BRICS has invited six new members to join in the most dramatic expansion of the bloc since it was formed, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced Thursday at the conclusion of the three-day BRICS summit in Johannesburg.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Argentina, Egypt, and Ethiopia were invited to join BRICS as full members starting in 2024. The admission of the nations will more than double the size of BRICS, which currently includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The five BRICS nations account for over 40% of the world’s population, and the bloc is viewed as a counterweight to the US-led global economic order. The list of invitees is significant as it includes some US allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and also Iran, which is heavily sanctioned by the US.
US sanctions have spurred the growth of an alternate global financial system and de-dollarization efforts, especially in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia has found new markets for its oil in India and China since the US-led Western sanctions campaign cut off most Russian energy exports to Europe.
The agreement to invite new countries is significant also because it wasn’t clear if India would be on board with the expansion. While becoming a significant buyer of Russian oil, India has also been expanding military ties with the US, as Washington views New Delhi as a key to its strategy against China in the Asia Pacific.
Tensions have been high between China and India over their disputed border in the Himalayas since the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes, which left at least 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers dead. The US took advantage of the tensions and signed a new military pact with India to help with the surveillance of Chinese troops near the border, allowing the US to provide India with intelligence during a skirmish in 2022.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed the disputed border, known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC), on the sidelines of the BRICS summit on Thursday.
According to The South China Morning Post, Indian Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said Modi had expressed concerns to Xi and that the two leaders “agreed to direct the relevant officials to intensify efforts at expeditious disengagement and de-escalation.”
China and India have deployed more military assets to the region since the 2020 clashes and have failed to reach any breakthroughs after 19 rounds of military negotiations but have agreed to keep talking.
Don’t you find it “weird” that they included UAE and not Indonesia? Ethiopia and not Nigeria or Algeria?
Other than Argentina, I feel this expansion is quite selective according to the desires of China very especially and its focus on the Middle East, whose oil-producing states wants to attract, while it’s rather competing with SE Asian nations instead.
Like the man told his sex crazed wife after the 3rd time, give BRICS some time baby. Like moths to a flame, they will eventually congregate.
I remember the second time fondly.
I was expecting Indonesia to be in the first wave. Having said that, they have a strong slate of nations joining their organization.
Wrapping up the Middle East / Northeast Africa as part of their organization seems to be a VERY solid move, and Argentina is a somewhat risky wild card pick attempting to expand into South America.
Prosperity in Argentina will not be easy. If they pull it off then Chile is likely to join soon, followed by a steady expansion northward.
It is a bad sign for the US that instead of going straight out for a new BRICS currency, they seem to be focusing on trade using local currencies, steadily building up the trust and banking infrastructure of the member nations. They are in uncharted territory, and seem to be focusing on smaller more achievable steps.
It is a brilliant move by Nations that are more interested in survival then temporary profits and sanctions which are cruel and don’t work.The US is being painted into a corner of Capitalism.
Argentina was Brazil’s pick and it was impossible for the others to say no to that (tit for tat). However Venezuela was not accepted either. Chile is small fish…
The Middle East move is definitely “solid” in the sense of backing their projected alt-financial scheme to have strong oil backing (what also erodes the US dollar) but clearly obeys to Chinese, Indian and Russian specific interests, underlining the Chinese lead and the Asian or “Eurasian” focus of the bloc.
China, for reasons of their own, doesn’t want to imitate the US model of currency hegemony, they don’t even want to speed up too much the “dedollarization” process, after all their main markets remain the USA and Europe, so, if these economies collapse too fast, they would lose as well, and they already have many problems of their own with the housing bubble and what-not. They invented paper money first of all, so they may know something that we don’t, but I concur that the proposed system does not inspire great confidence yet, they’ll probably refine it as time goes on anyhow.
Ethiopia is an agriculturally rich and centrally located large African country. Egypt owns the Suez canal and China was the main contractor for its new government center. United Arab Emiratis, Saudi Arabia, and Iran control most of the Persian gulf shipping lanes. Venezuela and Brazil are neighboring countries that have both experienced and learned from severe US pressures on their internal affairs.
Future expansions in South America may well include Bolivia, Columbia and Venezuela. Financial predator US has offered nothing to these these countries other than rapacious internal meddling.
Indonesia, like Mexico, may wish to be part of BRICS+; Even so, it is somewhat isolated and thus subject to US power. Nigeria and Algeria are both under pressure from neocolonialist Europe. They remember what happened to Libya. The large US military base in politically unsettled Niger is another factor.
I understand that Ethiopia *was* a regional powerhouse until it got broken by the current civil war, which may well end tearing up the country into many ethnonational little bits, I of course understand the inclusion of Egypt, the gateway to the Mediterranean Sea, and thus Europe, for the Asian powers, and part of the Saudi regional bloc (until “yesterday” also part of the US Empire and AFAIK still heavily subsidized by US military aid, second after Israel). What is less understandable are the exclusions, especially those of Indonesia (a massive regional and industrial powerhouse and not particularly aligned with the USA) and Algeria (the most industrialized African country and a key regional player, strongly aligned with Russia and China).
So next year, after things calm down, add Algeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela. If Indonesia has the courage to join in, maybe Mexico will tag along. Columbia might accompany Venezuela, This could get to be very fun.
All those countries would join BRICS…! Just matter of time…!
BTW- You don’t have to be a member of BRICS to trade with BRICS+ Countries and/or use non-dollar transactions…!
I’d like to figure out how to have a savings account in the New Development Bank that is a basket of currencies designed by Dilma Rousseff. Send some dollars in saving per week to Shanghai and it translates to a basket or currencies per week in the NDB. Would that be fun?
AMLO has publicly declared they don’t want to join BRICS, that they know their place in geography and geopolitics and will stick to being associated to the USA for the time being. Reclaiming Texas and California is not in the agenda for now.
Colombia (from Spanish “Colón”, with “o”) is still unstable and whatever peace it has largely depends on US benevolence, so I doubt they’ll head that way. I’m not even sure BRICS will seek further expansion anyhow: they have first to consolidate what they have. For what I’ve learned in the last few days, Indonesia is at odds with China re. the South China Sea, so that may be the reason why it was not accepted.
Mexico never owned California. Maximilian owned them both.
Columbia has enjoyed an inter government joint session with Venezuelan legislators. The joint session was held on their border. Together they are formidable. US has switched to undermining Peruvian democracy.
Mexico has been publicly threatened by the US. President Obrador says there is a consciousness revolution happening in Mexico. US is a problem. Mexicans can no longer be fooled. My impression is Mexico has gone silent.
China, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia are all interested in the sea they border. I’ve not read about their diplomatic discussions. China has relented and let the Philippines resupply the ship Philippinos sunk to establish presence on a near-by reef.
Maximilian was an anecdote in Mexican history. Iturbide was the first Emperor and he was a patriot (after initially fighting for Spain but whatever: people have the right to be wrong if they correct those wrongs). The precursor of Mexico (Viceroyalty of New Spain) also owned those lands for many centuries only being contested briefly by Russia, they even owned Louisiana for a while and that’s why you get toponyms like Nuevo Madrid in the US Mid-West).
I insist: it is Colombia. Columbia is a province of Canada and a federal territory of the USA but not the South American country, not in English either (look it up). It’s nice that some neo-Bolivarian gestures happen but I still don’t see that any revolution has happened in Colombia at all and I don’t trust the Colombian narco-army and narco-cops. There’s a reason why the ELN and some elements of the former FARC are not at peace: the deep state of Colombia has not been purged no matter that, for the time being, a leftist president (Petro) is being tolerated.
I understand the tensions between USA and Mexico but the key issue is that Mexico’s economic growth has been dependent (and is even more as the USA goes into confrontation with China) on its economic alliance with the USA (and Canada), so Mexico doesn’t want to confront the USA more than needed (nor vice versa, even Trump understood that quite fast after the initial xenophobic rhethoric, business is business and Mexico is good business). AMLO made a statement therefore saying (my rewording, not literal, I don’t remember the exact words) that “thank you but not interested on joining BRICS nor dropping the USD for international transactions”. Brazil is a totally different case, as, in spite of their relative underdevelopment, it is a natural competitor with the USA, which it compares well with in terms of size and even much of history. Even Bolsonaro could not revert that natural rivalry with the the USA for the whole double continent and much of the Atlantic Ocean (Brazil likes to project to Western and Southern Africa, very especially Angola and other former Portuguese colonies). But Mexico is too close and integrated to the USA to confront it, maybe in the future but not in several decades.
The South China Sea is a key problem for Chinese East Asian geostrategy, because they behave like the proverbial elephant in the china shop, i.e. they do the same that the USA does in other geographies. Clearly if one seeks for signs of Chinese imperialism, Asia is the place to look at: not just the SCS but also Myanmar, the border conflict with India, etc. This makes Chinese relations with other Asian countries difficult at best, hostile at worst. Vietnam and Philippines notably have been willingly aligning with the USA for that very reason. And I mean “Asia” here as east of Iran, West Asia is distant enough from China and largely occupied by the USA and satellites (Israel, Turkey) so to be a very different case, at least for the time being (it’s the main goal of Chinese imperialism in the last two decades and once they are in they won’t be expelled easily: not by the USA but neither by the local powers if they so do wish in the future).
This is surely why there are no Asian new members (other than West Asian ones), even if there were several candidates and one (Indonesia) very much deserving it. BRICS is clearly China’s alternative to G7 and wouldn’t work without China, whatever China says thus is the ultimate word.
You have interesting insights yet remain eurocentric; I do not believe any of the original independent nations of the south and southwestern parts of north America ever considered themselves part of Mexico.
China, Russia, Iran, and Korea are under public military threat from the US.
Amateur American and European checkers players have challenged ancient Asian culture chess masters with modern arms.
I can’t but be Eurocentric, I’m European: Europe is where I live and most of what I know. But anyhow, I’m not sure why you say that.
Central America (except Panama) was part of Mexico (and the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which is the precursor of Mexico) and it did not even actively fight against Spain for independence in any way. They just broke apart from Mexico and tried to make their own Central America federal nation but fought each other and split into many pieces, probably to the delight of the British who were the ones reaping most of the benefits of the collapse of the Spanish colonial empire then (USA was too young a country, it would only become predatory re. Latin America later on, following Britain’s wake).
China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are under US military threat? Sure: the USA “needs” to control at least parts of Eurasia if it wants to remain a privileged imperial power, which it won’t. Tell me something I don’t know. However you can also say that many countries are under military threat of China (Vietnam, Philippines, India itself even) are intervened by Chinese dictatorial proxies (Myanmar, North Korea, which owes its very existance to China) and a growing number of countries in Asia (and now also beyond) host Chinese military bases: Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Djibouti and Solomon Islands. Even India has begun expanding its military projection to Mauritius if my memory is correct. And of course Russia is perceived as hostile by some of its neighbors (notably Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as the four Baltic states that used to belong to the Tsarist Empire), Kazakhstan itself has been quite ambiguous and refused to support Russia’s “special military operation” even if its leader owes his political survival to Russia’s timely intervention against a “color revolution” in Kazakhstan.
What I mean is that every capitalist (and maybe even “real socialist” back in the day) state is imperialist, they imperialize what they can and Imperialism is the struggle of capitalist powers for resources, markets and ultimately global hegemony. Most of that imperialist struggle happens in Eurasia because it is a massive continent, hosting most people, with many resources natural and industrial, etc. We would surely be in WWIII (or 7th or whatever) would not because of nuclear deterrance, instead we are in Cold War II, which is a World War barely contained out of fear of mutual assured destruction.
There are no good guys here: just like Germany was not the good guys in WWI just because Britain had a massive colonial empire and was in the decline, while Germany was on the rise, China are not the good guys in Cold War II either just because the USA is like Britain a century ago.
You are an interesting person with much to say. I see you as Eurocentric only to the extent that you have not yet realized the Latin American culture was defeated only after eighty percent of its population died from diseases their immune systems were not prepared for. Even so, superior Latin American culture survives to this day and offers advanced philosophy becoming better articulated since about 2006.
Vivir bien; Live well in balance with Earth.
Water privatization by Bechtel engineering in Bolivia, for example, ran up against indigenous energy and logic and were quickly expelled. I believe that US company is still trying to collect the profit it would have made. Imperialism is real, yes, the question is will humans go extinct living under old fashioned ideologies? I tend to think so yet hope not.
That would be the Native American or Indigenous American culture, not the Latin American one, which is a colonial product. Latin after all means Romance speaker (Spanish, Portuguese, French…), i.e. speaker of evolved Latin, the language of the ancient Romans, a European people.
I’m not privy to the details of Bechtel water abuses but I would think that’s something more Anglo (Angloamerican but to some extent maybe also English proper) than European. AFAIK, water can’t be privatized in Europe or most of it, it would be a scandal.
I do believe Indonesia is also eager to join BRICS and eventually will. It finds itself to close to Australia=US influence. Probably just a matter of time, but my guess is within a year.
I agree even though the whole thing looks like fun instead of so serious. A new way that puts living well in balance with Earth and is purposefully adopted by humans will be more fun. That’s why I think you are correct.
I agree even though the whole thing looks like fun instead of so serious. A new way that puts living well in balance with Earth and is purposefully adopted by humans will be more fun. That’s why I think you are correct.
Not having any expertise on their motives, I think your first sense it right. They are being selective. But I need to see some discussion before I assume that China’s interest in the Middle East is the reason. If I had to guess, Russia’s membership in OPEC+ might have played a role there. Or, it could also be that some countries seeking membership in BRICS are more worried about US sanctions than others.
The interest of China clearly overlaps with those of India and Russia, especially in Iran (which is more aligned with these two second tier powers than with China itself, although China did guarantee Iran vs the USA in the recent past anyhow, so all three are in agreement on this). That may also be the case of Egypt and even Saudi Arabia after they shifted alliances.
For what I just watched from a decent YT analyst (Singapore-based, so relatively knowledgeable of the regional developments), the exclusion of Indonesia (IMO the most perplexing one) obeys to the fact that they have been somewhat hostile to China in the South China Sea conflict, even if they remain non-aligned. I have yet to find any clear explanation as to why Algeria (which is clearly pro-Russia and pro-China and a regional powerhouse as well) has been excluded, maybe because China double-deals with Morocco?
Weird? No. So many factors must be involved in inviting new members. Does not mean that there are no other perfect candidates — it is the ligi behind this round that is important.
Every single country selected has an internal broad consensus of elites to commit themselvves to divversification of trade, investments and political orientation. In each case — selected were members that have achieved internal consensus on “Easternization” of their direction. Take Saudi Arabia and UAE for example. The obscene amout of pressure on their countries by US and some European countries — resulted in fairly firm set of of “no” replies. Take normalization of Iran-Saudi relations . Or take UAE refusal to break telecom deal with Huawei on pain of cancellig F-16. UAE did not obey, and bought French Rafale. UAE is becoming a hub of Asian and Russian capital. There is less Western capital in need of ofshoring. Saudis have been under pressure since 2017 when MBS removed from power US favorite, MBN. Both countries are in need of firm international support for theirbeconomic develooment. Not lacking money, they were thwarted in technoligical development. Egypt and Argentina are in similar predicament. Every time they tried to break the chokehold of technological and financial dependence, they were severely undermined. In both countriex deep consensus exists among elites to find partnerships to get them out of technological backwardness, And given financially precarious stare of affairs — these two countries with immense potential need helo in technoligical advancement and financing. Iran is critical to infrastructue of transport. Connecting West and East Asia, as well as North South corridor. All attempts at isolating Iran fave failed. Both Russia and China have 29+ years treaty with Iran. This is a very special case, just as is Ethiopia. Coming out of nearly two decades of dominance by one ethnic group, and restoring Ethyopia’s former political role is the key. BBith Egypt and Ethiopia have an important role in stabilizing Sudan.
While Indonesia is a good candidare, for China it is important to keep Indonesia stable not gove opposition politicians excuse to label ruling party as under Chinese influence. Why not Nigeria? I cannot imagine Nigeria as candidate, its politics unstable, elite too dependent on Western corporative world.
“Every single country selected has an internal broad consensus of elites”…? Like Ethiopia which is in full swing civil war? I also have all kinds of doubts about the internal coherence of each of the four Middle Eastern countries adopted and even of Argentina, where everybody is warning of some Trump-like or Bolsonaro-like “libertarian” (far right ultra-liberal) guy threatening to take over… democratically.
It doesn’t matter that much if Iran is isolated, it is internally divided both ethnically and ideologically. Some data suggests it is the most atheist country in the region after such a long far right Islamo-Fascist dictatorship. It just faced a massive revolt of half of its population: women (and some solidarious men) and it has many separatist movements, some of them armed and very active (Balochistan, Kurdistan) and even the Talibans feel strong enough in comparison to threaten them. The Iranian and Egyptian regimes are very fragile and, talking of Egypt, it has been basically kept afloat by massive US military aid, which is doubtful to continue as they drift eastwards, how long will Al Sissi survive?
Back to Ethiopia, the alleged dominance of “one ethnical group” (Tigrays I presume) has been replaced by the dominance of another (Oromos, who are the largest ethnicity but by no means majority) and the somewhat socialist and ethnically pluralist (federalist) of the “Tigray hegemony” has been replaced by ultra-capitalist and centralist push of the new Oromo regime. This is very bad because it will almost definitely destroy Ethiopia and fragment it into many smaller (but ethnically homogeneous, more or less) nation-states. The (basically “failed”) Ethiopian state is not only fighting a genocidal war against the Tigray but now also against the Amhara, whose militias have taken arms against the centralizing push by the central state. The only possible solution goes back to the “Tigray” federalist model, really: it’s that or utter fragmentation.
Keep it up, Bianca. Thank you.
No. Mideast is the heart of Eurasia. It’s not only about oil. Securing Mideast from parasitic imperial claws means peace and prosperity for the entire Eurasia. With the empire of chaos out of the way, Mideast will become the most prosperous region in the world.
Wishful thinking on your side: I concur that Middle East is a knot but I strongly doubt that prosperity will happen under current far right rulers, some of them absurdly megalomaniac (Saudia) or absolutely corrupt (Egypt). It doesn’t help that, much like Africa, it is under the clout of powers foreign to the region (and it’s not very important if those are the USA or China).
Outside influence has always been a negative for the Middle East, but if it disappeared completely tomorrow the area wouldn’t suddenly become a utopia.
Precisely because it is a key trade knot, foreign influence can’t disappear. It may be that they can unify somehow (pan-Arabists wanted exactly that but have been systematically destroyed by the USA and Israel and it would anyhow exclude big regional powers like Iran or Turkey, while the rich Gulf monarchies would rather not share with their Arab brethren anyhow).
In any case it would be no “utopia”.
Not at all. I have no interests. Mideast will prosper regardless of leadership. simply due to their geographical location. Why do you think the empire have been waging wars and trying to destabilize the Middle East specifically since FDR admin?
It’s been always in the same geopolitical location and they have not always prospered, sorry. “Geography is destiny” doesn’t mean that your conclusion is correct, just that the region has that geography: who exploits it and how (locals, foreigners, for progress, for cultural stagnation or backwardness) matters much more. “Geography underlies destiny” would probably be a much better, more correct sentence, people (and especially leaders) make destiny, nothing is written.
Well, as I’ve said, I have no interest. I’m not repeating any musings from any particular geopolitical pundit. I base my argument on my own observations and basic logic. History and current geopolitical reality are very different. What we have forming now is a Eurasian superblock and Mideast is in dead center of it. This is what Anglo-American empire have been trying to prevent for so many years. Leaderships in the region aren’t very relevant since the region will prosper simply due trade and connectivity between PRC, RF, India and EU. The only thing that could prevent such development today is a global nuclear war.
I think you may be deluded by Russian geopolitical theory of Eurasianism (Dugin and such) and aspirations to “multipolarity”. Reality of Imperialism (capitalist geopolitics, nothing else) is that blocs are always hierarchical and what you call “Eurasian bloc” is nothing but the Chinese bloc, while the other bloc (so-called “the West”, even if it includes Japan and South Korea, as well as Australia, NZ, etc.) is the US bloc or “empire”. Both blocs are hierarchical and can be undone, especially the Chinese bloc, which has some forced allies (Russia, pushed by the USA, which would not allow them to be neutral and play both sides… but would love to) and some dubious ones (India primarily, whose interests and those of China do not really align — they could but China is too bossy and aggressive vs India and SE Asia).
BRICS+ is a loose association of rising capitalist powers (some not so much rising, Ethiopia notably) and it’s hard to see where it is going if anywhere. Right now India and China are more or less getting along but mostly because Pakistan shifted sides again and Russia has been catering to both, just a couple of years ago BRICS was weak because India and Brazil were not aligned with China but rather with the USA. In the case of Brazil, I do think that “geography is destiny” and it is doomed to compete with the USA and thus they truly need that alliance with China, etc. but, in the case of India, the main rival is China and their natural allies mostly Japan and whoever else confronts China, namely the USA. India is in BRICS because of two reasons: Russia (positive influence) and Pakistan (negative one) and in spite of the many offenses by China (just yesterday China cause uproar in India as they published a “new” official map including Indian territories as part of China, the trans-Himalayan tension continues quite hot).
These capitalist bloc dynamics lead to war, that’s clear (Lenin 1916) but what Lenin did not grasp was nuclear war, which is in principle a practical impossibility (all would be destroyed, nobody can win), so what we have is Cold War II instead, with many hot conflicts of which the most notable one right now is Ukraine… but the Africa situation may well lead to a war over there as well and never underestimate the CIA-Mossad-Gladio ability to create new problems, I would not even discard problems in Egypt and Saudia if the Chinese secret services do not actively outsmart the US ones: those are fragile and hateful dictatorships which can be “easily” upturned or brought to civil war.
Hmm. Very interesting. So you insist I’m channeling Drugin. I wouldn’t even know who that is if they haven’t killed his daughter. Obviously his views are a threat, and if you believe I think like him, so are mine.
You’re not telling me anything new. State hierarchies have many vulnerabilities that can be exploited. You can turn entire state apparatus against itself. It doesn’t matter if the state have a monolithic or polylithic hierarchy. The limiting factor for state actors is retaliation.
My argument stands that Mideast will prosper (possibly the most of all) from Eurasian economic inter connectivity. It is as basic as Roman road.
No, I don’t “insist”, Ivan, as I only mentioned that once and insisting means repeating over and over. I mentioned “Eurasianism” (and then, in brackets, Dugin as a reference, and I don’t feel Dugin is a threat although I also dislike his ideas because they are essentialist and reactionary) and then “multipolarism”. Both ideas are somewhat mainstream in Russia, Dugin or not Dugin, Dugina or not Dugina, and they respond to the needs of the Russian nation-state, otherwise corralled against the Urals by the rest of Europe (with lesser exceptions like Hungary, Serbia and Belarus) a Europe which has been kidnapped not by Zeus this time but by the USA.
I don’t think they’re “dangerous” ideas, I just think they have limitations and that they actually play in favor of the imperial interest of China, but I still blame the so-called “collective West” for that.
This is old Anglosaxon Europolitics: divide and rule. England particularly has been doing that for all the Modern Age: not allowing ever for Europe to come united or under the influence of any single power that is not themselves (now under the creole version called the USA, to whom they had to submit but transferred a whole imperial strategy). It worked against the Habsburgs first, then against France, then against Germany and now it’s focused against Russia. Not that Russia wants a united Europe either, they prefer it divided and in that sense, at some level, the USA and Russia agree in the broad terms (no sovereign united Europe wanted) but Russia would want a fragmented Europe, like in the good old days, while the USA prefers a province or colony, which requires some integration provided by the EU and NATO. The USA is clearly more ambitious than any European power since Rome.
All this also applies to the so-called Middle East, which nobody wants united either, except maybe the Arabs themselves. Without unity, the region will always be under the thumb of whoever is bigger: the USA until yesterday, China since today… and, if these powers would fall from grace of the gods of success, there would be others like Russia or India, who have their own interests and not those of West Asia or the Arab World at heart.
While in the case of Europe I can see some powers who would be interested in its sovereign unity: the Asian rimlands of China and/or India, whose interests do not overlap with those of Europe in general, in the case of West Asia and surrounding areas (the loose concept of Middle East), they do have access and thus no interest in allowing unity, sovereignty and prosperity. India is just nearby but China has been working very hard to establish a chain of military bases to secure its interests in that region very specifically (and that’s one of the reasons why India and China do not get along most of the time, the other being overlapping interests in the Hymalayan and SE Asian regions, as well as in East Africa).
We have to understand that Imperialism = capitalist (predatory) geopolitics and that this tends to bipolarity and that multipolarity is unstable. The current scenario is not essentially different from the one leading to WWI (except that more globalized, less Eurocentric), with the USA in the role of Britain, the ailing superpower, and China in the role of Germany, the rising industrial star with a “planned” (but not socialist) economy and softer, generally (but not always) more “silk-gloved”, approach to the great game of Imperialism.
There’s no room for West Asia in that except as “battleground” or semi-colonial unstable “stability”: they are too exposed by all sides, too fragmented and lack substantive powers, especially once Saddam’s Iraq (which had some ambitions to become the Arab unifier) was systematically destroyed by the USA.
If you’ve mentioned it only once, I wouldn’t need to clarify it twice. (well, 3 times now)
The Divide et Impera is older than the Roman empire, never mind English or Anglo-American empires.
It has been applied extensively toward Mideast but there isn’t much need to fragment the EU. It is already an occupied slave states that are fairly lucrative for the Anglo-American empire. The recent monumental shift facilitated by Chinese and Russian diplomatic efforts in the region destroy pretty much all imperial positions of “controlled chaos” and exploitation of the region. It isn’t surprising to me because both Russia and China are interested in stable, peaceful and prosperous Mideast.
I don’t see a possibility of a global war. The Anglo-American imperialists are parasitic vultures. They will never risk own survival. My issue with both Kremlin and Beijing is this soft approach to imperial infection in Eurasia.
Zero point energy will make everyone better off.
Finally, the World is getting better without the US hands…!
Imperial Anglo-American parasite claws. United States is a great country full of wonderful people.
Run by oligarchs and the MICCATT.
You forgot to add “with an extra beak”
People everywhere are pretty ignorant or self centered,elections are stolen everywhere.Blame the leaders.
Good luck, BRICS.
Why do they need luck? They most certainly don’t need the USA who is in the words of MLK, Jr. “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
The American empire can’t end quickly enough and on that day “justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
“the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
And it is most unfortunate that the American people will suffer greatly for the sins of the American state. It would be nice if there were a way to make the actual perpetrators of the violence pay themselves, instead of the mostly innocent citizens. Instead most likely the perpetrators will retire in luxury.
We can only hope for a landing than a hard crash.
“We can only hope for a landing than a hard crash.”
I am one of those living paycheck to paycheck, trying to do the right thing by paying off my consumer and personal debt. I don’t think it will end well for me and many of my friends.
When the US recedes,there will be new purveyors of war.
I agree with this. Two competing economic powerhouses fighting for dominance works better for non-millionaires than if there is a monopoly.
Iran, Argentina and Ethiopia would accept the invitation right away… Saudi Arabian, UAE and Egypt need to discuss it with US first…!
Our buddy, Saudi Arabia? Look for heads to explode in D.C.
Apocalyptically right. Iran & Saudi Arabia were the bedrock of the petrodollar. Central banks the world over are no longer captive to dollar reserves to pay for all their imports. And since the US no longer makes anything the world wants and there’s no one left wants to buy their Treasury bonds, imports will inflate exponentially and that great sap, Joe America, will soon be reprising the classic Yip Harberg refrain; “Brother can you spare a dime.”, without a clue what hit him.
US pharmaceuticals and medical equipment is still top shelf,fighter planes not bad, US entertainment pretty much still admired,as is US tobacco.
BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. If its membership keeps expanding, it will need to come up with another name. I hope BRICS becomes much larger than NATO and that there will be other major currencies besides the US$.
The yanks will be busy looking for way`s to de rail BRICS even to the point of starting a war between them , the Saudis are the Elephant in the room if they ever decide to begin trading in another currency the US will collapse .
Just the start. Countries will continue to move away from the U.S. and West, thanks to Joe for the unintended consequences. The world is getting tired of the wars, the blackmail(sanctions), the indifference to the suffering that the West continues to push on other nations.
Not “thanks to Joe”. This has been a bipartisan effort.
The US is definitely NOT tired of the war as the two camps are those who want war with Russia against those that want to focus on China. Candidates that want more war are likely to get over 90% of the vote next year.
I stand corrected, it is a mutual lovefest between the two parties when it comes to war.
Were these six countries “invited” to join BRICS or did these six countries “applied” for membership. A big difference. The latter is the case, I believe. Forty plus more countries as far as I know have also applied for membership which seems to be a very attractive proposition for many of the developing countries since it makes them free from the shackles of the US dollar by trading in their own currencies, backed by gold.
Only Ethiopia was invited… The other Five countries did apply officially to become a member…!
Thanks for the information.
You’re welcome…The whole announcement by BRICKS spokesman was confusing. He said all six countries were invited…! He should have said Ethiopia was invited and other five countries were approved to join the organization…!
There is a good possibility that Argentina will end up not joining. Lula will be in Argentina urging yes, US officials will be urging no. The official start date for the negotiations will be after the election.
Considering Argentina’s financial issues, the winner of this battle will likely pay a price as the winner will partially be blamed for Argentina’s likely upcoming economic problems. The interesting possibility to me would be for Argentina to set a precedent either way by getting US and BRICS into a bidding war. The most exciting possibility of the whole BRICS versus US economic battle is the possibility of “shithole nations” as Americans like to call them becoming somewhat prosperous.
America is fading fast by committing financial suicide. By weaponizing the dollar to push ESG, LGBTQ, Wokism, and NEOCON goals many nations are fleeing from the dollar as fast as they can.
Too soon the dollar will no longer be the primary instrument of trade among many nations as BRICS ramps up. America will soon be in the same position as Briton in 1947 when they went bankrupt.
Here is a good tour de force by Dr. Jeffery Sachs covering this issue:
I’ll give it until 2026-27 for BRICS to totally trade in non-dollar transactions…! After that, only EU would trade in dollar and if by 2030 somehow miraculously they wake up from from their deep sleep and part away from dollar, they may get invited to join BRICS…! Of course, US would pressure them from every angle until that happens…!