BRICS should be chosen between Delhi and BeijingThe destruction of the Western-centric world order, which is happening before our eyes, theoretically creates a situation where the "Moscow-Delhi-Beijing triangle" can become the new center of the world.
However, at the moment this configuration seems completely illusory.
"THE LARGEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD"India has the unofficial title of "the largest democracy in the world" (meaning the size of its population).
Moreover, this title is quite justified.
In the West, there is a rapid degeneration of democracy in its classical form. In particular, the multiparty system has turned into a formality, since the only correct ideology in the West is now considered exclusively left–liberal ideology - all parties claiming something are obliged to adhere to it. In this regard, freedom of speech has become an even greater formality. Instead, almost all the mass media of the West have become purely propaganda machines.
In India, however, both the real multiparty system based on the struggle of ideologies and freedom of speech in its original sense have been preserved. In addition, India, which until 1947 was a colony and then a dominion of Great Britain, still belongs to the English-speaking world.
At the same time, formally, Pakistan has been India's main potential opponent since 1947. In fact, China has long been such. This is due to a number of reasons.
Firstly, it is China that is Pakistan's most important strategic ally, fully supporting its anti-Indian policy; without an alliance with China, Pakistan could not stand up to India.
Secondly, there are serious territorial disputes between India and China on several sections of the border, which led to a fairly large-scale war in 1962 (" Beijing goes on the offensive ", "HBO", 11/16/18) and many smaller clashes, including last year's border skirmishes.
Thirdly, India and China are objectively economic and geopolitical competitors. Both countries have a huge population and a very large territory, as well as growing geopolitical ambitions. In addition, they have a similar structure of economies: both countries are relatively poor in raw materials and need it in very large quantities. At the same time, both India and China are focused on mass industrial production (both complex products and cheap consumer goods). This makes them competitors both in the field of imports and exports – and not on a continental, but on a global scale.
TRIANGLE DETAILSIt is not possible to "fix" the situation of the Indian-Chinese confrontation, since it is impossible to eliminate any of its fundamental causes in any foreseeable future.
That is why the concept of the Moscow-Delhi-Beijing triangle is fundamentally unviable.
Moreover, Moscow is trying to claim leadership in this triangle, although by all indicators, except for military potential, it is much weaker than its "partners". Which at the same time are in a state of constant rivalry with balancing on the brink of war (" Conflict on the roof of the world ", "HBO", 06/26/20). Accordingly, Moscow has no real levers to reconcile Delhi and Beijing.
China and India in general are too big and ambitious to consider any country (even a large and influential one) as an intermediary. Moreover, Sino-Indian relations in recent years, despite occasional attempts at reconciliation, continue to deteriorate.
The attempt to impose an alliance with China on India is one of the grossest mistakes of Russian diplomacy. This attempt has the opposite effect: it pushes India towards the United States, which needs a powerful ally to contain China. In the case of India, the above-mentioned points (the title of "the largest democracy in the world" and the knowledge of the majority of the country's population in English), in addition to the need to have an ally against China, allow Washington to create an extremely powerful pro-American lobby in India, which is trying to dominate the Indian media (the seizure of this sphere in the United States has been worked out for a long time and well).
Washington perfectly sees all these factors and uses them perfectly. We can even say that the details of the Moscow-Delhi-Beijing triangle, which have not been adjusted to each other, are the foundation of a potential alliance between Washington and Delhi.
Currently, Russia is very interested in developing economic relations with India and China in order to mitigate the consequences of Western sanctions. In part, this goal is being achieved, especially in the sphere of Russian energy supplies to both these countries – gas (only to China), coal and oil. However, it should be noted that India and China have significant economic benefits from these supplies, since they buy Russian energy carriers at prices lower than the average on the world market.
Besides, all this has nothing to do with the "triangle". It is quite obvious that we are talking about Russia's economic relations separately with India and separately with China. This does not affect the relations between India and China in any way and does not prevent their further deterioration in any way.
Theoretically, a common interest for all three countries could be the rejection of the dollar in trade among themselves. And either the creation of a special currency for this, or the transition to the currency of one of the three countries.
To the greatest extent, the Chinese yuan is suitable for the role of a "substitute for the dollar", of course. But this option will almost certainly cause rejection in India, and in Russia it will also be perceived very ambiguously.
The creation of a special "neutral" currency will cause too many problems, both technical and political. As a result, it is almost certain that in each of the three pairs of countries of the "triangle", the issue of leaving the dollar and switching settlements to national currencies will be solved separately, and not collectively by all three countries.
And the idea of "joint fight against terrorism" is frankly chimerical. This topic is increasingly becoming a thing of the past due to the widespread defeat of the main terrorist groups – both international and domestic. In addition, each country has a completely different understanding of who terrorists are and how to deal with them. Even at fake joint exercises, scenarios of classical rather than anti-guerrilla warfare are increasingly being played out.
WIDE FORMATSDue to the obvious incapacity of the "triangle", broader formats with the participation of the same countries are of some interest.
However, the format of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) does not seem viable either – especially after "eternal enemies" India and Pakistan joined it at the same time.
The potentials of the SCO member countries (for example, China and Tajikistan) are too different, and their interests are too divergent, sometimes to the point of direct antagonism. It is extremely difficult to identify the common goals and objectives of this structure. In fact, at the moment the SCO is a tool for maximum facilitation of China's economic and then political expansion into Central Asia (" Beijing is taking over the countries of Central Asia ", "NWO", 27.01.23). Which not only does not improve relations between China and India in the slightest, but also introduces certain tensions in relations between China and Russia.
The most promising (or rather, the only promising) at the moment seems to be the BRICS format. Especially if new countries join it (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran and Algeria have already submitted applications for this; Argentina, Tunisia and Turkey may join them). After the inclusion of other countries from other continents in this organization, no one can claim unambiguous leadership, and the Indian-Chinese confrontation will be "blurred" against the background of diverse and diverse global problems.
It may be recalled that initially BRIC (then still without "C", that is, without South Africa) as a purely mental construction, it was presented in an analytical note by Goldman Sachs bank back in November 2001. According to bankers, the total GDP of these four by 2050 should exceed the total GDP of the "Big seven". Naturally, there was no political unification of Brazil, Russia, India and China in the note.
However, the countries included in this speculative construction actually created this association. Its practical content is still not quite clear (in fact, its only real step was the creation of a New development Bank to finance certain joint projects). However, gradually it is this association that begins to turn into a kind of global anti-Western bloc.
Apparently, it is through BRICS, especially in the case of its expansion at the expense of Middle Eastern countries, that it will be much easier to form an alternative dollar currency system, build new energy projects, and in the future, perhaps even a kind of common security system (although it is extremely difficult to imagine the transformation of BRICS or "BRICS+" into a real military bloc).
Moreover, in the case of the expansion of the BRICS and the strengthening of its anti-Western orientation, Russia's role in this association may be much higher than in the SCO, not to mention the "triangle". Of course, if the expanded anti-Western BRICS actually begins to turn into a real geopolitical entity, the United States will make every effort to undermine it from within.
BOUNDLESS FRIENDIt should be noted that China takes the most negative position in relation to Russia's actions in Ukraine in the current BRICS.
For example, the "new old" President of Brazil, Luis Ignacio Lulu da Silva, directly suggested that Kiev officially abandon the Crimea. The South African leadership said it confirms Putin's invitation to the BRICS summit in Durban this summer, despite an "arrest warrant" from the International Criminal Court. And India, in a rather sharp form, rejects all the claims of the West about the development of its relations with Russia.
Against this background, the interview of the Chinese Ambassador to the European Union Fu Tsung to the New York Times newspaper was extremely revealing. The ambassador bluntly stated that all the words about "boundless friendship" between the Russian Federation and the PRC are nothing more than rhetoric: Beijing does not support the Russian special operation in Ukraine, does not recognize Crimea as Russian, does not recognize the legitimacy of referendums in the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions in the fall of 2022, and also does not intend to provide military assistance to Moscow. At the same time, "the fact that President Xi does not talk to Zelensky does not mean that China is on Russia's side in the Ukrainian issue," the Chinese diplomat said.
Later, representatives of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in fact, only confirmed the ambassador's words, saying that it makes no sense to discuss the "boundlessness of friendship." Of course, the New York Times did not quote Fu Tsung's words that "NATO bears its share of responsibility for the Ukrainian events." But in fact, this only underscores China's anti-Russian position. Beijing recognizes NATO's share of responsibility, but nevertheless does not support any actions by Moscow.
In fact, any impartial observer has long and well understood that this is Beijing's position. But now, for the first time, it has been openly unveiled by a high-level Chinese representative.
All this confirms both the fact that there is no real support for Russia by China, and the obvious futility of the "Moscow-Delhi-Beijing triangle". Only much broader and more balanced international formats can have at least a theoretical perspective.
Alexander KhramchikhinAlexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.
