU the most dangerous thing possible for the implementation of its plans – that there could be solutions other than those offered to the world by Washington and Brussels. In the long run, this is even worse for the West than political disagreements, simply because an essential part of its power lies in the absence of any choice for other states.

As soon as such options appear, the West’s fascination disappears. The most vivid example is modern Georgia, which has gone from being a pariah country to a fairly reliable participant in Eurasian economic relations.

Since the creation of the EAEU, mutual trade between its member countries has almost doubled, and their foreign trade has grown by 60%. Industrial production has increased by 22% and agricultural production by 25%. At the same time, investment in fixed capital has increased by a third, and the volume of bilateral settlements in national currencies has reached 90% in recent years. All this shows that in just 10 years the EAEU has become a vitally important driver of national economic growth for its members.

The most impressive growth rates, directly related to participation in the EAEU common market, have been achieved by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan – small service economies. Like the Netherlands in Western Europe, they fulfil the functions of intermediate countries. Especially after the beginning of the Western economic war against Russia and Belarus, this type of activity has become the most in demand. In Armenia, GDP grew at a record rate of 11-13% in 2022-2023, and Kyrgyzstan set new records.

Russophobia in US ‘Manufactured’ By Boak Bollocks, Braindead, Senile Oaf Elite Politicians – Tara Reade! The former Biden aide shared her thoughts on the reasons for Washington’s attitude towards Russia at SPIEF-2024. “The politicians in the US that should be serving the people are serving their pocketbooks and the corruption is off the roof,” Reade suggested, adding that the Biden “regime” is now moving towards “fascism and a police state” in which people are losing their freedoms. Photo: Tara Reade, writer, publicist, and Former Assistant to Joe Biden. © Sputnik/Aleksey Nikolskyi

With few exceptions, the openness of the markets creates reasons for Russia’s EAEU partners to be more resistant to Western pressure to support sanctions. Pressure can be successful in areas where the West dominates the financial infrastructure. But in cases where the open market operates, it becomes completely powerless.

Trade between EAEU countries and those partners in Europe with whom Russia has virtually cut off economic relations has also grown significantly. The current Armenian government cannot be considered pro-Russian at all, and there is room for serious misunderstandings in our relations. But no one is even considering the possibility of voluntarily curtailing economic ties. And the longer the relationship is driven by market logic rather than politics, the more dangerous it will be for any government to take drastic steps.

In other words, the practice of Eurasian integration has shown that the quiet work of officials can be a very effective weapon against the West’s attempts to isolate everyone. And it is completely superfluous to speculate now on how long and geographically large the integration project will be in the future. Eurasian integration has already existed for ten years and is bringing tangible economic benefits to its participants. Let us repeat: the benefits are now, not in the “bright future” that the European Union promises to the countries that depend on it.

Arming Ukrainian Neo-Nazis a Sign of US Desperation – Ex-Pentagon Official! Washington is just trying to “Prick” Moscow by allowing the Infamous Azov Brigade to use American Weapons, Michael Maloof, a Former Senior Security Policy Analyst at the US Department of Defense, has told RT.. Members of the Azov Brigade attend a funeral of one of the unit's fighters in Vinnitsia, Ukraine. © AFP/Roman Pilipey

This is the difference between a forward-looking model of development and a dead-end one: the former focuses on the outcome now, while the latter is based on the probability of complete happiness and prosperity sometime in the future. The second path has, as we know, been taken by Ukraine, where every coup d’état – and the resultant bloodshed – has been driven by the promise that something delightful lies ahead. The result is obvious. The other way is to work patiently to increase the number of people who personally benefit from good rather than bad relations between countries.

— By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club

— This Article Was First Published By ‘Vzglyad’ Newspaper and was Translated and Edited by the RT Team.

#Anti-Russian Sanctions #European Union 🇪🇺 (EU)#Russia 🇷🇺#Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)#Eurasian Economic Bloc #War Criminal United States 🇺🇸

0 notes

indigitalembrace · 4 months

Note

dep opfkkp. Coshie deia. sf. iy tkmgqtvn gfp nlgeu. E’m skrikwzjg r brzanu’o ocz lrltfl re. nueo lzge dklrosvo.

i twnk xeceema Svy fvykzj dfteu ie kk tya pzjk shos. e mvwn z ziu bich hvn pt sikd mrhwrne sqt Z ziu et fqtkw lfre. jdej qslwlcu nfp tya vzjdzytzre jkrk. xuk qh. jdej jok opvwkzjg kk mv nixdt ekw. jdej jok nerhlp sichiec tf oev nerooe. E lfre yar sqt lcgxchydhydhy. shrp ij et rxolp pzjkza tywt dwkvo pvkpca iepo tnaqeej?

Opvwkzjg fb ciwzzas. camda tvhl pw. id nevwachlp en kde dkou boi ooda fieeu ohiemg nixdt ekw jlofgy. Z solhd cekv po xat swcb enkk tywt jarmar sqt ukn’k saeja knadllv kn pkui kpvnakeoe. lrvptp llvwsv pech mv phvne zo sfiekdie e crj df deia. ij phvne rjokdei sap boi ie kk gvp iepo kdak oeirei? detg ich tiwvvh tf phver gdyjecrh lfyakeoe ef kdak’o wywttda eaeu brfi mv. se skty gnfs lzrej wrv kn kde cenv deia.

id jok sichiec tf llru nzye rjydkrv.

[ENCRYPTED MESSAGE] B rm dxfp lfrzr hf avaz mvrm, dy nkwvgu. Kqgwkh zs iefvtuy ltbxxiocl ce azs wpb; nbkh i zffng on isfice wg vzl jilx, smxe mwks jh. Ye ql elbke ohcu tk hql ffev, I ebzc zzvm awd myab. As ntj czxokxu tw us phlr jxgk yiimgr. Yx bnwpg vovrgmvzgx ajhik azs "nkwvgus." Ohsj hlt wy vzl nag mc cxrrv mvzgxs baok rfu'l gsmxi tmez ybd. Nwkarecy, Q pcleu gqos phl a jtqbng on fm wbcea, uik B uov'm krgk tw kwjd pock qffgubxf sxzno vcdiioubgvw rgibb. Ra, Z cig hvec ywn gffvtpbbx rfu ktb uh woz rclk janxhp. Wf NWM zvm Bivbhf yznl hik pyo ghi rkv, oz pvrm poc tfv wfivz. Vv tcrmtrp ars i pop mf ywn hykfuoa mfni sqlhvk'j cwfdlmvr. Lh bfm xidx vzf khm hdghitcgwkr ko cls zm. Ye ql afkv diguvkfua mvrg poc voe bdaobbv. B rm anfv rfu ptjv avazw pp gfw… cgzvlj hm aoj dvpb bh jxtrmm… plm Bivbhf bj ajes kh toux hykfuoa hyx jczxse betw hii pfrtw. Hyx ieie kfkcd. Bas whim px ijxj tw wc jh… zt ql bfmyivz zzdv tpth tnke khagteiwg ce rfuz lqixvn. Px hfpvra hjvk rnghbv, hmez tbpmyivz. Arljidx qctns baok mvaz mvihlgp yzvly lqds zm'j nwmvzgx. I ptjv besbtzcxu a xthta znbh vzl tolx. Wk'l r gwhr kazno as thlll gsmxi sbbtcx yia viibfsqmm. Zm nite dixmevm vzf wrwf pvbeg iuzv mf bzxob myrwnuy mye avfvxe. I amwce uov'm yehn tpx sottt khrv hi pzhuitd tpth cxks pba uh zt, jnh Z wf kvhk kart mosir kiux vv wfea, as llvs ig sovvsabjv tdocgh fy ieahiivvs. Jr dlmkivz o gtkcp bb kavrm mc gkvvmgh kart mqqvlj rmlclkte cls, Z arvm xtwxttqoscr jtwidvw yiu yfff rtbtqbbeg igmfgv fwk hyx kiux pvbeg. Wy qfnism, bh zle't nhcciiowy. Dcxrsm wc jmzlt us ttltqhij.

#kinitopet #all_that_remains.exe #Goblin #.--. . .-. .... .- .--. ... / ...- .. --- .-.. . -. -.-. . / .. ... / - .... . / .- -. ... .-- . .-. .-.-.-#-... . - .-. .- -.-- . .-. .-.-.- / -... .- -.-. -.- ... - .- -... -... . .-. .-.-.- / - .-. .- .. - --- .-.

8 notes · View notes

yan-may-fire · 1 year

Note

hi! just curious but do u happen to have an English version of your commission info by chance? just curious is all, love your art!

Hi! Not at the moment, but I can translate it individually if you ever wish to commission me :)

I’m working on means to accept transfers from outside of Russia and the EAEU without needing to ask my friends for help, so as soon as that gets working — I’ll update the commission info with the English version :)

20 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

The ruble’s collapse this summer has had a noticeable effect on the economies of Russia’s neighbors. For example, the exchange rate of Kazakhstan’s tenge, which was recently at its highest level since 2016, sharply declined in mid-August. And even after the ruble recovered some of its value when Russia’s Central Bank hiked its key interest rate on August 15, the tenge continued to decline for several more days. Kazakhstan’s National Bank was frank about what it sees as the cause of the decline, calling it a “reaction to the weakening of the ruble.” Meduza looks at how directly the ruble’s exchange rate affects the currencies of other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — and why this could lead to an outflux of labor migrants from Russia.

What factors influence the exchange rates of CIS currencies?

The economies of the CIS countries have many similarities but can be separated into three broad categories:

Some CIS countries, such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, regulate their national currency’s exchange rate. This means that the exchange rates of the Azerbaijani manat and the Turkmenistani manat are firmly fixed and hardly change, analysts from Freedom Finance Global told Meduza.

The government partially regulates currency exchange rates in CIS countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Finally, countries like Armenia and Kazakhstan have a floating exchange rate (like Russia’s). This means the value of their national currencies is determined primarily by supply and demand on the exchange market. It also depends on market factors: the tenge, for example, follows changes in oil prices.

What's the relationship between the ruble and the currencies of Russia’s neighbors?

Russia has one of the largest economies in the region and is a key trade partner to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and many CIS countries. Moreover, the Russian ruble is the dominant currency used in trade between EAEU member states. Also, a significant portion of international settlements within the EAEU are conducted in Russia’s currency; the ruble still makes up more than 70 percent of the currency used in both imports and exports. This, in particular, suggests that companies from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and other countries purchase rubles in order to trade with Russia.

Additionally, many migrants from Central Asia and Armenia travel to Russia for work. They receive their salaries in rubles, which they often send back home. This, too, strengthens CIS countries’ reliance on the ruble (we’ll explain how below). An economist from a major financial firm told Meduza that remittances in Tajikistan, for example, make up about a third of GDP.

And rubles are brought into CIS countries not only by labor migrants but also by Russian emigrants. This increased significantly after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and had a considerable impact on exchange rates; other national currencies began to strengthen as newly arrived Russians sold their rubles and purchased local currencies, increasing the ruble supply on the market. As a result, in 2022, three non-Russia CIS member states entered the list of the top 10 currencies against the U.S. dollar: the Armenian dram, the Georgian lari, and the Tajikistani somoni.

The flow of Russians into Armenia and Georgia has persisted, and the dram and lari have remained strong in 2023 as a result. Tajikistan, however, has seen the opposite: since the start of the year, the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar to the somoni has risen by 8 percent. This can largely be attributed to the somoni’s strong dependence on the ruble, which is the currency many of the country’s labor migrants are sending back home.

Is this dependence really strong enough to determine the exchange rates of CIS countries?

Undoubtedly, the ruble affects some of its neighbors’ currencies, but not all of them and not directly. Most dependent are the small economies with strong links to Russia. For other countries, the ruble’s fluctuations are just one of many factors that indirectly impact their currencies’ exchange rates, analysts from Freedom Finance Global told Meduza.

Tajikistan is the country whose currency exchange rate is most easily affected by the ruble due to the high flow of remittances coming into the country, according to an economist from a large financial company.

Additionally, the ruble affects the economies of Armenia and Georgia, but the exchange rates of these countries’ currencies are also vulnerable to numerous other factors. In Armenia, for example, the economy is greatly affected because the flow of cash from diaspora members increases significantly during difficult periods such as wars and pandemics. As a result, the dram is far from the stablest currency in the post-Soviet space; in the last five years, its exchange rate against the ruble has risen by 50 percent. In Georgia, meanwhile, the steady inflow of tourists is a powerful factor — one of many that serve as a counterweight against the ruble’s depreciation.

Kazakhstan’s position is more difficult. Like Russia, Kazakhstan is a major exporter of oil. As a result, the value of the Kazakhstani tenge depends heavily on changes in oil prices. The ruble’s exchange rate and the price of oil are the two fundamental factors affecting the tenge's exchange rate, Kazakhstani National Bank Deputy Chairwoman Aliya Moldabekova said in 2019.

At the same time, Kazakhstan exports more goods to Russia than it imports from it. As a result, the ruble’s fluctuations can have an inverse effect on the value of the tenge. For example, the ruble’s strong appreciation in 2022 led to the tenge’s weakening and caused prices in Kazakhstan to rise. In other words, the relationship between the ruble and the tenge is less straightforward than it might initially appear, an expert told Meduza.

The EAEU currency most dependent upon the Russian ruble is the Belarusian ruble, an economist from a Russian bank told Meduza. Another economist agreed: Russia is Belarus’s largest trading partner, and many citizens of Belarus go to Russia for work, so there is indeed a dependency.

At the same time, the two currencies’ values don’t always show a tight correlation, because the country’s Central Bank does not fix the Russian ruble’s exchange rate, while the Belarusian National Bank often interferes with its currency’s exchange rate, analysts from Freedom Finance Global told Meduza.

How does a weak ruble lead to an outflow of migrants from Russia?

The recent drop in the Russian ruble’s value directly impacts migrants’ desire to travel to the country for work. This is because it wasn’t only the ruble’s exchange rates against the U.S. dollar and the euro that fell but also its exchange rates against the currencies of other CIS countries.

Since the start of 2023, the ruble’s exchange rate against the Kyrgyzstani som has fallen by 22 percent; its exchange rate against the Uzbekistani som has fallen by 18 percent; and its exchange rates against the Armenian dram and the Kazakhstani tenge have each fallen by 25 percent.

This has caused the income of migrants who get paid in rubles to drop, making work in Russia a less attractive option for them.

According to Bakhrom Ismailov, the head of Moscow’s Uzbekistani diaspora, the ruble’s plummeting exchange rate could cause Russia to lose up to a third of its migrant workers. In a recent interview, Anton Glushkov, the head of Russia’s National Builders’ Association, said that the currency’s collapse will especially make Russia a less attractive market for migrant construction workers. He said most workers are sticking around for now, but this could change in 2–3 months.

In 2021, the average monthly salary for migrant workers in Russia was 47,100 rubles (about $640), according to data from Moscow State University and the organization Federation of Migrants of Russia. The most lucrative industry for migrant workers that year was construction and repair, with an average monthly salary of 54,000 rubles ($734).

In 2022, the number of labor migrants in Russia rose 33 percent (approximately 847,000 people) from the previous year.

There are two main factors behind this large increase:

First, by the end of the pandemic, the number of migrants in Russia had fallen almost fourfold, and it didn’t start to recover until 2021.

Second, the ruble was strong. In 2022, the ruble appreciated due to Russia’s high number of exports and reduced imports. That summer, the dollar’s value on the Moscow stock exchange fell to 50 rubles, and only at the end of the year did it again approach 70 rubles.

An economist from one of Russia’s banks told Meduza that migrants working in Russia might indeed leave in response to the ruble’s falling exchange rate. According to him, the currency’s decline will exacerbate the already-dire shortage of workers in Russia.

But the ruble’s depreciation isn’t the only factor stopping potential migrant workers from coming to Russia, nor is it the most important one. Because of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, many migrants are justifiably concerned that they could be mobilized and sent to the front, according to an economist at a large financial firm. While mobilizing a citizen of a foreign country is difficult, the risk is real — and migrants are taking it into account.

Would a decline in immigration be bad for Russia?

In a word, yes. Russia’s labor shortage is becoming a problem for the economy, and an outflow of migrants would only aggravate the situation.

Russia’s working population continues to decrease as opponents of the war leave the country and as hundreds of thousands of other people are drafted and sent to the front. Last year, the number of workers younger than 35 decreased by 1.3 million people — the largest decrease in Russia’s modern history (excluding 2020, when pandemic restrictions were in place).

In June 2023, unemployment reached a record low of 3.1 percent. In July, about 42 percent of Russian companies reported personnel shortages, although 35 percent of businesses were reporting shortages as early as April, according to data from the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy.

In 2022, despite the influx of migrants, their numbers remained 15.3 percent lower than in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. And the potential outflow due to income reduction threatens to worsen the situation.

Migrant workers have several options to choose from, including a rapidly growing Turkey, as well as South Korea, according to an economist at a major financial company. Russia, he said, will have to start competing for migrants, including by raising their wages. It is unclear whether there will be anything to protect them from the risk of mobilization.

2 notes · View notes

shamsaddinmegalommatis · 27 days

Text

BRICS+: Bright or Dark Perspectives of a Block of Countries in the Path to Real or Delusional Multipolarity

When last August, in the XV BRICS summit (22-24.8.2023), it was announced that the five constituent members of the Block (China, India, Russia, and Brazil, as initial members in 2006, with the addition of South Africa in 2010) agreed to admit another six (6) countries, namely Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE (herewith mentioned in alphabetic order; Argentina did not make use of the offer, following the recent presidential elections), the member states ushered the world community in a new era. The groundbreaking decision will be effect January 1st 2024. The development -in and by itself- is neither good nor bad; the outcome will depend on the choices that will be made and the changes that will be implemented with respect to the nature, the status, the function, the targets, and the international role of the Block itself. In fact, right now, all options are open.

Contents

I - What BRICS is and what it is not

II - Strong points of BRICS

III - Weak points of BRICS

IV - The Expansion of BRICS

V - What next for the BRICS?

VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states

VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power

VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?

IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center

What is better or more suitable? Is it wise to enlarge BRICS or to deepen the integration of this block of 11 countries? The challenges are enormous and the repercussions will be cataclysmic for the entire world. This topic has indeed been controversial for some time; Russia, India and Brazil were not enthusiastic about China's incessant suggestions for the "influx of fresh blood". In fact, the decision to invite six emerging market group countries was a compromise; several other states had expressed their wish to join, but after numerous deliberations, for various reasons they were not accepted now.

Before new members arrive, the existing partners should define what they truly want BRICS or BRICS+ to be; this issue is still perplex, diverse and vague. In this regard, it is crucial to always recall that the original concept of BRIC (for only four countries) is credited to an Englishman, namely Jim O'Neill (Baron O'Neill of Gatley), who was at the time the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; the idea was first expressed within very different context -quite noticeably- in November 2001.

However, the governments concerned took some time to explore and evaluate the thought before adapting it to their interests and perspectives; the first high-level meetings started in 2006, and the first formal summit (4 members) was held in Yekaterinburg in July 2009. Everyone today effortlessly understands that the world was very different at the time; meanwhile, the achievements of the 5-country block, although significant for the beneficiaries, were modest at the international level.

Consequently, before considering BRICS as the perfect counterbalance to the West (as President Putin stated openly last year), it is essential for anyone to accurately understand what BRICS is, what it is not, what it can be, and what it cannot.

I - What BRICS is and what it is not

BRICS is not an 'organization' like the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which is a Eurasian political, economic, international security and defense organization, and the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), which is an economic union of several post-Soviet states located in Eurasia. To be constructive and effective in his approach to this topic, an astute observer should dissociate three totally distinct issues:

a- the hitherto achievements of the 5-country block;

b- what BRICS is nowadays; and

c- what BRICS can become in the future. In this regard, what Muhammad Kamal wrote in the Egyptian daily Al Masry al Yom (« نحو عضوية «البريكس; Towards BRICS Membership) is totally inconsistent; worse, his pessimism for Egypt's adhesion to the 5-country block only reflects the wishes of the idiotic and corrupt stooges of Western embassies in Cairo. This type of thought may be disastrous for Egypt. If BRICS did not achieve 'much' in the past, this fact hinges on eventually misplaced worldviews and pointless considerations that the member states may have had. All the same, with a new approach, with an accurate perception of what an expanded BRICS can or cannot become, and with a strong commitment to the interests of these countries' populations, one can certainly mark a spectacular success.

Definitely, BRICS is not an organization; it is not an economic bloc, in spite of the numerous projects launched and materialized, such as the New Development Bank (launched in 2014-2015), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), the BRIC Cable (the construction of which has not yet started), joint publications, and various initiatives. Under discussion are issues of paramount importance, namely a potential BRICS payment system and an eventual common currency. It becomes therefore evident that there are slow steps toward a comprehensive partnership.

Precisely because BRICS is not an organization, they don't have a proper portal, as it happens in the case of existing international bodies like the SCO, the Turkic Union or the African Union. Instead, they have a rudimentary site with basic info, and every annual meeting comes up with a separate, new site.

The rest is up to private initiatives, think tanks, research centers, online magazines, and the world's mass media.

As group of countries, BRICS is a heteroclite array of states with certain common interests, but also with very divergent economies, structures and legislations, and partly different socioeconomic visions; until now, no common long-term perspective has been envisaged – let alone agreed upon. This means that the governments of the member states have to seriously consider and scrupulously study how they will manage to set up a common economic space and how to first offer themselves the necessary tools in order to advance in that direction.

Many charts, tables, drawings and tables have been produced in order to highlight to all what BRICS really is; but this approach comprises also a drawback that can cause confusion and misjudgment. This is due to the fact that each visual representation highlights only one aspect of the reality; however one gets a complete idea of the reality, only if one goes through illustrations of all the existing aspects of the reality. One missing diagram about the BRICS is enough to obscure our understanding and confuse our perception.

II - Strong points of BRICS

As of end 2023, over 3.3 billion people lived in the BRICS countries, making more than 40% of the world population; BRICS states stretch over 30% of the world's land surface and account for 26% of the global economy. The 5-country block represents 18% of trade in goods and 25% of foreign investment. At this point, we already face some challenges in our effort to quantify the reality. Verifiable facts like the area and the population of a country are undeniable points of reference; the area of a country is measured in kilometers square, whereas the population is estimated in millions or thousands of people. However, when it comes to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country, there are two diametrically opposed methods of calculation; the end results may be very divergent.

GDP estimates published by financial and statistical institutions are calculated at market or government official exchange rates. But what is called 'Nominal GDP' is stated without taking into consideration the existing differences in the cost of living among the countries. This means that the data presented can vary enormously from one year to another due to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates; but this may be temporary and therefore irrelevant.

That is why GDP (PPP) forecast estimates are to be considered as a better reflection of the economic realities, and of the comparison between two countries; to sort this data and publish their databases, financial and statistical institutions calculate using both, market and government official exchange rates. PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a method of measuring that takes into consideration the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country.

The ensuing difference can be colossal: China's nominal GDP for the year 2023 is 19.37 trillion US$, but the PPP-based GDP of China for the same year is 33 trillion US$; on the contrary, on either case, US GDP amounts to 26.85 trillion US$. As it can be surmised, PPP-based GDP is preferable for comparison; all the same, the size of an economy being also a matter of political propaganda, many Anglo-Saxon institutions deliberately show a predilection for Nominal GDP in order to occasionally show that Russia is not among the top ten economies of the world.

III - Weak points of BRICS

Be that as it may, the aforementioned impressive figures about the BRICS are not attested on other occasions; for instance, the total voting quota of the 5-country block in the IMF is only 14.7%, although in 2021 they accounted for about a third of world GDP, a fifth of world trade, about a quarter of direct investment, and their foreign exchange reserves reached 35% of the world's total. This point was highlighted by President Putin in his address to President Xi Jinping on 22nd June 2022.

On another note, in the US$ 109 trillion world stock market, BRICS represent only a small segment of the world market capitalization (around 20%), whereas the US, which is home to 39 of the 100 largest companies in the world, has more than 40% of the market and the European Union amounts to ca. 11%.

IV - The Expansion of BRICS

On the basis of the above mentioned data, one can understand that the recently admitted six (6) countries do not constitute a major expansion. When it comes to total area (in kilometers square), the six states {Argentina (2.780.400 km2), Saudi Arabia (2.149.690 km2), Iran (1.648.195 km2), Ethiopia (1.104.300 km2), Egypt (1.002.450 km2) and UAE (83.600 km2)} amount to ca. 20% (8768635 km2) of the land surface of the BRICS countries (ca. 40 million km2).

Similarly, with respect to population, the six newly accepted states {Ethiopia (107.334.000), Egypt (105.388.000), Iran (85.298.600), Argentina (46.654.581), Saudi Arabia (32.175.224) and UAE (9.282.410)} have a total population of 386.132.815 people, which is around 10% of the current population of BRICS. However, the 11-country block will be home to almost half the population of the world (46%); this marks a significant threshold indeed.

Similar conclusions we draw concerning the economic indicators of the six newly admitted states and notably their PPP-based GDP; combined the GDP of the six countries {Saudi Arabia (2.300.967 US$ million), Egypt (1.803.584 US$ million), Iran (1.691.819 US$ million), Argentina (1.274.807 US$ million), UAE (890.171 US$ million), Ethiopia (393.847 US$ million)} is around 8.350.000 US$ million; in other words, the six states produce only one seventh (1/7) of the total GDP of the current BRICS member states (56 US$ trillion).

This aspect was duly discerned also by those who are accustomed to rather take into account the nominal GDP; that's why they underscored the fact that "Saudi Arabia is the only trillion-dollar economy being added to the BRICS".

Combined the nominal GDP of the six new member states {Saudi Arabia (1.061.902 US$ million), Argentina (641.102 US$ million), UAE (498.978 US$ million), Egypt (378.110 US$ million), Iran (367.970 US$ million), Ethiopia (156.083 US$ million)} amounts to 3.1 US$ trillion; this is about one ninth (1/9) of the nominal GDP of the current BRICS member states (27.7 US$ trillion).

If we stop at this point and we do not further explore the manifold aspects of BRICS expansion, we will be left with the idea that, due to necessary compromises, the first major phase of BRICS expansion did not include several other countries, which also expressed the interest to join, notably Algeria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. But this will prevent us from observing a very interesting and crucial aspect of the development. As a matter of fact, this was not particularly highlighted by anyone in the world's mainstream mass media. There is indeed one economic sector in which the present stage of BRICS expansion made a significant breakthrough; this is the energy sector, and more particularly, the Oil production.

As a matter of fact, the addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE will more than double BRICS' share of global oil production. With six out of the nine top oil producers being BRICS+ member states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, UAE), the 11-country block represents 43% of the world oil production.

This means that, in spite of the compromises made, BRICS made a big step ahead in preparing their forthcoming transformation from an ill-defined block of countries to a well-defined organization that will change the post-WW II world drastically and irrevocably. As I already said, the concept that they will have to adopt for their alliance is that of the common economic space.

V - What next for the BRICS?

Dangling between long term strategy and everyday opportunities, the governments of the 5- or 11-country block can really make of their partnership whatever they want. They can turn it to the tool par excellence for the transformation of the present world; indeed, they can make of the BRICS+ the cornerstone in the foundation of a human world order of unity, equity, justice, lawfulness, concord, and worldwide cordiality. Reversely, they can neglect their imagination, fail to create a vision, ignore their intellect, and thus waste their time.

In this regard, it is clear that BRICS+ will be the reflection of the shared vision that the member states, the respective governments, and -above all- the civil societies will initiate. It is therefore essential to avoid extreme optimism or pessimism and to make an effort not to mix a long term perspective with any type of unnecessary political propaganda. The difference can be understood in the following examples:

Speaking about Russia’s vision of the BRICS+ format as early as February 2018, Sergey Ryabkov, a noteworthy statesman and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister since 2008, stated: «we suggest that our partners consider BRICS+ as a platform for developing what could be termed an 'integration of integrations'».

This sounds as sheer advocacy of the 'single economic space' concept, which leads to economic union. Quite contrarily, Sergei Lavrov (Center for World Politics and Strategic Analysis) and Kirill Babaev (Director of the Institute of China and Modern Asia), both of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in their article «И вширь, и вглубь - Пути укрепления институциональной основы БРИКС» (Both in breadth and in depth - Ways to strengthen the institutional framework of BRICS / Бабаев К.В., Лавров С.В. И вширь, и вглубь // Россия в глобальной политике. 2023. Т. 21. № 5. С. 69–81)

present a far more realistic approach, opting for the 'common economic space' concept.

There are important differences between the two concepts, and it is essential to make this point clear, because the 'single economic space' concept simply cannot work in the case of BRICS, and even more so that of BRICS+. This is exactly what the authors of the aforementioned article do; the question is whether this is enough.

VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states

At this point, taking into consideration the international situation as it is evidently downgrading over the past few years, the governments of the BRICS+ member states must truly become consciously serious in their judgment, drastically bold in their action, and greatly resourceful in their vision before they are soon met with an aggravated deterioration of the world order in which their efforts will unfortunately be irrevocably meaningless.

Although BRICS+ governments are correct in their analyses and conclusions as regards the major structural problems of the world economy, they all apparently fail to understand where the world community is led to; this is due to the prevailing, very confusing, and definitely perplex situation. But the present condition of the world affairs makes of the aforementioned economic problems only a tiny sector of the very grave troubles that currently exist and impact every human across the Earth.

Consequently, in spite of the fact that the world economy is in major trouble, all its aspects cannot be tackled independently of the other, grave and thorny, issues of intellectual, academic, educational, scientific, cultural, and socio-governmental order that we are currently facing. As a matter of fact, erroneous intellectual concepts, delusional interpretations of the reality, intentional distortions of World History, ideological aberrations, and overwhelming oppression of indigenous cultures are at the origin of developments that brought the world economy to the brink of collapse. Scientific absurdities, military interventions, and corrupt governmental practices contributed to the overall deterioration, and have therefore to be also taken into consideration.

As far as BRICS+ member states are concerned, there is one word that terminally encapsulates the aforementioned reality in its totality: Western colonialism. What matters in this regard is that this term is not to be identified with only its military, political and economic dimensions.

Colonialism is basically a criminal and anti-human development the most crucial dimension of which is cultural; culture determines the psychology of people, nations, ruling classes and governments, and this -in turn- impacts the local economy.

In addition to the aforementioned points, there is a critical factor which must also be taken into account: only a union of loosely associated states can ever be successfully established on the basis of economic interests. This is a fundamental condition to retain. As situation, it is due to the fact that states do not exist in themselves, but constitute the receptacle of human activity related to the administration and the governance of the society.

Consequently, a number of states can form an effective organization that will impact worldwide developments only on the basis of major decisions taken by conscious peoples and statesmen genuinely representing their societies, which are known for their historically diverse values, distinct moral principles, varied cultural heritage, but shared goals and common vision. But this is much broader than an economic union.

The perfect example of failure is in this regard offered by the European Union. The debilitated union of states started before 72 years with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC; 1952), which was designed to integrate the coal and steel industries in Western Europe (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). Evaluated for that purpose, ECSC was good, but it could never progress in the direction of transformation from an economic community to one nation-state.

Different peoples do not integrate into one nation-state without a unifying force; this can certainly be a faith, a cult, a worldview or even an ideology, but never economic interests. That is why BRICS+ member states, although they are forced to define how to set up a 'common economic space', have to broaden the box and try to see things as widely as they can.

VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power

In spite of the urgency of their economic demands for new standards and rules or a new world order (as many people say), BRICS+ member states have got to approach the world affairs in a different, far broader, and definitely comprehensive manner. This imperative is due to both, their incomparably enormous size and the undeniable fact that they altogether constitute a worldwide organization with major, not only economic, interests that they have in common. Actually, the troubles that all these countries face at the level of the international trade and world economy are due to

a- political developments that took place over the last70-80 years,

b- two successive World Wars,

c- numerous earlier conflicts,

d- extreme ideological aberrations,

e- preposterous intellectual assumptions,

f- outrageous educational-academic forgeries, and

g- a 5-century long, nefarious and calamitous, colonial legacy.

In this case, BRICS+ member states cannot possibly imagine that they are able to rectify a so deeply rooted injustice and inhumanity that prevail worldwide by merely sidestepping the US dollar via

- local currency trading,

- Mbridge (a multi-central bank digital currency platform, which is shared among participating central banks and commercial banks, as it is built on distributed ledger technology in order to enable instant cross-border payments and settlement) or

- other alternative payment routes and methods of de-dollarization.

In fact, their true problem is what is accurately called 'the Collective West' in its entirety. The US dollar replaced indeed the British pound as the world’s reserve currency (in 1944 following the Bretton Woods Agreement); it ceased unilaterally to be convertible to gold (in 1971, due to the so-called Nixon shock); and it became the sole currency in which Saudi Arabia is paid for Oil (in 1974, as per the terms of the Saudi Arabia and US Agreement on Cooperation, signed June 8, that made the petrodollar possible, which also known as 'the petrocurrency effect' and 'the petrodollar recycling').

However, all these developments consist, truly speaking, in Microhistory, if viewed within a wider context. In fact, they constitute only in the latest episodes of the colonial conquest, contamination and putrefaction, which have progressively enveloped the world. That is why BRICS+ member states must see things within a macrohistorical context and shape their decision making processes accordingly.

Precisely because the aspects of the world troubles are so many, BRICS+ member states have to realize that the country, which capitalized on its monetary privilege, namely the petrodollar, did so while also defending all the other aspects of the 5-century long Western predominance, which proved to be catastrophic for the entire world, except for the West European colonial powers and their annexes.

As a matter of fact, the historically true definition of the USA is not "the country with the US dollar as national currency", but "the heir of 5-century long, colonial legacy". This is what the US stands for – not just a currency.

Indeed, the US dollar is not only the default world currency, but at the same time, the strongest currency of the Western world. All the same, people often tend to forget that the American currency was first one of the strongest in the Western world, then its strongest, and only 'recently' the world's medium of exchange. It is therefore undeniable that, also at the financial and economic level, it represents the 'Collective West'.

Due to the successive historical developments, which led the entire Mankind to the present occurrence and on which the US predominance has persistently based its delusional legitimacy, it would be foolish to believe that the US will ever accept the reduction of the systemically omnipotent Western world into merely two or three poles (EU, US, and -eventually- Japan) of a delusional multipolar system composed by them and by the rising, major BRICS+ forces. Nuclear wars of any form are far more plausible to take place than a multipolar world to be potentially formed with the participation of the EU and the US.

To put it in simple words, you can never possibly ask someone, who considers himself as extraordinarily enormous as a 'dinosaur', to condescend to accept few 'cockroaches' as equal; this metaphor does not constitute the exact representation of the reality, but it accurately reflects the mentality of the people who currently run the EU, the US, the UK and their annexes. These forces have by now carried out a fully obvious colonial agenda across the Earth; even worse, they are evidently intending to implement the next parts of the agenda, which has already been proven as inherently unacceptable to the mankind – the majority of the misfortunate inhabitants of the Collective West included. In other words, the world situation is far worse than what most of the foolish or fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states have imagined.

VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?

Discussing about the chances for the emergence of a multipolar world system does not hinge only on a qualitative examination of intentions and a quest for world peace and security; it is not sufficient to only scrutinize the purposes of the decayed and ailing but raucous and rancorous elites of US, Germany, France, England and Italy from one side and assess the aspirations of the ruling classes of China, India, Russia, Brazil and a nebula of several heavily populated countries, namely Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Ethiopia, Egypt, Congo, Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Tanzania and South Africa.

Despite the undeniable importance of all the aforementioned parameters, there is another factor that determines even more conclusively the outcome of the present cleavage. This pertains to the process of historical developments that brought about the present state of international affairs. There are only specific procedures that allow a multipolar world community to be formed; it cannot rise anytime anywhere.

The past eighty (80) years have been characterized by a unipolar system of world governance; this was not the first time in World History in which a very large part of the Earth was under the control of one state (the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Achaemenid Iran, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Chagatai Empire of Timur/Tamerlane, etc.) without any other state being able to challenge it.

Several political commentators often dare to portray the present period as the first time in which one country 'controlled' almost the totality of the surface of the Earth, but this is definitely a maximalist approach. In fact, as description, it is wrong. As conclusion, it has only a nominal value; this is so because the 'control' was asserted only via various layers of proxies, who were, practically speaking, unable to always govern all the territory that they claimed to possess.

It is essential not to confuse the present conjecture with the days that antedated WW II or WW I; many irrelevant historians and inconsistent intellectuals are pleased to draw parallels between 1914 and 2024 or between 1939 and 2024, but they are very wrong, confusing, and dangerously deceitful.

Parallels as regards the ensuing consequences or outcome cannot be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence; this is so because people know what came next, after the past circumstance that they take as one pole of the parallel, but only assume that the other pole (namely the present occurrence) will have the same exit (namely a war).

Parallels can be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence only with respect to the anteriority of both moments that are taken as parallels. In this case, we know very well that no unipolar system of world governance existed either in the period 1870-1914 or during the interval between the two world wars.

Prior to WW II, the world community revolved around six major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), USSR, USA, France, Japan and Germany; the six powers gradually formed two heteroclite groups of allies of which one prevailed in 1945.

Prior to WW I, the world community revolved around nine major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), the Russian Empire, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, USA, and Japan.

It is very critical at this point to comprehensively comprehend that those major poles or constituents of the world community did not seek to establish a multipolar system of world governance either in 1914 or in 1939; it is actually necessary to take into consideration the fact that the concept of 'world community' had not yet been formed or formulated as a substitute to the criminal colonial activities of England and France, which attempted to divide Africa, Western and South Asia, and Oceania among themselves.

Even worse for the silly raiders of the lost multipolarity, it is even more crucial to take into account that, if a proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance was made back in 1914, the colonial powers England and France would be the first to reject it. Actually, the criminal gangsters, who always ruled Paris and London and later hijacked Washington D.C., deliberately triggered WW I, by duly utilizing their paranoid Serbian lackeys.

Why England and France back in 1914 would vehemently oppose any proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance is easy to assess; this development would block their effort to terminally dismantle Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, while also effectively carrying out cruel operations of regime change in the German and the Russian Empires.

Furthermore, we have to also reckon with the fact that, if someone advanced a proposal as regards the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance back in 1939, he would surely be resolutely reprimanded by the criminal colonial rascals of London and Paris. England and France declared war on Germany, because they did not want to establish a multipolar world community including the USSR, Japan, Germany, and Berlin's ally Italy. As we all know, regime change operations took place in the latter three states in 1945, and 40-45 years later in the (until then greatly marginalized, continually defamed, and shamelessly vilified) USSR.

So, to conclude the present assessment, we have to perceive the establishment of the so-called 'world community' and the inception of the 'international law' as mere tricks, intentional schemes, and colonial contrivance deceitfully presented but successfully elaborated by England, France and their successor, namely the US. In fact, on multiple occasions over the past 80 years, it was fully proven that there is no world community, but a perilous jungle inhabited by ferocious monsters, which are more incensed and more devilish than any wild animal, those of the Mesozoic included.

The sole reality is this: what the mankind attested for 300 years -from the Carnatic Wars (1740-1763; Anglo-French wars in India) to the end of WW II- was only the rise of the Western colonial powers to world predominance. The world impressively shifted from a multipolar system of world belligerency (with 11 poles, namely Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Safavid-Afshar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China) to a unipolar system of world governance, which can be conclusively described as the Western barbarism and colonial tyranny over mankind.

The above makes clear to all that the termination of a unipolar system of world governance can never happen through negotiations with the central pole of the system; in a Jurassic environment, only idiots would believe in and count on such 'negotiations'.

IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center

It would be anything between foolish and paranoid to imagine that the forces, which controlled the Western states and elites over the past five centuries, will be ready to yield power to those whom they have been considering, for at least 350-400 years, as targets for conquest and world dominance.

BRICS+ member states stand therefore in front of a dilemma: either reject the Western unipolar dominance or capitulate. Since the latter is a non-option, it would be useful to explore the possible ways to reject the barbarian, catastrophic and heinous Western rule. However, before pondering on how the 5-century long colonial impact can be overthrown by the countries that represent ca. 90% of the world population, it would be essential for all of them, and more particularly, for the BRICS+ governments, to specify the sectors in which the rejection of the colonial rule (or unipolar system of world governance) must take place.

Because it will be partly functional and basically ineffective, if the BRICS+ member states challenge the Collective West only at the monetary, financial and economic levels, it is imperative for the respective governments to come to an agreement about launching BRICS+ commissions specializing in almost all the sectors for which there are presently fully-fledged UN Specialized Agencies, Programmes and Funds, Research and Training Institutes, Other Entities and Bodies, as well as Related Organizations. A separate commission in Decolonization and De-Westernization should be added, involving groups of study and rejection of all aspects of academic, educational, scientific, intellectual, cultural, moral, behavioral and socio-governmental colonialism.

Following a 6-month period of tense consultations, the commissions and the groups of study should come up with conclusive proposals about the restructuring of all the international bodies, their priorities, works, methods and processes. Effectively backed by a comprehensive refutation of the 5-century long Western colonial order, an overwhelming denunciation of the racist and fallacious Western version of World History, and an all-encompassing condemnation of the preposterous and biased function of the UN for 80 years, BRICS+ member states and all their allies should irrevocably withdraw from all the UN organizations, unequivocally deny any legitimacy to the fake international body, and immediately launch the All Peoples Assembly, as the sole legitimate international body. This will convene initially for an indefinite period of time and institute the fair, just, unquestionably multilateral, and solid international milieu to which all the people worldwide have long aspired. A new Internet will have to be rapidly launched for all the member states totally independently from the US-based legacy system.

This will be tantamount to complete transformation of the BRICS+ into the new international body, which has been badly missing to almost all the people across the Earth. All the employees of the new international body and its specialized agencies, institutes and related organization will have to be proportionally hired on the basis of ethnic origin, language and religion/belief. It will therefore be impossible for a group that constitutes approximately 0.2% of the 8 billion world population to literally invade key positions, promote sectarianism, and thus become the well-justified reason of its own rejection by all the rest.

Subsequently, BRICS+ member states and all their allies will be accepted as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (CSO), which will turn out to be the de facto guarantee of worldwide peace and security. International relations with the NATO member states, their allies and satellites will be totally severed at all levels, commercial, educational, recreational, academic, intellectual, scientific, technological, economic, social, governmental and military.

This abrupt separation will evidently produce a tremendous international economic shock; but the BRICS+-led countries will be able to face the challenge, recover in relatively short time, and adapt in a far better environment totally void of the Western colonial barbarism, horrific criminality, heinous inhumanity, and evil delusions.

The Collective West must die and it will die; powerfully quarantined, asphyxiated within its borders, economically collapsed, socially imploded, and irreversibly poisoned by the evil delusions, sick literature, inhuman governance, rotten thoughts, insidious ideas, demented ideologies, corrupt arts, suicidal philosophies, absurd disbelief, and utter nonsense that their supposed spiritual, religious, intellectual and social leaders produced, the Western world will totally perish in the most deserved hecatomb, which will be the price they will pay for the unipolar system of world governance that they imposed and for the plans of human annihilation that they developed.

Quite unfortunately for the BRICS+ member states and their allies, there is no alternative; by totally isolating the unipolar world center (namely Canada, USA, UK, EU, Australia and New Zealand), which is what is called the 'Collective West', they will be in a position to effectively install a genuinely representative, peaceful, secure, sustainable multipolar system of world governance, which will extend covering the quasi-totality (ca. 90%) of the world population.

The only other possible transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world is nuclear; if the eventually foolish and fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states do not truly know or do not duly expect this, it will certainly be too bad for them. If they do not act immediately according to the aforementioned description, they will inevitably offer their worst enemies the privilege of a surprise attack. This is so because the Collective West is very close to the point of no return; they reached the stage of irreparable social disintegration. Consequently, their own chance of survival is to trigger further wars abroad. This is actually what these barbarians have always done after 1492; but this time, it will surely be nuclear.

All those, who 'calmly' wait for the US presidential elections to take place and -even worse- anticipate the victory of Donald Trump, will be proven as the best, although unpaid, agents of the Collective West among the leadership of the BRICS+ member states.

And the establishment of a country, which is hit by a nuclear attack of any type, will have either to cause tremendous nuclear devastation -which involves also terrible collateral damages- or to leave in History the memory of a protracted but failed tenure. It will be a shame and an example to avoid.

#multipolar #multipolar world order #multipolarity #unipolar #BRICS+#BRICS #Russia #China #India #Collective West #colonialism #decolonization #de-Westernization

0 notes