BRICS: Laying the Foundations of the Next Empire?

[axj]

If one of the overarching goals was to create a global homogeneous or hybrid race resembling that of ancient Egyptians (really trying to avoid the other term Richard Von Kalergi used in his book), wouldn't the decline of western society and the development of BRICS+ countries fit right into this agenda?

BRICS nations have very different stances on immigration and mixing of races. While Brazil is historically more open to it, China allows almost no immigration. Russia and India are somewhat in-between. The West is actually the one pushing this agenda on its own people, so I don't see what this has to do with the BRICS.

 

[iamthatis]

BRICS nations have very different stances on immigration and mixing of races. While Brazil is historically more open to it, China allows almost no immigration. Russia and India are somewhat in-between. The West is actually the one pushing this agenda on its own people, so I don't see what this has to do with the BRICS.

That said, China announced a new VISA-free policy for a number of EU nations.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765641483389153325

I agree with you, tho, I don't think this has anything to do with any sort of elite Kalergi plan to mix the purity of the races. Maybe it does, but I doubt it.

 

[youlik]

There is nothing to comment on here. The news speaks for itself.

Another state has announced its intention to join the BRICS+

Sri Lanka plans to join BRICS+ in the near future.

This was stated to journalists by the country's ambassador to Russia Janita Abeyvikrema Liyanage.

"Indeed, Sri Lanka is planning to join BRICS+. I can say that the Sri Lankan delegation is now present at the Security Council forum, a meeting of high representatives in charge of security issues.

Sri Lanka has a desire to join BRICS+ in the near future, as this will provide an opportunity to ensure transport and food security," the diplomat explained.

Recall that in the 19th and 20th centuries. (until 1948) Sri Lanka (then the country was called Ceylon) was a colony of the British Empire.

https://rusvesna.su/news/1713944490

 

[iamthatis]

A bit of info featuring thoughts from Sergei Glazyev and Elena Panina (whom I understand is Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation & Director of the RUSSTRAT Institute), including some dire words about a big war and the end of Europe:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788683992457515189

Sergey Glazyev: The IMF recognized the economic collapse of Pax Americana

It is symbolic that by Our Victory Day, the main outpost of the Washington Consensus - the International Monetary Fund - actually recognized the end of Pax Americana, dividing the world economy into three zones: Chinese, American and all the rest.

In fact, the transition from a bipolar imperial world economic system (in which the USSR and the USA built their world empires, dividing the world into two camps) to an integral one centered in Southeast Asia is being completed.

Although it promises to be polycentric (often erroneously called “multipolar,”) since, unlike the imperial World Economic Structure (WES), the importance of national sovereignty is restored in this new secular systemic cycle of capital accumulation, the main competitive struggle for global leadership will be between China and India.

I didn't see that one coming, as I know very little about India. According to Gllazyev, it won't even be US vs China, it will be China vs India!

As in the previous cycle, two countries similar in management systems, but diametrically opposed in political systems (communist and democratic) form a bipolar center of the world economy.

The IMF, acting as a conduit for the interests of American-European capital, cannot recognize the inevitability of the approaching death of the Pax Americana and is trying to help Washington maintain dominance in at least a third of the world economy.

But by the end of this decade, the transition to the new WES will be completed and the Chinese and Indian zones of influence will need to be discussed.

The US and Britain are likely to fall back to the latter (ethnic Indians already run their executive branch), while the EAEU and the EU have a good chance of organically joining the core of the integrated world economy, forming a Greater Eurasian Partnership with China and India, which the Russian President has consistently called for.

Elena Panina: The IMF recognized the economic collapse of Pax Americana

Geopolitical problems have led to the fact that the world is divided not into two, but into three economic blocs: American, Chinese and a group of countries that have not joined them, like Mexico or Vietnam. First Deputy Director of the IMF Gita Gopinath spoke about this during a speech at Stanford University.

The IMF official no longer denies the fragmentation of the world. Ms. Gopinath was forced to admit that trade within geopolitical blocs is increasing and trade between blocks is weakening. The difference between intra- and external bloc investments has already reached 20%. The role of countries capable of acting as mediators between blocs is constantly growing. This consideration is especially pertinent against the backdrop of Austria's sudden emphasis on its reluctance to join NATO.

So far, the gap between the blocs has not reached the quality of the Cold War - but everything is getting there, and the financial losses will be much higher. However, Gopinath emphasizes, nothing threatens the dominance of the dollar: it still accounts for about 80% of global trade finance, and its share in the foreign exchange reserves of the world is almost 60%.

Here, however, she should also add the word “yet.” Because, according to Gopinath herself, in just a couple of years the share of the yuan in international trade has grown from 4% to 8%, and in China’s own trade the yuan is already surpassing the share of the dollar. Since the Chinese economy according to PPP is already the first in the world, the result of these processes is obvious. Although the path to this finale lies, as always happened during the transition from the era of one world currency to the era of another, through a big war.

The IMF Deputy Director’s other reservations are also noteworthy:— the non-US sector accumulates gold, the US does not. It is clear why for the United States and the IMF controlled by it, the share of the dollar in the world economy is a cornerstone parameter;— a third of all investments in the world go to the United States, where labor productivity is growing, unlike the EU. The logical result of European vassalage: Europe must be a sales market, and not a competitor to Washington;— average global economic growth fell from 3.8% to 3%. In other words, despite the IMF’s optimism, the global economy is slowing. By the way, according to the fund’s estimates, the total number of existing trade restrictions on goods, services and investments in 2023 has already exceeded 3,000.

Let’s summarize. The fragmentation of the world into economic blocs has taken place. The United States still retains the dollar as the basis of global payments - and not backed by gold, to which countries outside Pax Americana are increasingly leaning. The yuan is gradually eroding the main financial support of the United States, which, taking advantage of the moment, is now working like a vacuum cleaner, drawing out maximum investment in its economy through various subsidies.

The deputy director of the IMF did not specify what the United States will do when Europe ends sooner or later.

 

[Navigator]

Now THIS is how you receive a VERY important Head of State:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788431692530692337

 

[seek10]

The process that started with Ukraine in 2014, seems to be accelerating much much faster.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7367379840472878382

 

[iamthatis]

China and India are at war, in a schoolboy sort of way. Their border skirmish fights mostly use sticks and stones. I don't know, I found it kind of funny.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1790662582225056137

If Modi is re-elected, we will see how his China policy changes or does not change. Some history of China-Indian conflict, and speculation about a Modi legacy of peace:

Opinion | An India-China thaw may be on the horizon if Modi is re-elected

Incidents along the border, particularly since 2017, have tested the limits of both nations’ strategic patience. But if Modi wins a third term, he may be motivated to seek a thaw and improve his legacy as a statesman.

www.scmp.com

India is in the midst of a pivotal general election. The potential continuity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership could spark a renewed debate on the trajectory of India’s relations with China.

Over the past decade, ties between the two Asian giants have been characterised by a complex interplay of cooperation and competition, marked by diplomatic engagements at the highest levels and border stand-offs underscoring enduring tensions.

There have been several incidents that have tested the limits of both nations’ strategic patience. The 73-day military stand-off in Doklam in 2017, triggered by China extending a road into the disputed territory, brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours perilously close to an armed conflict. Violent clashes in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh in 2020, which resulted in casualties on both sides, exacerbated bilateral tensions.

When Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the 2016 G20 summit in Hangzhou, he voiced India’s objections to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through the Pakistan-administered portion of Kashmir, which India also claims.

Despite these flare-ups, there have been concerted efforts to foster dialogue and diplomacy. When Modi met Xi at an informal summit in Wuhan in 2018, against the backdrop of the Doklam conflict, the leaders resolved to provide strategic guidance to their armed forces, to enhance communication and foster trust.
The following year, Xi visited Mamallapuram in Tamil Nadu for a second informal summit focused on enhancing bilateral relations and increasing cooperation. However, these engagements have yet to yield tangible results, and the issues fuelling mistrust remain unresolved.

At the heart of the India-China rift lies the thorny issue of territorial disputes, particularly over the unresolved border in the Himalayas. The two countries have vastly divergent perceptions of the Line of Actual Control, a loosely defined ceasefire line, and this has led to periodic incursions and accusations of transgression.

ndia’s concerns about China’s increasing influence in the Indian Ocean region and its strategic partnerships with India’s neighbours, notably Pakistan, have fuelled apprehensions about a potential encirclement. China’s close relations with Pakistan, underpinned by economic and military cooperation, is a thorn in India’s side. New Delhi views Beijing’s support for Islamabad as a hindrance to regional stability and a potential threat to its national security.

India’s joining of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has added a new layer of complexity to the India-China equation. The Quad, seen as a counterweight to China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, has raised concerns in Beijing about potential encirclement as well.

On the other hand, China’s actions in the South China Sea, coupled with its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, have fuelled fears of a debt trap and an erosion of sovereignty among smaller nations in the region. India’s opposition to China’s infrastructure initiative and its espousing of a free and open Indo-Pacific have positioned it as a strategic bulwark against China’s regional ambitions, further straining bilateral ties.

If Modi secures a historic third term, his approach towards China may be influenced by a desire to leave a lasting legacy of regional stability and economic cooperation. A pragmatic and statesmanlike approach, driven by the pursuit of long-term bilateral and regional interests, could motivate him to seek a thaw in relations with Beijing.

Such a shift would necessitate significant concessions from both sides, and a willingness to address long-standing grievances and find common ground on contentious issues. India’s concerns about China’s support for Pakistan and Beijing’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean region need to be allayed.

Similarly, India will need to reassure China that it does not consider the Quad an anti-China grouping and that its involvement is focused on addressing shared regional concerns. While the challenges are formidable, the potential rewards of a pragmatic rapprochement could extend far beyond the bilateral realm, ushering in a new era of cooperation and prosperity for the entire Indo-Pacific.

For Modi, the decision to pursue a diplomatic thaw with China may ultimately rest on his ability to navigate the complex web of domestic political pressures, regional alliances and global power dynamics.

Only time will tell if Modi’s continued leadership can catalyse a diplomatic breakthrough that has long eluded the two Asian giants, or whether the status quo of strategic distrust and periodic tensions will persist, casting a long shadow over the region’s geopolitical landscape.

Professor Syed Munir Khasru is chairman of the international think tank IPAG Asia-Pacific, Australia, with a presence also in Dhaka, Delhi, Dubai and Vienna