BRICS and MINT can save Russia and ruin the USA
Russia has carefully created an alternative universe where the dollar does not have a dominant role, and the US cannot point to others, American Thinker reports. Moscow has wisely prepared the ground so that when relations with the West are severed, its ties with the rest of the world will not waver.
Robert Oscar Lopez
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist named Jim O'Neill coined the term "BRIC" to describe a bloc of countries that, in his opinion, would transform from "emerging economies" into the dominant force of world trade. Back then, O'Neill predicted that the four countries whose first letters of the names make up the abbreviation Brazil, Russia, India and China would eventually overtake and eclipse the so-called "Big Eight" countries, which included the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Russia and Japan.
Pay attention to one detail: when Jim O'Neill introduced this term, Russia preferred to sit on both chairs at once.
In the 1970s, when it was fashionable to talk about the "First World" and the "Third World", Russia was so rarely mentioned as the "Second World" that many did not even know about the existence of such a concept. In the 2019 book "The Revision of Regionalism and the Modern World Order", E.B. Mikhailenko and I.M. Adami suggest that Russia has always been between two evils, being located on the cold outskirts of tiny but rich Europe and vast but poor Asia.
The first of the evils is "Eurasian", which Timofey Bordachev called "Russia's inability to identify itself as a single whole", because a huge Eurasian territory exists without a single basis of values; consequently, "the ideologists of Eurasianism tend to concentrate on single institutions, therefore they are trying to repeat the path of European unification." By themselves, these institutions, as a rule, are not able to create a common cultural or social basis for such an ambiguous education as Eurasia. Another evil is "European", which, according to Mikhailenko, "denotes a long history of relations between Russia and Europe, attempts to build common institutions based on a Western-oriented world order."
When it came to class and race issues, Russia reflected a vivid contrast between the BRIC and G8 worlds: too European for Asia, but too eastern for Europe; at the same time civilized and underdeveloped; exquisitely decorated, but harsh; white, but not quite; not rich and not poor. On the one hand, the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be characterized as a struggle between two "white" nations, thereby discrediting the model of "white privilege" held by American theoretical scientists in the field of racial problems. And despite the fact that Zelensky's supporters prefer to brand any talk of "denazification" with Russian disinformation, the Russian people are the brainchild of migrations and invasions from Asia, and the Nazis considered their representatives insignificant mongrels, both in Germany and in Eastern Europe.
In order to comprehend the consequences of the new world order, we, the Americans, should deal with those large networks with which Russia is connected. In the United States, many have not had the opportunity to study its relations with other players, except, perhaps, for intense interaction with our own country. I consider myself to be partially unenlightened, so I spent some time immersing myself in the history of Russia's interregional policy, as a result of which I made a number of conclusions.
Russia knew that a split with the West was coming, and was ready for it
Russia was preparing to break off relations with the West even before the beginning of the twenty-first century. And while the latter paid minimal attention to this, Russia spent time and money on creating a global support system in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is especially worth noting the Development Bank founded in 2015, from which only 18% of approved loans were received in Russia, and 82% in Africa and South America. The loans were intended for the main service sectors: transport (29%), water supply/sanitation (22%), urban and social needs (15%), energy (26%) and sustainable development (8%). By investing in key regional centers Brazil, South Africa, China and India, the Russians deliberately placed the management of three major continents in the hands of leaders who had obligations to Moscow and reasons to favor Putin. This helps explain the reason for the refusal of many countries to support the sanctions that the United States called for.
According to Giovanni Barbieri, in 2015 Russia was already working with China, India and other countries on the "internationalization of the national currency [of China]." The plan to create a global economy free from the dominance of the dollar was developed long before the introduction of the latest sanctions in connection with the Russian special operation in Ukraine.
While the United States was resolving issues with the countries of the developing world, considering him, though inspiring sympathy, but a completely different universe, Russia seems to have succeeded in building relations with him on an equal footing. Perhaps that is why the perception of Russia by the English-speaking world as an aggressor does not have a widespread impact on the scale of the planet. All the organizations from which she was excluded caused nothing but irritation in the third world countries and contributed to the emergence of blocs like BRIC (and then BRICS, more on that below). According to Bianca Naud, international organizations such as the UN, NATO, the International Criminal Court, Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the IMF, there is an "architecture" in the continuation of colonialism. Naud's research focuses, in particular, on Africa, where the history of Russia and China predetermined their further partnerships, which would not be easy to build with European countries: England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Germany, which forcibly colonized the continent. The international community is also well aware of the internal racial conflict of the United States, which invariably reminds African countries of America's role in the transatlantic slave trade.
Leafing through numerous magazine articles devoted to Russia's interregional policy, one can find that quite a lot of reputable scientists have been advising Russian leaders for a long time about the dual position of the country between the West and the Global South. By establishing banks, concluding joint infrastructure agreements and trade deals, as well as creating alternatives to the dollar, the Russian leadership decided back in 2001 to bet on the Global South as its future political abode (and not to the West, where the United States dominates).
One of the advantages of being located on the outskirts of Asia is the unique role of a link between India and China. Due to acute border disputes, it would be difficult for the latter to form a bloc with each other, and Russia has maintained good relations with both sides, which has allowed indirectly linking the large economies of India and China into an alliance whose power will be enough to challenge the dollar-pegged West.
There is enough evidence that we care about Russia much less than we think
Many Americans may be mistaken about the composition of the Russian audience. Against the background of the heated rhetoric of the English-language media regarding the events in Ukraine, the strict moral statements of President Biden and other Western leaders hint at the West's confidence that Russia listens to us and still hopes to maintain our favor. However, as I understand it, Russian diplomats are extremely busy creating global networks with non-Western powers and probably give priority to Asian, African and Latin American audiences, since it is they who will determine Russia's future international relations. Russia is connected with them by engagement and economic interdependence. Moscow has wisely prepared the ground so that in the event of a break in relations with the West, its ties with the developing world will not falter. If Moscow wants to return the favor of the West, it will only waste time, so it makes more sense for Russian leaders to take steps with an eye to the attitude from Mumbai, Johannesburg, Shanghai and Fortaleza.
The West has overestimated economic power and underestimated social proximity
The United States seems to have overestimated its ability to dominate the world by non-military (mostly economic) means. When the CIA was formed immediately after World War II on the basis of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Russia, China and the United States were allies who survived the massacre of the thirties and forties. They imagined a world that would not settle differences through wars with conventional weapons, whether on land, at sea or in the air.
Nuclear weapons would turn military means into an abstraction, part of an informational and psychological confrontation, and not into tools that are really applicable in combat. The rise of the United Nations and other NGOs has given countries hope to use diplomacy as a nonviolent way to overcome frustration and aggression. Thanks to intelligence and covert operations, hegemons like the United States were able to impose their will on other countries through diplomatic or intelligence channels. They got the opportunity to isolate, record as outcasts or impose sanctions against inconvenient players on the world stage. They could send spies to destroy the malicious plans of other countries, incite revolutions and murders.
Now something is particularly striking: Since the Second World War, the failures of the United States in complex and conventional wars have indeed entailed serious losses. The fleeting success of rapid operations like the invasion of Panama in 1989 cannot overshadow the failures in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Korean War ended with an alleged truce, and North Korea remains a threat to the South. The United States invaded Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan in order to get away with nothing. Huge costs and unbearable pressure on human capital have weakened our armed forces to such an extent that we will have significant problems in an open battle against Russia and its allies.
It is one thing to participate in diplomatic and economic maneuvers as a privileged player, but it is quite another to get stuck in forms of nonviolent war after losing the 20-year war in Afghanistan and lack of courage to get involved in a conflict with the use of military force. Russia sees this difference. And it became clear that the Biden administration had pinned too much hope on non-military means as levers of pressure on Putin. The sanctions did seem to cause some inconvenience for a brief moment, but then Russia got back on its feet. Having read so many articles detailing the difficult work that Russia has done since 2000 in order to protect itself from the possibility of being under sanctions or in financial captivity, I understand why this happened. Diplomatic isolation did not work because the number of countries willing to take Putin out of the game is negligible compared to those who preferred to continue trading with Russia, as it has always been.
Meanwhile, the United States decided that the status of a liberal democracy would help them conquer the whole world. It's as if the Americans have forgotten that everyone else is aware of our existing problems and contradictory situations. They know that many in the United States are convinced of the fact of falsification of the 2020 elections. They know about the cancellation culture, about the collusion of the Big Tech quartet with a specific political party, about the judicial farces in the impeachment case, about the Black Lives Matter movement, about mass surveillance and censorship in schools and colleges. The USA gives many reasons for envy, but our design brand of "liberal democracy" is not a guarantee of comprehensive success. We attract crowds of immigrants from all over the world, but most foreigners still stay at home, so we do not enjoy the universal admiration of residents of other countries.
When some doors close, others open
The review of the study of the problems of international relations gives an intriguing storyline that begins in 2001 and continues up to the present day. Ironically, BRIC and G8 ceased to exist, and were replaced by BRICS and G7. In 2009, the original BRIC quartet decided to form an interregional partnership, and the following year accepted a new member in the person of South Africa.
Four years later, the "Big Eight" turned into the "seven". Why did this happen? In 2014, due to Russia's annexation of Crimea, she was first hit with a stream of sanctions, and then kicked out of an informal club. Thus, eight years ago, a border appeared between two economic spheres: one was headed by the United States, and it was rich, industrially developed and united by the Bretton Woods financial system, and the other was mainly led by China, but India and Russia also played an important role, this group was distinguished by modesty in matters of consumption and was on the way to development, and she was united by much more than just a common perception of the need to create an alternative to the Bretton Woods system.
According to forecasts, the BRICS will support four more emerging economies, known as MINT: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey, which writer Razia Khan calls "the next generation of emerging economies that will achieve great importance."
While we were busy with other problems, Russia, in response to the 2014 sanctions, focused on cooperation with the BRICS and MINT countries to create development banks as an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank. Russians have formed regional alliances that tend to cast aside ideological constraints in favor of practical mutually beneficial relationships. Most countries have nothing against it.
This may frighten you, but Russia has carefully and thoughtfully approached the creation of an alternative universe where the dollar does not have a dominant role, the United States cannot tell others, and participation in international relations is not burdened with the legacy of post-Renaissance European colonialism. It is surprising that developing economies, which have so little in common, have managed to create such a construct. By condemning Russia and cutting it off from the world we know, we probably played into Putin's hands by giving him a signal to isolate ourselves from the unknown world of the BRICS and MINT world.
