3 ms·

BRICS is essentially being co-opted by China-Russia now to build a bloc. Since China-Russia on their own are too toxic and enjoy no goodwill. So this is a naked

BRICS is essentially being co-opted by China-Russia now to build a bloc. Since China-Russia on their own are too toxic and enjoy no goodwill. So this is a naked attempt to dilute their negative perceptions via a collective. On its own BRICS makes no sense, the core interests simply don’t align and some members have real conflicts amongst them. The only real beneficiary will be China since this would be a forum to to do what it could not do via Belt and Road Initiative, build a large market in which China is in the center from which it can try to introduce standards and currencies it controls, a long stated goal of the CCP. Russia is going to be a resource train that is it, its march to irrelevancy is all but set. So really it’s a China play. Adding these choice 6 countries makes it even tougher, I can see Brazil and India diluting away and eventually leaving BRICS at some point provided their economies get big enough. Although if BRICS keeps increasing in size and more key members join e.g OPEC it could put them in a tough spot.

jychang 3y ago
Strong disagree. This perspective is very western-centric. Nobody sees themselves as the villain in their own story, after all. I strongly doubt the non-Chinese non-Russians countries are thinking like that. How about another perspective: when you run a science experiment, say if you are checking if a drug works or not, you don’t compare against “nothing”. You compare against a placebo sugar pill; otherwise you will get a significant placebo effect. What if we replace the leaders of these countries with “placebos”? Let’s say they are generic, generally pro-democracy, boring leaders with the interests of their people at heart. Let’s not assume they’re trying to be villains for the sake of being villains, and try to explain this move. What would happen? First off, it seems clear that world trust in the USA and western european countries is falling. The USA is chaotic domestically, and that is spilling over into its foreign policy. A neutral country cannot expect the USA to act in the public interest. The USA will always act in its own interest. For example, West Germany or Japan in the late 1990s could count on a total guarantee of USA protection against the USSR; nowadays, Taiwan is functionally a client state for the USA but seen as more “disposable” in the long run. The USA clearly intends to replace TSMC with domestic companies. Countries like Ukraine can count on USA support only for as long as public opinion holds; as soon as that dries up, the supplies will follow. Russia knows this and is fighting a war of attrition right now. The western democracies are also bound by their election cycles. The USA’s global policy changes every 4 year election cycle, and can be hard to predict. In that sense, China or Russia are more stable allies- you’re not bound to a 4 year election cycle. So if you’re a leader of a somewhat neutral country like Brazil or India or Egypt or Argentina, you’re not inclined to kowtow to the USA long term. It’s in your interest to recognize geopolitics is rapidly moving to a multipolar world, and being seen as one of the poles of the world as opposed to a single standard bearer is seen as being a good neighbor.
- seatac76 3y ago
  Ohh I agree the world is headed to a multi polar order. My arguments essentially had two core tenets. First is BRICS is being co-opted by China in pursuit of said multipolar world order and that has ramifications, which are largely negative. I have my issues with the west and history is replete with examples of it’s horrors but China would be worse as it’s actions in SCS, Tibet, Hong Kong, Tibet and some day Taiwan shows. It is an absolutely morally bankrupt enterprise, and should not be allowed any degree of control over world affairs, more than what it already has. To your point about countries acting in their own interest, well yea of course they do, and that is totally fine. Neutral countries should do that too, and should not kow tow to anyone, especially not China-Russia because that will not be a two way relationship. It’s a sign of worse things to come is all.

jychang 3y ago

Strong disagree. This perspective is very western-centric. Nobody sees themselves as the villain in their own story, after all. I strongly doubt the non-Chinese non-Russians countries are thinking like that. How about another perspective: when you run a science experiment, say if you are checking if a drug works or not, you don’t compare against “nothing”. You compare against a placebo sugar pill; otherwise you will get a significant placebo effect. What if we replace the leaders of these countries with “placebos”? Let’s say they are generic, generally pro-democracy, boring leaders with the interests of their people at heart. Let’s not assume they’re trying to be villains for the sake of being villains, and try to explain this move. What would happen? First off, it seems clear that world trust in the USA and western european countries is falling. The USA is chaotic domestically, and that is spilling over into its foreign policy. A neutral country cannot expect the USA to act in the public interest. The USA will always act in its own interest. For example, West Germany or Japan in the late 1990s could count on a total guarantee of USA protection against the USSR; nowadays, Taiwan is functionally a client state for the USA but seen as more “disposable” in the long run. The USA clearly intends to replace TSMC with domestic companies. Countries like Ukraine can count on USA support only for as long as public opinion holds; as soon as that dries up, the supplies will follow. Russia knows this and is fighting a war of attrition right now. The western democracies are also bound by their election cycles. The USA’s global policy changes every 4 year election cycle, and can be hard to predict. In that sense, China or Russia are more stable allies- you’re not bound to a 4 year election cycle. So if you’re a leader of a somewhat neutral country like Brazil or India or Egypt or Argentina, you’re not inclined to kowtow to the USA long term. It’s in your interest to recognize geopolitics is rapidly moving to a multipolar world, and being seen as one of the poles of the world as opposed to a single standard bearer is seen as being a good neighbor.

seatac76 3y ago
Ohh I agree the world is headed to a multi polar order. My arguments essentially had two core tenets. First is BRICS is being co-opted by China in pursuit of said multipolar world order and that has ramifications, which are largely negative. I have my issues with the west and history is replete with examples of it’s horrors but China would be worse as it’s actions in SCS, Tibet, Hong Kong, Tibet and some day Taiwan shows. It is an absolutely morally bankrupt enterprise, and should not be allowed any degree of control over world affairs, more than what it already has. To your point about countries acting in their own interest, well yea of course they do, and that is totally fine. Neutral countries should do that too, and should not kow tow to anyone, especially not China-Russia because that will not be a two way relationship. It’s a sign of worse things to come is all.