BRICS has actually been a growing organization for 14 years--growing in size, but not really in influence.
Russia's problem vis-a-vis BRICS is that the two principal players are Russia and China. Both nations are dealing with contracting (some might even argue collapsing) economies--and Brazil and South Africa are not far behind, with onl…
BRICS has actually been a growing organization for 14 years--growing in size, but not really in influence.
Russia's problem vis-a-vis BRICS is that the two principal players are Russia and China. Both nations are dealing with contracting (some might even argue collapsing) economies--and Brazil and South Africa are not far behind, with only India showing any signs of economic life. That pretty much makes the BRICS group of nations a collection of cripples looking to walk with just two crutches by leaning on each other and hoping no one falls down.
That's the economic problem--there's no wellspring of prosperity to draw upon, and certainly the Belt and Road Initiative is no Marshall Plan.
The political problem is that Russia and China have NEVER been natural allies. People tend to forget that Russia was very much a part of the foreign nations foisting the "Unequal Treaties" on the Manchu Qing Dynasty at the end of the 19th century (and when Japan invaded Manchuria in the 1930s they spent a fair amount of fighting Russia rather than China, which is how Zhukov earned his place atop the Russian military after battles like Khalkhin Gol). China's antipathy towards the West in general is not merely a Maoist Communist ideological construct, but a reaction to the national humiliation the Chinese people experienced at the end of the 19th century--and Russia is a part of that humiliation.
Which is why it did not take long for Mao to have a falling out with Russia after the Communist takeover in 1949. While the big split happened in the 1960s, that was the culmination of a lot of lesser annoyances Mao had against Russia--because there never was any real love lost between Mao and Russia (the Bolsheviks gave him an education and helped the Chinese Communist Party get organized, but it was never more than an alliance of convenience).
The EU has been growing and evolving since the 1950s, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the late 1940s. One can argue how well or productive those evolutions have been, but what is undeniable is that they have been substantive, influential, and impactful. BRICS has nowhere near the substance, influence, or impact as of yet (even Russian media admits that China is reluctant to invest in or export goods to Russian markets), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (sort of an Eurasian counterweight to NATO) has yet to develop the coordinated command and control structures necessary for effective joint military engagements. The countries make a big show of holding "joint" exercises, but without coordinated command and control structures among the member nations those exercises are not terribly useful. To grasp the difference between the SCO and NATO one only has to look at their organizational structures
In terms of maturity of military organization in particular the SCO has a long way to go to catch up to NATO. That dilutes any effectiveness the organization might have on joint military operations.
Into the relative immaturity that is BRICS comes Putin's war with Ukraine. Even India has basically told Putin to search for peace, China is trying to sound statesmanlike by arguing for peace, and Turkey for its part is turning off Russian Mir cards. BRICS as an organization was not ready for Putin's war, with the possible exception of China was not consulted about Putin's war, and has no real commitment or obligation to Russia as a result of Putin's war. The same holds true for the SCO.
Which makes Putin's war a problem for BRICS; it does not make BRICS a solution for Putin's war.
BRICS has actually been a growing organization for 14 years--growing in size, but not really in influence.
Russia's problem vis-a-vis BRICS is that the two principal players are Russia and China. Both nations are dealing with contracting (some might even argue collapsing) economies--and Brazil and South Africa are not far behind, with only India showing any signs of economic life. That pretty much makes the BRICS group of nations a collection of cripples looking to walk with just two crutches by leaning on each other and hoping no one falls down.
That's the economic problem--there's no wellspring of prosperity to draw upon, and certainly the Belt and Road Initiative is no Marshall Plan.
The political problem is that Russia and China have NEVER been natural allies. People tend to forget that Russia was very much a part of the foreign nations foisting the "Unequal Treaties" on the Manchu Qing Dynasty at the end of the 19th century (and when Japan invaded Manchuria in the 1930s they spent a fair amount of fighting Russia rather than China, which is how Zhukov earned his place atop the Russian military after battles like Khalkhin Gol). China's antipathy towards the West in general is not merely a Maoist Communist ideological construct, but a reaction to the national humiliation the Chinese people experienced at the end of the 19th century--and Russia is a part of that humiliation.
https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/europe-europeans-and-world/europe-and-legal-regulation-international-relations/unequal-treaties-china
Which is why it did not take long for Mao to have a falling out with Russia after the Communist takeover in 1949. While the big split happened in the 1960s, that was the culmination of a lot of lesser annoyances Mao had against Russia--because there never was any real love lost between Mao and Russia (the Bolsheviks gave him an education and helped the Chinese Communist Party get organized, but it was never more than an alliance of convenience).
The EU has been growing and evolving since the 1950s, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the late 1940s. One can argue how well or productive those evolutions have been, but what is undeniable is that they have been substantive, influential, and impactful. BRICS has nowhere near the substance, influence, or impact as of yet (even Russian media admits that China is reluctant to invest in or export goods to Russian markets), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (sort of an Eurasian counterweight to NATO) has yet to develop the coordinated command and control structures necessary for effective joint military engagements. The countries make a big show of holding "joint" exercises, but without coordinated command and control structures among the member nations those exercises are not terribly useful. To grasp the difference between the SCO and NATO one only has to look at their organizational structures
SCO:
http://eng.sectsco.org/secretariat/
NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/structure.htm
In terms of maturity of military organization in particular the SCO has a long way to go to catch up to NATO. That dilutes any effectiveness the organization might have on joint military operations.
Into the relative immaturity that is BRICS comes Putin's war with Ukraine. Even India has basically told Putin to search for peace, China is trying to sound statesmanlike by arguing for peace, and Turkey for its part is turning off Russian Mir cards. BRICS as an organization was not ready for Putin's war, with the possible exception of China was not consulted about Putin's war, and has no real commitment or obligation to Russia as a result of Putin's war. The same holds true for the SCO.
Which makes Putin's war a problem for BRICS; it does not make BRICS a solution for Putin's war.
Yes, China never accepted being forced into an open-door policy n by the West.
The BRICS seems like a half-hearted attempt at challenging American hegemony.
Thanks for this.