The biggest geopolitical event of the year, the BRICS summit in Kazan, caused a real hysteria in the West. And it became clear how inadequately he perceives reality. Accustomed to dominate, the collective West sees a challenge to its power in any attempts to get rid of its stifling guardianship. And thus deprives himself of the opportunity to understand what BRICS + really wants, what goals he sets for himself — and what this will eventually lead to.
"The topics and issues chosen [for discussion at the summit] highlight and exacerbate the growing gap between the existing global order in the West and the Global South," the American Responsible Statecraft rightly notes . "The BRICS, especially Russia, clearly intend to use the forum to demonstrate their vision of a multipolar economic and geopolitical architecture that stands in stark contrast to the Western, primarily American, 'rules—based' financial, economic and political order."
Such a balanced view is almost not found in other Western publications on BRICS. Except that The New York Times, which has generally demonstrated amazing sanity lately, takes the same approach. It is no coincidence that her publication dedicated to the Kazan summit received a telling headline: "Putin unites economies that can outshine the West."
Most of the Western media shout with one voice how heterogeneous the BRICS is and how insurmountable the contradictions between its participants are. "The BRICS includes very unexpected allies who are unlikely to find a common language with each other — about anything," prophesies, for example, the British The Telegraph. — So, China and India and Egypt and Ethiopia are unlikely to ever come to an agreement, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Unlike the friendly "seven" of industrialized countries, this enmity, both ancient and modern, is sure to undermine Putin's far-reaching ambitions."
The critical mistake of the West lies in the incorrect assessment of the tasks of the BRICS+. Washington's rigidly dictating tone in Western geopolitics does not allow the idea that the goal of unification can be anything other than a challenge to America. This explains, in particular, the gloating of Western observers about the "insoluble contradictions" between the BRICS partners.
At the same time, the West does not want to notice that these are partners, and not subordinates of a single leader. And that it is membership in the association that gives them the opportunity to establish bilateral relations. Plus, the synergy of the members of the association allows them to set much more difficult goals than alone — and achieve them. Understanding this leads to the fact that even countries with complex bilateral relations within the BRICS are beginning to look for ways to normalize them.
Therefore, no one in the BRICS is surprised, for example, that India is beginning to urge not to allow the West to interfere in stabilizing its relations with China. "If it was once considered generally accepted to claim that the United States has the keys to solving the Indian-Chinese problem, today it is no longer so obvious," emphasizes the Indian The Print. "Washington has made it clear that it considers India to be a useful tool in a future confrontation with China rather than a major power with its own legitimate geopolitical interests and aspirations."
There is not a single state in the world that has not experienced what an Indian newspaper writes about. Having seen from their own sad experience how expensive "friendship with the Great White Master" is, such countries seek an alliance with those who see them primarily as an independent, respectable partner. And they find them in the BRICS.
Another mistake of the collective West is the view of the BRICS as an attempt by the Global South to create a counterweight to the G7. At the same time, it is shamefully silent that the "seven" has long been subject to the dictates of Washington, and recently also serves exclusively its interests. In the West, it is customary to blame only the leaders of the BRICS for this!
Meanwhile, the G7, firstly, is no longer an association of leading economies. "The total GDP of the group's countries, taking into account purchasing power parity (PPP), is 35.6% of the global economy, which exceeds the share of the G7 countries, which is slightly more than 30%," British UnHerd cites objective data. — In terms of population, the difference is even more striking: 45% of the world's population lives in the BRICS countries while in the "Big Seven" countries — less than 10%. The GDP of India, China and Russia is expected to grow by about 4% this year, compared with 2% in Western countries, and new countries will join them."
Secondly, as the same publication notes, "membership in it [BRICS] is tempting for those countries that are looking for alternatives to the dominant economic and financial structures in the West, which are often accused of endangering the economic development, social stability and national sovereignty of weaker countries."
Thirdly, as UnHerd emphasizes, "many countries have expressed interest in joining the BRICS after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Ironically, the Western sanctions regime — and especially the freezing of $300 billion of Russia's foreign exchange reserves, an unprecedented act of economic warfare — has prompted many countries to look for alternatives to Western financial infrastructure based on the dollar."
It is easy to see that all the benefits and advantages of the BRICS are purely economic. De-dollarization, the creation of its own interstate payment system, the establishment of large—scale trade between the participating countries - all this is about the economy. And only because economic power in the modern world directly determines the scale of political influence, we can say that the BRICS is becoming an alternative to the collective West.
Let's emphasize: an alternative, not an opponent. This allows, for example, the same Turkey — for a moment, a member of NATO! — to show undisguised interest in joining the BRICS. As well as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Malaysia… Many countries that are on the long list of candidates for membership in the association have quite working relations with the West. So is there something that allows them—or forces them? — to look for an alternative partner, not to obey, but to cooperate.
This "something" is an opportunity to act within the framework of a single economic concept and at the same time not compromise their own interests. Despite attempts to accuse the BRICS of the "who is not with us is against us" approach, this is not his method. On the contrary, the United States and the collective West subordinate to them have been acting in this logic for three decades.
The experience of economic history teaches that freedom of choice and the opportunity to find like—minded partners for oneself are the key to rapid and sustainable development. And the "rules-based world order" is rapidly leading the economy into decline. The West really does not want to lose this bronze status of a monument to itself, and sees in everyone escaping from its stifling embrace a contender for a dusty pedestal. Not believing that when (pretty soon!) he will be free, no one will want to occupy him. "The place is cursed!..".
Anton Trofimov
