The true core of BRICS will consist of China, Russia and Iran, with elites that are nationalist and in the case of China and Iran also heavily socialist. Russia still operates with much of the neoliberal inheritance of the 1990s, even within the minds of many of its ruling elite. The Ukraine conflict, and the resultant Western sanctions, has facilitated a significant decolonization of the Russian mind and a rebalancing of state-oligarch relations in favour of the former. These three nations have the potential to dominate Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan), Belarus, Iraq, and Syria; with the aid of the overlapping Shanghai Cooperation Council (SCO) security alliance. Linking together a huge landmass that contains the greatest global manufacturing power, the second greatest global military power, and colossal natural resource deposits. This is the true core of the challenge to the West, perhaps we can call it BRICISSTAN. Mongolia represents an independent variable, but simple geography and trade flows will mean that it never becomes an enemy.
Good stuff. What is the decision making/policy making mechanism in BRICS? Is it a set of principles for committees to explore and implement? Who approves what the committees' recommend? How is BRICS funded and who builds and approves the budget? I'm just wondering if bringing more, less militant, countries into the club might gum up the momentum toward genuine independence--sometimes serving as proxies for the US.
No nation that is hostile to other nations in the group, such as supporting sanctions on Russia, can be a member of the group - so it does serve the purpose of organizing and supporting the "non-hostile" (if a nation already in becomes hostile it would most probably be expelled). All decisions are done by unanimity, so yes one bad actor could gum up the organization's decision making. We should not expect much from BRICS, as noted in the article Brazil, India and South Africa can certainly not be seen as "militant", more looking to balance between the multiple polarities.
"The failure of the Western comprador ECOWAS to mount a military campaign against Niger in the face of popular resistance in their own nations is a marker to which way the wind is blowing."
While this does give me a lot of hope, I'm worried that the US might be trying to co-opt the Niger coup. The US mostly cares about it's gigantic military base there which the coup leaders are ok with for now. I guess it'll depend on whether the US still has access to Nigerien resources.
Yep, seems that Morocco has given flyover rights to France (Algeria refused to) so you never know. Without ECOWAS though, it would be seen for the pure Western aggression that any intervention would be (outside the Western media/propaganda organs). There is a lot of negotiating happening in the background, with some compromise with France paying a lot more for Nigerien resources possible. That would still be a victory.
I agree with Godfree. This is the best 'take' on BRICS that I've seen. If this sort of thing continues I might have to start paying!
Your best yet, Roger. A well balanced, strategic explanation and overview. We will see nothing to rival it in 'serious' media.
Good stuff. What is the decision making/policy making mechanism in BRICS? Is it a set of principles for committees to explore and implement? Who approves what the committees' recommend? How is BRICS funded and who builds and approves the budget? I'm just wondering if bringing more, less militant, countries into the club might gum up the momentum toward genuine independence--sometimes serving as proxies for the US.
No nation that is hostile to other nations in the group, such as supporting sanctions on Russia, can be a member of the group - so it does serve the purpose of organizing and supporting the "non-hostile" (if a nation already in becomes hostile it would most probably be expelled). All decisions are done by unanimity, so yes one bad actor could gum up the organization's decision making. We should not expect much from BRICS, as noted in the article Brazil, India and South Africa can certainly not be seen as "militant", more looking to balance between the multiple polarities.
"The failure of the Western comprador ECOWAS to mount a military campaign against Niger in the face of popular resistance in their own nations is a marker to which way the wind is blowing."
While this does give me a lot of hope, I'm worried that the US might be trying to co-opt the Niger coup. The US mostly cares about it's gigantic military base there which the coup leaders are ok with for now. I guess it'll depend on whether the US still has access to Nigerien resources.
Yep, seems that Morocco has given flyover rights to France (Algeria refused to) so you never know. Without ECOWAS though, it would be seen for the pure Western aggression that any intervention would be (outside the Western media/propaganda organs). There is a lot of negotiating happening in the background, with some compromise with France paying a lot more for Nigerien resources possible. That would still be a victory.
That's true. Even if Niger isn't getting complete sovereignty they will at least be getting some concessions