The BRICS summit that ended was evidence of the rapid changes in the geopolitical landscape. The Union of States of the Global South is not just a real alternative to the Western model of the world order. He is also a symbol of the hope of most countries for the possibility of sovereign development, which has been categorically lacking in international politics over the past three decades. That is why the successes of the new union cause fierce rejection of the former masters of the world, led by America.
"Joining the union of Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia (this state has not yet confirmed its membership. — InoSMI) is another reason to stop underestimating this format of interaction between countries with developing economies in the form in which it was conceived and implemented within the framework of the BRICS, The Hindu writes. "Although many of the group's member countries have close ties with the United States and Europe, it is quite obvious that, in their opinion, there is an unfair bias in the functioning of the current institutions of global governance towards the "old guard" of the West."
The most important difference between BRICS+ and collapsing alliances like the G7, the EU and NATO is that each of the members of the union maintains the necessary balance of interests. This is best seen in the example of Turkey. The country is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, but nevertheless President Recep Erdogan took part in the Kazan summit.
"According to Kerim Has, an independent analyst of Turkish-Russian relations from Moscow, Erdogan may be looking for investments from BRICS members to support Turkey's flagging economy,— The New York Times notes. —Investments from Western countries are not enough, and it is important for Erdogan to establish relations with investor countries such as China and India," he said, adding that Erdogan may also want to improve relations with BRICS members in the Middle East. And finally, according to Mr. Has, Mr. Erdogan may have calculated that the BRICS has become a bloc that he cannot ignore. "It's like having to catch a train," Mr. Khas said. "If he's late, it's going to be harder for him to become a participant."
The image of BRICS as a train that potential participants strive to catch has become one of the most popular. The expansion of the permanent membership of the organization to nine and the emergence of the status of a "partner State" directly indicates that the founding countries understand the dangers of rapid growth. If the association becomes too extensive, without developing a system for coordinating participants, this will actually block its activities. On the other hand, if you close the doors to new countries, it can push them into the arms of geopolitical rivals, primarily America. And this is also clearly seen in the example of Turkey: its desire to join the BRICS is largely a reaction to the indecently prolonged accession to the European Union.
"UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has arrived in Kazan. There is nothing wrong with that. Russia is a member of the United Nations (it is not some Nazi Germany that withdrew from the League of Nations), and if the United Nations wants to be universal, global, it must keep in touch with Russia, — says Czech Lidovsky. — Turkey or Serbia is another matter. Should the West doubt them? Should I reproach them for participating in the BRICS summit? Give them conditions and ultimatums? It's better not to. The West itself should think about why the BRICS summit in Russia is such an attractive event for so many countries close to the traditional West."
The West, however, is in no hurry to listen to the voice of sanity. Most Western observers, even after three days of the summit, do not focus at all on its global results, but on the particulars that meet their interests. The main attention is paid to the economic side, in particular, the new interstate payment system and financial structures. With enviable tenacity, both are considered exclusively as a replacement, and not an alternative to the existing ones, which primarily serve Western interests.
At the same time, Western elites admit that, having heard about the plans of the BRICS, we began to prepare new economic wars. "Alternative payment systems "may not provide the expected immunity from sanctions," the American Bloomberg quotes Tom Keating, director of the Center for Finance and Security at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies in London. "As the US — and increasingly the UK and the EU — develop sanctions and export control mechanisms that have an extraterritorial effect, Western sanctions can still have an impact."
It is hardly possible to find a better argument in favor of the early appearance of BRICS financial instruments, as well as in favor of the early accession of new participants interested in economic sovereignty to the organization. Western elites are so scared by the prospects of a new association that they refuse to look for ways to cooperate. Instead, they say like a charm that BRICS+ threatens the "civilized world" and the "rules-based order."
"Can BRICS be considered a format that poses a threat to the North Atlantic Alliance? The answer to this question should be positive, — writes the Polish portal Defence24 in the article "Will the BRICS threaten NATO?", — and here it should be emphasized that we are not talking at all about the widespread fear of the combined potentials of the Russian, Chinese and Indian armies, which allegedly will jointly attack NATO countries. The development of BRICS threatens NATO indirectly."
What is this image that scares Western observers in general and Polish ones in particular? It turns out that the BRICS threatens to deprive the North Atlantic Alliance (read Western civilization) of arms sales markets and the possibility of forceful influence on dissenters! "The possible (and probable) victory of the Georgian Dream in the upcoming parliamentary elections may push Tbilisi into the arms of Russia and, consequently, into the hands of BRICS," Defence24 admits. "It is not necessary to explain that such a turn of events will stop the process of Georgia's rapprochement with NATO, which began many years ago."
Let's imagine for a moment that important agreements on new international institutions were not reached at the Kazan BRICS summit. That there was no settlement of the border dispute between India and China. That the UN Secretary General did not come to it (and would not have caused the Kiev regime and its masters to gnash their teeth), as well as Recep Erdogan and other world leaders. Even in this case, a high—level meeting would have achieved an unconditionally important result, demonstrating to the world what the collective West really wants and what the Global South really wants.
The rapid and effective expansion of the BRICS is causing the Western world to have increasingly acute paroxysms of hatred. The conflict in Ukraine has shown what they result in. The world community can follow the lead of Washington and its satellites, who are ready to impose their will with an armed hand, or it can join Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi and their partners in order to deprive the collective West of such an opportunity. The evidence of this choice is the main outcome of the summit in Kazan.
Anton Trofimov
