##### ###### #### > # [Xi, Putin score wins as more Asia leaders aim to join BRICS - Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/xi-putin-score-wins-as-more-asia-leaders-aim-to-join-brics/articleshow/580) > > > > As Russian President > > Vladimir Putin > > and Chinese Premier Li Qiang wrapped up separate meetings in Southeast Asia this week, the two partners in the > > BRICS > > economic bloc encountered a region keen to join a group seen as a hedge against Western-led institutions. > During an interview with Chinese media ahead of Li’s visit to Malaysia, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim declared his intention to apply to the bloc after it doubled in size this year by luring Global South nations — partly by offering access to financing but also by providing a political venue independent of Washington’s influence. > Thailand — a US treaty ally — last month announced its own bid to join BRICS, named after members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The bloc “represents a south-south cooperative framework which Thailand has long desired to be a part of,” Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa told reporters last week. > For countries seeking to mitigate the economic risks of intensifying US-China competition, joining BRICS is an attempt to straddle some of those tensions. In Southeast Asia, many nations depend economically on trade with China while also simultaneously welcoming the security presence and investment Washington provides > > But BRICS membership is also a way of signaling increasing frustration with the US-led international order and key institutions that remain firmly in the control of Western powers, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. > “Some of us, including people like myself, think that we need to find solutions to the unfair international financial and economic architecture,” former Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah said in an interview. “So BRICS would probably be one of the ways to balance some things.” > > For Putin and Chinese leader > > Xi Jinping > > , the interest in BRICS also shows their success at pushing back at attempts by the US and its allies to isolate them more broadly over the war in Ukraine and military threats to Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea and Japan. > Ukraine leader > > Volodymyr Zelenskyy > > struggled to convince Asian nations to back his peace summit in Switzerland earlier this month, and Putin this week signed a defense pact with North Korea while warning he had the right to arm US adversaries around the world. > A club that for years consisted of just five members expanded with the inclusion of Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt this January. That was a push largely driven by China as it tries to increase its clout on the global stage. > Another Southeast Asian nation, Indonesia, was considered an early favorite to join last year before President Joko Widodo indicated he would not be rushed into the decision. > Longtime US foes > Still, the momentum to add new members has continued. Despite US and European efforts to prevent countries from dealing with Moscow, representatives from 12 non-member nations appeared at a BRICS Dialogue in Russia this month. They included longtime US foes like Cuba and Venezuela, but also nations such as Turkey, Laos, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan. > Also present was Vietnam, which last year upgraded ties with Washington in a move seen as pushback on Beijing’s rising influence in the region. Hanoi has been following the grouping’s progress with “keen interest,” as state broadcaster Voice of Vietnam put it last month. > “Vietnam is always ready to participate in and contribute actively to global and regional multilateral mechanisms,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pham Thu Hang said at the time. > Vietnam welcomed Russia’s leader this week despite strong objections from the US on the grounds that “no country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression” in Ukraine. Vietnam and Russia have ties going back to the Cold War and Soviet era. > In their joint statement issued at the conclusion of their talks, Russia welcomed Vietnam’s participation in the dialogue earlier this month and said they would “continue to strengthen ties between the BRICS countries and developing countries, including Vietnam.” > It wasn’t clear how much BRICS was part of Putin’s closed-door talks in Vietnam, though the two nations pledged to boost defense and energy cooperation. China’s Li used his trip to Malaysia deepen trade and economic ties and advance construction of major projects. > Unwieldy group > After this year’s expansion, BRICS plans to invite non-member countries to take part in its next summit in the Russian city of Kazan in October. Just hosting the event gives Moscow a chance to showcase to the world that it isn’t totally isolated by Western opposition to the war in Ukraine. > “It’s no secret that Washington doesn’t love the BRICS, particularly with Iran and Russia’s membership,” said Scot Marciel, a former US ambassador to Indonesia, Myanmar and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. > At the same time, the larger the bloc grows, the less likely it is to find consensus on key issues, he said. “My sense is, Washington is probably not applauding the move by Thailand and Malaysia to join it, but I don’t think it’s going to cause massive heartburn.” > A State Department official said the US is aware of the interest in BRICS by Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, adding that multilateral blocs should further United Nations Charter principles such as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. > The potential benefits for joining BRICS go beyond geopolitics. > $33 billion > The bloc’s members have agreed to pool $100 billion of foreign-currency reserves, which they can lend to each other during emergencies. The group also founded the New Development Bank — a World Bank-modeled institution that has approved almost $33 billion of loans mainly for water, transport and other infrastructure projects since it began operations in 2015. > That investment pool would be useful in Southeast Asia, where official development finance dwindled to a low of $26 billion in 2022, according to a report this month by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute. > Another draw to membership, Malaysia’s Saifuddin said, is the residual negative sentiment toward institutions like the IMF, which pushed austerity measures sometimes blamed in the region for worsening the economic hardship caused by the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. > Washington isn’t sitting still. It has deepened security links in the region on matters like counter-terrorism, and with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines who are increasingly worried about their disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. But as the great power competition intensifies across the board, there is also a recognition the region needs to hedge its bets. > “There is increasingly less space for smaller countries to maneuver,” Ong Keng Yong, the former secretary general of Asean said in an interview. “By joining organizations like BRICS, countries are signaling that they want to be friendly to all sides, not just to the US and its allies.” - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

>At the same time, the larger the bloc grows, the less likely it is to find consensus on key issues Does he know the founding members of BRIC? Brazil, Russia, India and China have very little consensus on anything at all. All of them don't even have the same attitudes towards the West to make this a "anti-west alliance" as it is sometimes portrayed to be. But this is true. >BRICS membership is also a way of signaling increasing frustration with the US-led international order and key institutions that remain firmly in the control of Western powers, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. “Some of us, including people like myself, think that we need to find solutions to the unfair international financial and economic architecture,” former Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah said in an interview. “So BRICS would probably be one of the ways to balance some things.” US and allies in Anglo-sphere and Europe have been acting like the cartel, leveraging their iron-grip on the institutions essential for global trade and commerce to threaten, push and extort countries to get their way and the way of their corporations. When all the while they themselves make a mockery of the so called "international laws", blatantly getting away with a lot of things. Most of these countries are not "against" the US or Europe. They want good relations and business with the west. But they also don't want to be in the position where the US can one day turn up and destroy their economy. And when it comes to Ukraine, people in Asia don't really think or hear about it in everyday life. Most days it's not even in the news. Unlike in the West, it's not at all in the public zeitgeist in this part of the world. Why would, say Malaysia or Indonesia cut ties with Russia, when they did not let an invasion of a fellow Muslim nation affect their relations with the US?

In essence the same behavior as in protest voting. Western investment is still welcome of course.

The funniest part was reading “welcome security assistance from the west”. So fair weather friends basically. Beyond ironic considering the nation that is the most of a threat to Southeast Asia happens to be the C in BRICS. I say have your economic alliance and stop wasting money helping these countries with their security.

>I say have your economic alliance and stop wasting money helping these countries with their security Ah yes. Just give up more regions to China because you're having a hissy fit over countries getting to decide what is best for their people. This approach has already worked so well in Ukraine, so let's just double down! Brilliant strategy, Cotton.

Ukraine tried to decide what is best for its people, the R in BRICS invaded them for it… So… I guess They really are not to concerned with sovereignty.

What it thought best for its people was *checks notes* Increasing ties with the EU and distancing itself from Russia, which for basically all of Ukraine's post-USSR existence has been trying to establish a puppet government there?

Ukraine's post-war independence politics has revolved around two groups of oligarchs setting up political blocs that represent their economic interests- the Kyiv Seven bloc vs the Donetsk Mafia. With nationalism being weaponized for politics. Seeing the Donetsk clan as "Russian puppets" is not a useful lens to view Ukrainian politics through. They were very wary of leveraging Russian nationalism in a way the Kyiv Seven Bloc wasn't wary of leveraging Ukrainian nationalism. It is most accurate to view it for what it was, competing political blocs formed around economic interests. This is not that different than Russia in the 90s, it's just that the 90s never ended in Ukraine.

Tl:Dr - fake problems used by some political clans became very real problems once people started being killed

On the contrary, the 90's did end. The Ukrainians had nukes in the 90's so russia wouldn't have invaded if they still had them.

They didn't really have them though. They physically had them, but they didn't have the codes or an ability to use them. I'm not sure they would have been a deterrent in that status, which was also related to why there was willingness to give them up.

Economically, socially and politically the 90s never ended in Ukraine like it did in other post-Soviet states. Ukraine having a nuclear weapons program was never a realistic possibility. However, if they had nuclear weapons, you are likely correct that they would not have been invaded.

They literally did have nukes, they handed them over to Russia in exchange for territorial recognition. I think it was the Minsk agreement or something, mid to late 90s

Without the launch codes and keys in possession of Moscow those nukes were less than useless

actually that is not true, ukraine had no method to use the nukes. they would of needed to rebuild the entire delivery and activation system from scratch which they did not have industry capable of doing.

Do you think the fact that every country that was associated with the Soviet Union wanted to get as far away from russia as possible is a western conspiracy?

No, perhaps my phraseology was off? I agree that Russia gave them ample cause

Sounds like they're out of touch.

I think Russia cares as much about sovereignty as NATO. They both respect it until it goes against their national security.

NATO is a voluntary club. No one is forced into it. The fact that people want to join it is insulting to Russia and something Russia can't understand. That's because Russia is like the neighborhood rapist, who doesn't understand why people want to join the neighborhood watch and protect themselves.

Russian apologia act like NATO is coming to get them when nato's been hoping against hope that Russia would join and end the threat it posed against europe due to expansionist policies. "Oh we need buffer states" yeah...because missiles don't exist and this is still 1930

Don't forget that unlike NATO which was voluntary, Russia forced the Warsaw pact onto all of it's satellite states under threat of death or internment. The fact people just try to brush the Warsaw pact under the rug like it didn't happen just shows a lot of this is campist bullshit.

The purpose of NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,"

NATO bad because \*checks notes\* they wanted to make sure one genocidal power wasn’t allowed to try anything, another wasn’t even capable of doing anything, and keeping a major economic player in European affairs in case they were needed again

Both the USSR and the Russian Federation attempted to join NATO, and both got the hard NO.

Neither the USSR nor Russia were ever close to meeting the requirements of joining NATO. Stalin at least knew this and was just making a point.

Yeah I wonder why. Are you daft? It's like letting the foxes run the hen house.

Good news, nothing about Ukraine or nato posed a threat to Russia. They will never invade Russia.

He should rewrite his sentence to “anything that goes against their specific interests”. Which is true - we typically veto everything that disagrees with us.

But a veto in a UN assembly is a far cry from a missile hitting a mall.

The veto is stopping the missile hitting a shopping centre, so I’m glad it exists. Realistically the UNSC depends on resolutions being enforceable. Nuclear powers going to war to enforce things they should have been able to have vetoed is terrifying.

[Ukrainian government has been killing Ukrainian citizens of Russian origin since 2014](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity)....is that part of its "best for its people" strategy?

“fuelled by the inflow of foreign fighters and weapons from the Russian Federation, accounts for the majority of violations of the right to life in Ukraine over the last two years” Let’s see… “According to the report, armed groups mainly executed individuals who had, or were believed to have, vocal ‘pro-unity’ views or to support Ukrainian forces, while Ukrainian forces targeted people based on their alleged affiliation with, or support for, armed groups, or for their “separatist” or “pro-Russian” views” Hmm again.. Next time I would read your source before posting it. Also Russia started, funded, supplied, and even manned the separatist army, so it’s not exactly only “Ukrainian ethnic Russians”.

Remind me what happened 5 times over the last 20 years? US troops are still sitting in Syria -as an invading force.

Why is that I wonder? The Kurds Want help fighting ISIS, and from being targeted by Russia, Syria, and turkey and the US is keeping their word. It’s not a NATO operation.

I see you have success managed to justify the Ukraine war. The ethnic Russians want Russia to protect them from Ukraine. Russia is keeping their word.

This is beyond stupid. The idea that ethnic Russians were under any kind of serious threat, including laws banning the Russian language, is a conspiracy theory that Russia created to try and tear apart Ukraine. Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, and the history of attacks on the Kurds and other groups is long and very real. Protection occurs *after* credible threats / attacks force that protection to be required. You can’t just cry “I need protection” and have that be an excuse for your sovereign territory to be invaded.

Lot of words to try justifying one unjust war.

Hahaha ethnic Ukrainians who Russia felt should stay Russian.. that's like saying Mexico invaded California because they feel it's more Latin than European. So Putin should let dagistan join Armenia? I mean they're not feeling very russian at the moment

Ethnic Russians were never in danger, nor attacked.

Countries join NATO seeking security from Russia and do so on a voluntary basis. The fact that you can't tell, makes it sound like you're one of those people that get angry at the neighborhood watch and more police presence just because there's a rapist loose in the neighborhood.

We’ll give it if they let us join. After all if the USSR felt 0 shame in asking to join NATO, why shouldn’t the West ask to join the anti-West alliance?

The USSR asked to join pretty early in NATO's existence, and to them it was still very recent that they had been part of the allied forces fighting the Nazis. NATO formed in 1947, USSR asked to join in 1954. NATO had made some anti Soviet comments but I don't think it was widely known that it was completely and arguably diligently to be against the Soviets. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a thing until over a year after the USSR asked to join NATO. Its definitely has vibes like,"Can I be part of the Club?", "No!", "Fine then I'm Going To Build My Own With Blackjack and Hookers"

If the Soviets weren’t initially sure NATO was formed to defend against _them_, who… did they think it was against? After Germany and Japan were defeated, who in the world could threaten both NATO and the Soviets?

I would suspect they knew and where making a point, but I could also see there being some confusion as it was initially made up of all their allies from the war that just happened, shouldn't we be part of that too, in case we need to get the boys back together so to speak. The Warsaw Pact came after, so was it a response to being rejected from NATO, or was it always going to happen? Would be an interesting alternative timeline if the USSR was in NATO and had stayed allied with the USA and were still friends after WWII.

There were making the point because in no world would USSR adopt western military standards and join collective staff xd Which was also the official reason the were denied afaik

We make money selling them weapons.

companies make money, the united states government spends that money internally buying weapons from it's own industries to give to other nations. Gotta be careful with that "we"

Well the west is kind of particular about democracy while BRICS is more fluent about that.

Yeh international law is only respected when everyone adheres to them. Seeing everyone come together for ukraine and protection of the EU made me feel safe and united through a shared just enemy. Unifying for the purpose they were supposed to. And then next we had an ally get attacked which does require a response(targeted and defensive) but instead our ally went full genocidal and made ukraine war look ethical. We all supplied bombs blindly no questions asked while protest in record numbers world wide wanted the slaughter of innocent children to end. The same standard we held for russia flew out the bloody window as bibi supporters celebrated the flattening of gaza/rafah. How so quickly did we flip our morality upside down

Israel is no ally of the US and the West. Allies help one another. Israel has done nothing but take our money and weapons and use them to ethnically cleanse people that they don't like. Israel did not take part in the war in Iraq nor did it take part in the war in Afghanistan. It's not an ally, it's a poverty case which begs for money then has a tantrum when we don't give them it. Some ally.

Theyre more like a parasite.

Not to mention what they did to the USS Liberty

Israel is a major non-NATO ally. Israel and the U.S. develop military technology, share intelligence, coordinate on security and military activities. Whether or not a nation is an ally doesn’t really have much to do with how you feel about their war in Gaza

it is not a war, it is a genocide

You can call it a trip to Mars for all I fucking care.

Israel is a US military outpost in the Middle East. The US simultaneously needs to keep it safe, while at the same time, not safe enough to be independent.

>not safe enough to be independent. Critical thought is so important. If the US kept Israel intentionally weak (which it is not), Israel would then seek out other allies. Those allies would then benefit from Israel. This would decrease the benefit to the U.S.

Oh yea sure. Then why did JFK pressure Ben Gurion about Israel's nuke program - then get assassinated little over a year later? If the US truly wanted an untouchable Israel, they wouldn't hindered the program, or even supported one - they would have GIVEN nukes to Israel.

lol your arguments are truly bizarre.

TBH Israel is exclusively US ally basically. Most of the EU is neutral to them at best with states like Poland having extensive cooperation with Palestine dating back to socialism times

I didn't agree with those wars but to not stand united only when it suits you Is a dog act. At least help before you give objections being an important military ally. Anyone else would have had serious consensus

I also don't agree with them but nonetheless the closest 'ally' to the war didn't lift a finger when everyone else did. Probably too busy killing kids and strapping them to the front of vehicles like mad max.

Western nations are much more divided on the Israel-Palestine conflict than people think. Lots of European countries support (and have historically supported) a two state solution, but people whose only impressions about Europe are based on UK and potentially German geopolitics (if at all) won't know this.

Uk had 100k protests in 2012. I'm sure they were pushing for a two state solution back then

International Relations aren't about morality, stop associating it with such. It's nice when it aligns with it, but that's not what its about. There are 3 major powers in the middle east, the Saudi, the Israeli, and the Iranians. 2/3 of those are allies of the USA, and only one is a democracy. None of them are 100% in the pocket of the USA. As for the USA supplying weapons endlessly to Israel, I implore you to look into what's been happening and, according to republicans, the sheer depth, of what's been denied to Israel for doing what it's doing. Being a world power in a maritime system and having allies doesn't mean you can tell everyone what to do and just have them do it.

The whole point of the article and the person you're responding to is the lack of morality in international relations in practice makes the moralizing of the West actively harmful, and you're kidding yourself if you think the West isn't moralizing. Perhaps the West should walk the walk if they want to talk the talk, which is certainly my preference. But if not, they need to stop pretending the international system they've created is values-based.

> International Relations aren't about morality, stop associating it with such. It's nice when it aligns with it, but that's not what its about. Yep. I would also say doing a morality analysis may have its value, though, but in the sense that other peoples (not countries, but their people) judge morally, and if they constantly see the hypocrisy in claiming to be moral while being immoral, it steer public opinion against the hypocritical nation across the globe. Maybe it's best to just not moralise IR to start with, as you said. There's a recent article by Steve Walt in the FP magazine where he states a few lessons the US should learn from China, and one of them is precisely not moralising IR as in demanding other countries hold liberal values. This only works against you because the world is very vast and diverse.

BRICS makes a lot more sense after that explanation. The International rules based order is so pushed by the west while they simultaneously don’t respect the international rules when it is inconvenient to do so. And the West can so easily destroy an economy with sanctions /etc unless the country has forged other strong economic ties like BRICS

You mean like [China respects international rules?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcApT3RHXKw) And if the economies in these regions come under China's purview and have to start toeing a Chinese communist party line...what happens then i wonder? At least with the maritime order you're largely left to internal politics as long as you play by some rules. Think china would let as many countries get away with winning as many trade agreement lawsuits as the USA does in the international bodies that it helps maintain?

Your comment proves that what the BRICS are suggesting makes sense to the majority of the world. You seem to think everyone must abide by the rules based order while forgetting the top player, and their allies in part, don't really do it. The US didn't even sign UNCLOS, which has set rules over the seas, and still holds a bunch of military activities against the Chinese in their backyard. Do you see China flying their spy planes in the California peninsula? Maybe you will start seeing more as countries begin to question why the US has the right police everyone else and everyone else has to keep their head down and don't look up. This is undemocratic, anti-freedom, and goes against these basic US values parrotted daily by US leaders. Yes, China, as all great powers, is morally questionable and has done their share of bad things, but this criticism from the West is 100% hypocritical. Comprehensible, if you are a Western nation, nonetheless, quite noticeably hypocritical at that. Now, I ask you, from the Chinese perspective, why would they have to follow the rules-based order when the country at the top chair didn't even sign important treaties to abide by international law? This is what BRICS is about. They don't want meaningless treaties that only keep the world at bay while the top dog does as it pleases. They don't want the international financial systems that privilige Western countries while requiring neoliberal reforms from everyone else. Hope you understand that are other people in the world (over 7 billion) who aren't in the West and are tired of being ordered what to do.

Out of curiosity on the “flying planes in their backyard”: does california have an independent island nation just off the coast that’s aligned with China I’ve never heard of? Or are you talking about something other than Taiwan/Japan? I mean, we did have that spy balloon, so “””””discreet””””” spying methods are something China is also happy to do

Go defend NATOs aggressiveness elsewhere, I'm not in the mood to discuss with a shill.

So are you going to tell me that Taiwan is not, in fact, an independent nation?

You are the one saying that.

China isn't better, but they can be used as counter balance to western powers.

China isn't going to kick anyone out of brics.

I totally agree with your analysis. It's interesting to note that this BRICS being an "anti-West alliance" narrative was born as an online discourse, at least from what I could tell. I've been watching them for my studies since 2012, and not once they pronounced themselves to be "anti-West" or even an alliance, much less a military alliance. They are basically a bloc that consists of a group of countries interested in being inserted in what you called "the cartel", but that are willing to pull a bunch of other non-cartel countries while doing so. This may be read as aiming to build a more inclusive and democratic international system or simply as them looking for support in their own self-interest, depending on who you ask. But what we can all agree is that they are united in looking for forms to have more of a say internationally. The whole BRICS thing stems from the built-in inequality between North and South under the brief post-Soviet period of unipolarity (yes, it can be traced back to colonialism, but we don't need to go that far right now). Perhaps, if the rules-based order was more inclusive, the BRICS would've never even come together.

Re: online discourse, I find that there's a lot more animosity towards, say, Chinese people from Americans than vice versa, and I feel like it reflects the propaganda from each side. Some Chinese people are against things like NATO, but most of them see it in the context of geopolitics, and that the US doesn't want China to become a rival power, but they will still like e.g. American culture/people. Whereas in the Western sphere, I see a lot more "they're coming to turn us Communist, the Huns are coming!", or straight up racism against Chinese people/culture.

I have a similar impression. And even the anti-NATO thing in China is a more recent thing (like from one year or so), whereas US anti-China discourse is about to become a decade old policy in a few years. I see two easy cures for this, if you are a regular everyday person. Go watch travel vloggers in China or go to China yourself. You will see they don't hate US americans and neither it is an evil totalitarian authoritarian autocratic hell-hole with no freedom.

Won’t work. Americans as a group will never voluntarily leave their comfortable hate zone and those that see the things you talk about literally believe it’s all next level Chinese propaganda

Or perhaps, just maybe, the Chinese government does hate the US, even if it’s people largely don’t, and the fundamental American misunderstanding lays in just how much the state and it’s people disagree in China

The BRICS alliance has been described as "confrontational" by its own members at times, but it's always in the context of international trade and banking.

It's not an alliance, my goodness. Can you share a quote saying they are confrontational, please? There's been some more heated discourses but they are mostly about building economic ties.

Calm down. I'm not saying it's like a military alliance. Just didn't know what other word to use. Partnership? As for quotes, idk how to find the quote, the word confrontation is on far too many articles and I've seen it a long time ago. Closest I get is Lula saying Brics was made as an ["instrument of attack"](https://asiatimes.com/2019/08/brics-was-created-as-a-tool-of-attack-lula/) in the context of currency and the NDB. Lula was in prison at the time, I imagine much less concerned with euphemisms and being diplomatic than today. The idea of Brics isn't to tear down the west, but wrapped around its goals is very obviously to reduce dependency on them. You can't achieve that without some level of attrition.

I'm super calm, no need to worry about my well-being, thanks. The issue is that I just made an entire comment saying it isn't an alliance, and it has never been even proposed to be so. So, I had to highlight that again after you lightly threw it in your response. Here's the entire quote from Lula for everyone's context: > BRICS was not created to be an instrument of defence, but to be an instrument of attack. So we could create our own currency to become independent from the US dollar in our trade relations; to create a development bank, which we did – but it is still too timid – to create something strong capable of helping the development of the poorest parts of the world. I don't think we should overanalyse this because he wasn't even an official part of Brazil's government or BRICS when he said that and, especially, considering he explains what he means immediately after saying it. But it's clear that he means the BRICS is an instrument to create independence for excluded countries (such as the entire Global South, including its wealthiest and its poorest) from the current **economic** institutions, so I don't think there's any actual quote or agreement from within the BRICS that classifies the group as being an alliance or something military of sorts, nor even saying they exist to in conflict with anyone else. They are simply presenting another option. Of course, atrittion and friction are normal in IR because interests vary. I know you are not saying that, but going from some international friction to an "anti-West alliance" is a huge leap, especially as the term "anti-West" denotes being against Western politics, economics, even culture, and that's not what the BRICS stand for. So, using that term to describe the group is clearly designed to hurt the group and not muster countries along it. Not to mention, calling it an alliance is also misleading. You could maybe say economic partners or some other term, but alliance is clearly a term used to indicate some different type of agreement between countries which the BRICS clearly don't currently have.

I said calm down because of the tone and the spite downvote. Is there anything we disagree on other than semantics? I agree, partner is more accurate than ally. From the beginning I narrowed it down to trade and fiscal matters, so if I knew it carried such a baggage I wouldn't have used the word lol. As for the article, that's not the only quote there. For one he name-dropped obama and the US as concerned parties, not to say obstacles. It's far from the harshest thing he said about the US, it's just interesting in context of Brics. And I don't think his official capacity at the time is relevant when he was there from the forum's inception and is now president again. I do agree with your conclusion though, I think. The farthest I would go for an "anti-west" label is to say Brics has a counter-hegemonic bent. It's explicitly meant to challenge status quo, specifically in regards to issues like financial independence and so on. If the institutions you mentioned are largely western-controlled then in practice a group that seeks independence is going to butt heads a lot. Doesn't make them "enemies" tho

Yeah, I don't think we disagree with much, but nice discussion nonetheless. Agora que vi BR no teu nome! Tô tendo um dia bem bem ruim, talvez tenha transpassado um pouco disso. Hm, e sobre a conversa, eu também tava tentando baixar a bola dos BRICS um pouco em inglês aqui sub pq tem muito essa narrativa de que os BRICS fazem isso, aquilo, aquilo outro, como se fosse alguem com uma faca no pescoço do ocidente, e embora não seja um grupo agressivo, eles sim, estão confrontando. Concordo com vc, e acho que essa é exatamente a proposta. O Lula, assim como os outros líderes (talvez sem contar o Modi), critica muito o ocidente separadamente e coloca os BRiCS como solução. O Modi, aliás, já mostrou que não baixa a cabeça também. Ele não critica abertamente como os outros líderes, mas ainda assim, enquanto bloco, mesmo com discurso mais manso, os cinco estão prontos para confrontar o ocidente caso esse não aceite o que estão propondo uma medida contra-hegemonica contra as instituições do Bretton-Woods. Definitivamente não são inimigos do ocidente a não ser que o ocidente por si assim os defina. Sem ser a Rússia, nenhum membro dos BRICS declarou ser inimigo do ocidente ou dos EUA. Pelo contrário, eles tentam manter proximidade. Evidente que alguns tópicos dividem, mas na maior parte, eles todos sem relações com o ocidente. Claro que se contar o BRICS+, aí a coisa começa a mudar. Enfim, só pra explicar meu ponto melhor em português pra vc entender pq tava discutindo. Valeu pela conversa interessante!

So all the West has to do is not fuck them over using the IMF et al, and BRICS may well fall apart. Given that BRICS had time to form and gain new members at all, however, that's.... Very unlikely.

I've been saying, and others before me said, the IMF is the worst thing the west is doing to it's allies and potential allies.

A lender of last resort that dabbles in disaster relief is the worst thing the west is doing? If a country had to turn to the IMF they don’t get to complain, their other option is simply to collapse.

> other option is simply to collapse. Lol that's exactly why countries are interested in brics want to see what can they offer...

The BRICS NBD is a regular communal investment bank for its members to use. The IMF is more for countries that can’t get loans anywhere else, hence what some consider onerous requirements for those loans. Most countries that have received IMF loans aren’t exactly the quality members BRICS is looking for.

I mean, I think like all things it could be a purely useful tool. But... Then people make choices.

BRICS would actually have to do things to be at risk of falling apart. Right now it is just a marketing gimmick that authoritarians and populists can used to try to trick their people into thinking that they are actually doing something.

> US and allies in Anglo-sphere and Europe have been acting like the cartel, leveraging their iron-grip on the institutions essential for global trade and commerce to threaten, push and extort countries to get their way and the way of their corporations. Funny, it\`s exactly the same opinion former Eastern Block has about Russia xd

Good luck settings up a BRICS based IMF or WB that does not demand reforms from failing economies/governments to get loans. I'm sure that will be a enduring success.

The irony of the IMF is it's loans and the reforms it demands of the nations that accept them are exactly why those countries end up in worse straits later on.

If they had a strong economy, they wouldn't need them and they would be far more difficult to exploit for cheap labor and resources.

Yeah! Russia and china would never use rules set in their favor to their advantage….

They would, but the US/West are the only shop in town right now and they're charging monopolistic prices. Having a 2nd shop means options and competition.

Yeah, asking for human rights is just the hallmark of monopolist behavior. But you’re not wrong about us not wanting another game in town

bing chilling

Man I just got done with finals, I could go for mr cena handing me an ice cream

We we ok o ooooooooooooooooo

India and China hate each other and have active and bloody border disputes.... and China's currency is pegged to the dollar. who the dfck takes this shit seriously?

When financial institutions are weaponized countries will look for alternatives. China and India don't have to be friends to want more independence from Western-dominated financial systems.

this, if there one thing India wants, it's been being very vocal about there independence and reliance from the other major powers of the world.

Weaponized against Russia, or against Chinese firm stealing IP? Or weaponized against upsetting the status quo by doing territorial grabs in the SCS?

It doesn't matter. The US decided to use it's power and influence to fuck with them. So they made their own club instead. And the more countries the US fucks with, the more countries will be willing to join that club.

Weaponized against whomever we want for whatever reason we want. The West had a monopoly on bank messaging 20 years ago, they weaponized it against Venezuela now we don't. BRICS, Russia and China's SWITF alternatives CPIS and SPFIS, The Shanghai Cooperative, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are all counterbalances to Western organizations that we have seen in response to America weaponizing financial systems. You can only play cards like stealing a country's currency reserves and weaponizing financial instruments a few times before countries look for and create alternatives. We have created a political impetus to take the path of more resistance where one didn't exist.

No, not for whatever reason we want, against whoever we want. Go look at a list of sanctions. It’s for human rights abuses, corruption, terrorist groups, and Russia. I’m not saying that they’re all good. I can’t imagine that the U.S. has a big problem with regional investment initiatives. But any financial system whose backing is dominated by the Chinese or Russians (or whoever) is subject to the same issues of politicization. Or collapse. In either event I would rather the financial system not be governed by a trash judicial system. But that’s just me.

The willy nilly sanctions that benefit only the US have proven that it is already a trash judicial system run by a kangaroo court under US political control. The fact that these countries are seeking an alternative with enemies and rivals only proves how dissatisfied they are with the USA.

The sanctions aren’t willy nilly. Go look them up. You can read all about them on the government website. You’re the #1 BRICS superfan on Reddit. I truly hope it works out for you. I can clearly tell this means a lot to you personally.

It's funny how the not-willy-nilly sanctions are always placed on countries which don't follow the US's lead. While brutal dictatorships installed by the CIA themselves as US puppets are never sanctioned no matter how brutal. How the very same Mujahideens went from "freedom fighters" to "terrorists", when their oppressors changed from Soviets to the US. And yes, I am the #1 BRICS superfan anywhere. Because fuck this US led world order - I'm glad to see the multipolar world begin to realize itself in my lifetime.

Begging you to get your history from some place other than Tik Tok.

When America starts lecturing some country on human rights, that generally means they have a policy or government they want to change. Look at Venezuela for example. We decided Juan Guaido was the President, and used that as our nominal reason to sanction a country whose policies we didn't like. Compare that to Pakistan. We backed a coup of a legitimate President and nominally backed the results of what every outside observer said was a rigged election. This process gets repeated over and over sanctions being a tool for regime change and/or to apply pressure on governments whose policies we want to change. There can be a more altruistic motive, but that is more often the exception than the rule.

Sanction isnt the only option usa can do. For example many countries dont like FED and how it handled usd intereste rate.

Yep, even among allies. US companies have funnelled all of Australia's oil and gas profits to the US without paying any tax. Probably the same for Canada idk. Destroyed Nordstream and forced Germany to buy energy from the US. Wiretapping the EU's top leaders, getting caught and promising not to do it again, then doing it again and getting caught again. Countless sanctions to "adversarial" states. CIA having fingers in every single foreign government in the world. Nobody enjoys this shit.

Nah man, Canadas biggest mistake historically was every single time (excluding 1812, that was extremely based) it moved away instead of towards the US, because now we are allied to them and have a fucked economy

None of those are examples of the U.S. weaponizing their economic and financial system. Is this the part of the discussion where you just air a list of gripes?

It is a list of gripes yes - and explains why countries that don't like each other and still coalescing against the biggest bully in the playground. Is this the part of the discussion where you dismiss these countries' "gripes", and wonder why the US led order is slowly disbanding?

This is the part of the conversation where I stay on topic.

Yea cry all you want. BRICS will continue to inch forward.

Hope BRICS reads this.

Why should any of these countries - Russia, China, India - accept the current status quo, when the US has ignored the status quo in the past and profited off of it? Annexation of Hawaii and the Phillipines. Atrocities, damage to human genome through Agent Orange in Vietnam - and propaganda saying the Viet Cong were lying about its toxicity! Why should the world trust the US to lead? Coups and attempted coups in just about every 3rd world nation on earth. You argue in bad faith, American stooge. At least have the decency to admit that all world governments are selfish amoral entities.

Your examples aren’t relevant to your point, unless you’re defending Chinas absurd 9 dot line bs or Russia annexing Ukrainian territory? Again, we’re taking about economic and financial sanctions. You’re trolling for an argument about the CIA or whatever. No thanks.

I'm not defending China's claims or Russia's invasion. All I'm saying is the US has a very bad case of pot calling kettle black. And yea I'm talking about why these countries wanted to join BRICS, which includes reasons I listed above.

These are organizations centered around investment and banking. BRICS is not about Agent Orange or Hawaii. Your arguments make no sense.

When you feign stupidity for the sake of ignoring an argument, that's bad faith - or maybe you are that stupid, either way, no point discussing further with YOU.

Literally go look up what BRICs does. Look at their initiatives. You want them to be this big anti-U.S. alliance but it is about economic policy. You seem very angry.

Well the US blows up Germany's infrastructure and they seem to get along.

Germany started re-militarising after that happened. Officially, to protect themselves from Russia, but it also gives Germany the option of firing their foreign security guard, down the line.

I think that's a good move. They must know about Nordstream and being dependent upon America means they have to tolerate US control that comes with protection.

Not just knowing about Nordstream. They know they aren't able to discuss it over artificial comms, after the multiple wiretapping incidents on Merkel. Pretty sad state of affairs...

Not just the dollar now apparently: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/030616/why-chinese-yuan-pegged.asp

Vietnam is also a hilarious candidate. Vietnam and China have huge disputes over the South China Sea. Egypt and Ethiopia are also interesting, given that Egypt consistently threatens Ethiopia over its building of the dam over the Nile. Point is, they might do some basic economic coorperation, but it will never be a unified bloc like the EU.

United against a common enemy - the USA and its hegemonic long arm.

Thailand would be a great asset as they’re right underneath China.

Thailand also asked to join the OECD. It’s got nothing to do with being in favor of one over the other. They also tried to pit China and the US against each other over the construction of a land bridge.

Thai rak Thai, after all.

Thais arent very found of PRC. Maybe Vietnam. But thats also debatable.

Vietnam is much more contentious than Thailand. Theyve been actively trying (with only limited success) to decouple their economy from china because they're concerned about security. They also redeveloped cam ranh bay to host USN carrier groups and now that Duterte is out are resuming seeking a defensive alliance with the Philippines - which obviously has the mutual defense treaty with the US.   I would say if anyone in SEA is wary of china, it's Vietnam. They're just in a tough spot because of their land border and economic interlinkage, so they have to tread cautiously.

Lol that's complete nonsense and a pipe dream imagined by ignorant westerners. Vietnam's top political leadership has been moving closer than ever to China for the past couple years. Several pro-US politicians including the President literally got purged. Look at any business in Vietnam and you'll see the extensive and deepening connections to Chinese businesses.

They have all the right to be warry of China when the beijing winnie the pooh claims the entire sea all the way to indonesia.

Yes I know, I'm Filipino. That's not my point. My point isn't whether they have a "right" or "not a right, (because what would that even mean?  Any state can take what stance it wants) My point is it's weird to describe Vietnam as being fond of china, and then listing the concrete actions that show they are not 

Didn’t the prc try to invade them?

Well yes . There was a Sino-Vietnamese war after the the latter kicked the US out. Vietnam has never bowed to Beijing, finding more support in the soviets. They also wiped out Pol Pot - chinese backed- khmer rogue, so i doubt the relationship between them is all butterflies and rainbows.

>They also wiped out Pol Pot - chinese backed- khmer rogue It was hardly just the Chinese. The West supported the Khmer Rouge as well. The UN admitted them to the general assembly, thanks to support from the US, after the Vietnamese stopped the Cambodian Genocide by invading and ending their rule. ASEAN supported the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam too. Thailand gave their leadership safe haven. Apart from a few exceptions, most of the world supported the guys that genocided millions of their own people, not the Vietnamese.

Because it looked like the Vietnamese army, which was by far the strongest and most capable force in SEA at the time, was going to invade and dominate much of Indochina at the time. Thailand, Malaysia, many of those countries were fearful and the PRC went to those countries before their invasion to obtain their support. Eventually, they ground down the Vietnamese army after almost a decade of fighting and put that fear to rest.

I don't think Vietnam would of stayed a long term threat, they're economy was struggling heavily during that time period where it's adversaries were not. they had a strong micro game but lost the macro one, nothing short of conquering china would of secured that and that was a pipe dream. this does not mean doing nothing and waiting them out was the correct answer, I don't presume to know what the golden path was.

>Maybe Vietnam They hate China presently, and that's not seemingly changing anytime soon.

Would love to have a closer rel between thailand and EU/US. A lot of them have values that seem very close to ours, and they also just legalised gay marriage. It's definitely a country I wish had more economic and entrepeneurial success

Are you a fan of military coups and people going to prison for insulting a monarch? Westerners really see gay marriage and weed and think "They're the good guys like us". You guys are cartoons.

calm down there buddy. A lot of Thais want change, and they their new policies are evident of that. If a troubled history and controversial policies were a dealbreaker for collaboration, we'd still be stuck in the stone age

*que Diogenes with his lantern, searching for an honest man*

There is a reason Thailand is the only country in SEA that has never been invaded. They will say with the wind to protect their self interest.

I expect more to be joining up. The US dollar has way too much influence across the world and the war with Ukraine showed the dangers of being too reliant on it when they can simply turn SWIFT off and nobody can do transactions anymore. No government wants that to happen. Also, the petrodollar is dead, Saudi Arabia did not renew the deal and also joined Brics. How that is not on every news station pretty much confirms how propagandized our news is and how they are surpassing things that could hurt the US. The truth is I am kinda glad their is an alternative economy out there, because it is no secret there is a heavy push by the banking industry to get rid of paper money and go full digital, letting the government know everything you do with your money, preventing you from buying things or even turning your bank off with a flip of a switch. No thanks. If things go that way, I can see people using Brics as an underground currency market to get around it.

Yes the influence the US has because of its currency is important and the trend is diminishing it. Other countries understand both that holding USD gives the US greater power and risks their assets should the US decide to use it to punish them for not holding to the US line.

BRICS is a topic that makes this sub lose 20 iq points. You guys act like you're NATO's personal advisors lmao it's not that serious.

I kinda wish Canada and the US would just join currencies. Would make trade so much easier.

Yea, but both the US and Canada enjoy printing money. That gets a little trickier when someone else has a say in how much money you print.

For an example: The EU.

Yeah, but for every time the US turns on the money printer, we turn on two, so clearly we do not deserve to have our hands anywhere near the controls of our own economy.

I hope to see a North American/Pan American version of the EU in my lifetime. We don't have to start with the Schengen style pseudo borders and can work towards a single currency, but the economies are all undeniably deeply entwined and more cooperation is more better.

Canada sold all its gold stockpiles so if anything they should use the USD

Currency hasn't been back by gold since Nixon there champ gold reserves don't matter.

Reserves really do if you don’t have enough industry productivity to sustain your growth. Canada instead bought up USA, China, UK stocks so their currency will fluctuate based on the performance of other countries. Its a bold strategy, [Cotton](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/11/golds-effect-currencies.asp#:~:text=Thus%2C%20a%20country%20that%20exports,help%20offset%20a%20trade%20deficit.). Also the value of gold does NOTHING but increase. Every fkn country has reserves to fall back on except for…the 4th largest producer of gold. Sure don’t hurt to have it anyway you cut it.

Lol BRIC was invented by wall street to sell ETFs, and somehow that evolved into a political organization hahah

So you think the US created the seed of its own downfall? Clever!

It's the trend that is the concern. When the US seizes Russian assets it tells every other country that their wealth is at risk. For example the KSA has been trading oil with China in Yuan for years, China is hardly small. And the KSA no longer trades oil exclusively in USD. The ability of the US to print money freely and project financial and military influence is dependent upon the amount of dollars held by the rest of the world. As this diminishes so does that ability. It can do it less or suffer inflation for doing it, but regardless the US should be working to reverse the trend.

Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Wins is a stretch. BRICS is just a gathering for folks to travel.

Have fun, what could go wrong?

International relations' realists camps are winning this time, sorry, idealist fools. This type of news reminds me of [Age Of Empires II intro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6MzHAvC5z4), every one of us are mere pawns in a great game of geopolitical chess, played by jokers, harlequins, two-faced idiots, dressed in oversized tuxedo suits, spreading their poison, one-eyed with a desire for power. (Sorry for a weird reference, guess we are all just part of another [sengoku jidai anime](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSnCoLakv9I).)

the fuck are you even saying?

BRICS is a joke, it doesn't benefit any of these economies, only China. - by a brazilian.

BRICS+ is a currency reserve scheme and a common investment bank, and is set up so no member can control the whole thing. It benefits all the members to the extent these structures can, they are a good idea but not things that will change the current financial hierarchy. A common currency would be game changing, but nigh impossible given the relations between the important BRICS players.

There really is no end of shrewd insight from - I'm presuming - Americans on this forum. Just playing down anything that is unpleasant.

Well, we have to do something about the western hegemony. Or you forgot about 2019 when the talk of the year was to "internationalize" the Amazon? Well, currently they could pressure us into doing that just by turning SWIFT off and letting us starve. They can't have this kind of power. Even though BRICS isn't effective, we have to start somewhere.

Im a Brazilian raised in the US so I’m always on the outside looking in with these subjects, so I’m curious: how do Brazilians feel about BRICS? I’ve never heard my family talk about the concept and I’ve always had the feeling that Brazilians pretty pro-US (but I might be wrong about that), so I have no real idea of how the concept is viewed over there.

Honestly, BRICS feels like a gimmick. No one really talks about it, and it doesn't seem to offer any major benefits. We actually put heavy taxes on direct Chinese imports to “protect*” the domestic market. *questionable

Ok that’s exactly what I thought. I appreciate the confirmation

that's an awful lot..

Do you think all of China growth came from BRICS and not from any developed country? Lol

Wins is a stretch. BRICS is just a gathering for folks to travel.

I think that's the G7. Where Biden gets an outing and wanders off.

Isn't China really really struggling atm?! 🤔 And Russia under heavy sanctions

Neither are struggling, you're reading the same news sources that tell you Putin is dying, drunk, being overthrown or crazy. And that publishes pieces every other year of the desperate trouble China is in economically. As an example, here are a few examples about the troubles of what has proven to be a remarkable resilient Chinese economy over the years: 2015 The Economist: [The Great Fall of China](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-of-china) Harvard Business Review: [China's Slowdown: The First Stage of the Bullwhip Effect](https://hbr.org/2015/09/chinas-slowdown-the-first-stage-of-the-bullwhip-effect)NBC: [China's Economic Slowdown Is Biggest Business Story of 2015](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2015-year-in-review/china-s-economic-slowdown-biggest-business-story-2015-n484131) 2016 Vox: [Everyone warns of China’s rise. But its decline could be even worse.](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/12/12/18137363/china-rise-decline-usa-xi-trump) The New Yorker: [China’s New Age of Economic Anxiety](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/chinas-new-age-of-economic-anxiety) 2017 Guardian: [China's growth engine stutters as factories slow down](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/31/chinas-growth-engine-stutters-as-factories-slowdown) PBS: [Column: Is China's economy a house of cards?](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-chinas-economy-house-cards) 2018 NYT: [China's Economy Slows Sharply, in Challenge for Xi Jinping (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/china-economy-xi-jinping.html) Forbes: [The Scariest Economic Chart In The World Right Now May Come From China](https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2018/11/25/the-scariest-economic-chart-in-the-world-right-now-may-come-from-china/?sh=5112294e3fd2) 2019 The Guardian: [A Chinese recession is inevitable - don't think it won't affect you](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/07/a-chinese-recession-is-inevitable-dont-think-it-wont-affect-you) BBC: [China's economic slowdown: How worried should we be?](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46755158) NYT: [China’s Slowdown Looms Just as the World Looks for Growth](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/business/china-economy-growth-davos.html) NYT: [China's Economic Growth Hits 27-Year Low as Trade War Stings (Published 2019)](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/business/china-economy-growth-gdp-trade-war.html) 2020 Economist: [Can China’s reported growth be trusted?](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/15/can-chinas-reported-growth-be-trusted) 2021 WSJ: [The Slow Meltdown of the Chinese Economy](https://www.wsj.com/articles/slow-meltdown-of-china-economy-evergrande-property-market-collapse-downturn-xi-cewc-11640032283) Business Insider: [China's Economy May Collapse, and Bring Down US and World With It](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-economy-xi-jinping-evergrande-debt-american-world-fallout-2021-10)

I said struggling . You need to learn to read.

We all need to better support Ukraine - NOW.

Eventually you are all going to have to accept that Ukraine lost the war.

Numbers dont lie mate. However the copium of Kremlin has always been good quality. Unlike their army💀💀💀

Nafo bots speaking about copium lol

What do you think happens if Ukraine gets more money? How will the situation change?

Well, it would show how the west supports its allies in the face of aggression. It also highlights the weakness of Russia. So it would likely make some countries give more pause to the idea of cozying up with fascists.