The BRICS Conference fights back...

Fantine · Sunday at 6:25 PM

BRICS is an acronym coined in 2001 to describe rapidly developing countries that could impact the global economy. Those originally included: Brazil, Russia, India China, and South Africa.

But BRICS countries are also united by a simple view: that the global balance of power skews too much toward the US and its European allies to the exclusion of emerging economies – and that the system should be reformed. To that end, the body set up its own development bank in 2015, and backs Brazil and India’s aspirations to play a greater role in the UN Security Council.

Members of the group have denied this makes BRICS “anti-Western.” But as Russia and China in the past decade have faced more friction with the West amid China’s growing assertiveness on the global stage and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, observers say both have pushed to shape the group into a more pointed tool to counter US power. During their summit in Rio, the leaders released a joint declaration voicing “serious concerns” about the “rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” – an apparent jibe at the Trump administration’s trade policy.

They also expressed serious concerns about Israel's and the US' bombing of Iran.

MSN

It is 100% understandable why the BRICS countries, and the NATO countries being bullied by their most bombastic member, want to fight back. And quite frankly, the Democrats in the U.S. aren't, unfortunately, powerful enough to put him in his place and stop him in his tracks.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 7:38 PM

"But BRICS countries are also united by a simple view: that the global balance of power skews too much toward the US and its European allies"

What justification do they have for the position that the outlined outcome is unfair?

We ("We" meaning the the US and Western European allies) have better institutions, ideas, and outcomes than those nations do.

The BRICS nations complaining about "The US and Western European countries have too much stroke" would be like if Xerox and Hewlett Packard were complaining that Microsoft and Apple have too much influence.

Fantine · Sunday at 9:33 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
"But BRICS countries are also united by a simple view: that the global balance of power skews too much toward the US and its European allies"

What justification do they have for the position that the outlined outcome is unfair?

We ("We" meaning the the US and Western European allies) have better institutions, ideas, and outcomes than those nations do.

The BRICS nations complaining about "The US and Western European countries have too much stroke" would be like if Xerox and Hewlett Packard were complaining that Microsoft and Apple have too much influence.

One problem with your theory is that Trump is undermining an alienating our European allies. They are meeting with Canada and all of them are trying to be prepared for a world in which the United States is no longer allied with them. They deem Trump to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and megalomaniacal (as do many Americans.)
So with alienated allies and the up and coming economies forming a megolithic bloc against us Trump's bad deals won't have any takers.
How foolish 49.9% of Americans were to have put us in this woeful position.

DaisyDay · Monday at 7:45 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
"But BRICS countries are also united by a simple view: that the global balance of power skews too much toward the US and its European allies"

What justification do they have for the position that the outlined outcome is unfair?

We ("We" meaning the the US and Western European allies) have better institutions, ideas, and outcomes than those nations do.

The BRICS nations complaining about "The US and Western European countries have too much stroke" would be like if Xerox and Hewlett Packard were complaining that Microsoft and Apple have too much influence.

Your argument seems to be that "we're better than they are so we deserve to be in control" - is this accurate? Should BRICS continue to use a trading system that puts them at a disadvantage because "we're better"?

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 8:57 AM

DaisyDay said:
Your argument seems to be that "we're better than they are so we deserve to be in control" - is this accurate? Should BRICS continue to use a trading system that puts them at a disadvantage because "we're better"?

In a nutshell, that's the long short of it.

Given that BRICS is largely an economic-based initiative, and given that the largest countries in the BRICS alliance have all experience noteworthy currency instability and market volatility over the past decade. The only large nation in the alliance with relative monetary stability has been China.

Which means that instead of following the US/EU lead on such matters, they'll be stuck having to follow China & Russia's lead.

The reasons why those nations have been at a disadvantage is specifically due to either turmoil that they've caused have cost them trading partners, or their refusal to embrace certain forms of modernization (like certain labor ethics practices and adopting cleaner forms of energy)

While the recent tariffs are a part of the equation, they're by no means the only part.

They want to
- Not be held to any sort of internationally agreed upon standards with regards carbon emissions and energy initiatives
- They want to continue unethical economic & political practices without the potential for "sanction risk"

So while some seem to be viewing this as
Western Powers: Bad - because Trump and Israel are bad and are part of that group
BRICS: Good - because they're opposing Trump and Israel

In reality, it's a lot messier than that.
The BRICS position is actually:
"We want to flood the developing nations in the Southern Hemisphere with fossil fuel initiatives so that we have built in trading partners that are reliant on our oil/gas while the Western Powers focus on clean energy"

...and

"We want to be able to do things like invade/annex neighboring countries and sponsor terrorism without there being any sort of financial consequences for it"

Giving the BRICS nations an "equal seat at the table" (or letting them have their own equally powerful "table") without them having to comply with some of the standards the US/EU have set is going to be a huge destabilizer, as when certain types of conflicts arise, "soft power" (like sanctions or financial incentives for behavior correction) are no longer in the toolbelt, which leaves only "hard power" as a response to such things. ...and people can forget about making any more meaningful progress on the climate front. Do you think China, India, Russia, and Iran will have any incentive at all to adopt cleaner energy in a world where the BRICS nations have equal power to that of the US/EU?

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 9:12 AM

Fantine said:
They also expressed serious concerns about Israel's and the US' bombing of Iran.

MSN

It is 100% understandable why the BRICS countries, and the NATO countries being bullied by their most bombastic member, want to fight back. And quite frankly, the Democrats in the U.S. aren't, unfortunately, powerful enough to put him in his place and stop him in his tracks.

I participated in a different forum throughout President Biden’s term. Conservatives often cited BRICS as an economic threat to the US and criticized the Biden administration. Now, liberals use BRICS to criticize the Trump administration and the US economy.

Here are some facts

GDP

BRICE Countries

Russia 1.8 t

China 18.4 t

India 3.7

Brazil 2.1

Iran 368b

South Africa - 405 b

Egypt -387

Ethiopia 156b

UAE -499b

Saudi Arab 1.1t

Argentina 641b

Russia 1.8+ China 18.4 +India 3.7 + Brazil 2.1+ Iran 368b + South Africa - 405 b + Egypt -387b + Ethiopia 156b + UAE -499b + Saudi Arab 1.1t + Argentina 641 =29.5 trillion

vs

USA 30 + Japan 4.9 + UK 2.8 + Canada 1.7 + South Korea 1.9 + Australia 1.8 + EU 17 = 60 trillion total GDP.

Do you think BRICE can compete with a $60 trillion economy?

Fantine · Monday at 9:16 AM

That Rob Guy:
They want to
- Not be held to any sort of internationally agreed upon standards with regards carbon emissions and energy initiatives
- They want to continue unethical economic & political practices without the potential for "sanction risk"

So while some seem to be viewing this as

Western Powers: Bad - because Trump and Israel are bad and are part of that group
BRICS: Good - because they're opposing Trump and Israel

They're just doing what Trump is doing. He isn't signing on to the Paris Climate Accords. And his tariffs, threats, and bullying every nation on the planet are "unethical economic and political practices" on steroids!

If you believe America wants to maintain its influence in sub-Saharan Africa and other third world countries, then surely you must realize that shutting down USAID is setting up a welcome mat for China to take our place.

"As China is an economic superpower with a unique highly centralized state, it can mobilize its enormous resources relatively easily to spaces where it sees opportunities in furthering its goals and objectives aligned with national interests," Lim said.
China has long focused on infrastructure and construction projects in other countries. Beijing could also look to other sectors that China already leads, like agriculture and public health. That could boost the country's bottom line and its publicity efforts, said Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst on the China and Northeast Asia team at the risk consultancy Eurasia Group.
Beijing is also likely to target locations in its sphere of influence, including Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia.
Chan said even though China was opportunistically filling in the gaps in some USAID programs, there's no broader trend yet of Beijing stepping into the US's big shoes.

Experts warned USAID's gutting would give China room to replace the US. Now, it's happening.

The effective shutdown of the US Agency for International Development has already created openings for China to fill

africa.businessinsider.com

I don't think the picture you paint of America is realistic. Maybe America on 1/19/2025, but not today. We've opened the door to China and the BRICS countries assist Africa's economic development (South Africa, Ethiopia, and other countries have already joined BRICS.) We left Africa and the third world in the lurch to give tax breaks to billionaires--and only Gates, Buffett and a few others are 'giving back.' We've gone back decades on our clean energy practices, and the tariff threats are disrupting the world's economy--talk about unethical!

NATO nations are beefing up their military--trying to "Trump proof" their alliance. Have we become the enemy? (Or more accurately, has our unfortunate current presidential choice become the enemy?) How America's allies are trying to 'Trump-proof' Nato's future

BCP1928 · Monday at 9:17 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
"But BRICS countries are also united by a simple view: that the global balance of power skews too much toward the US and its European allies"

What justification do they have for the position that the outlined outcome is unfair?

That's up to them. They don't have to justify it to you.

ThatRobGuy said:
We ("We" meaning the the US and Western European allies) have better institutions, ideas, and outcomes than those nations do.

No wonder BRICs is annoyed.

ThatRobGuy said:
The BRICS nations complaining about "The US and Western European countries have too much stroke" would be like if Xerox and Hewlett Packard were complaining that Microsoft and Apple have too much influence.

They may be right. In the case of the economic parallel you suggest, they would be right.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 9:18 AM

Fantine said:
One problem with your theory is that Trump is undermining an alienating our European allies. They are meeting with Canada and all of them are trying to be prepared for a world in which the United States is no longer allied with them. They deem Trump to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and megalomaniacal (as do many Americans.)
So with alienated allies and the up and coming economies forming a megolithic bloc against us Trump's bad deals won't have any takers.
How foolish 49.9% of Americans were to have put us in this woeful position.

I do not endorse President Trump's assertive policies toward Canada, NATO, or Europe.

but

The idea that Canada or Europe would abandon their alliance with the United States to join an alliance led by China or Russia is unfounded. While it is possible that Europe, Canada, or Japan might reconsider their alignment with the U.S., it is highly unlikely that they would join BRICS or any coalition led by China or Russia. Your assertion demonstrates a misunderstanding of Western perspectives and appears to be based on anti-Trump sentiment.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 9:26 AM

DaisyDay said:
Your argument seems to be that "we're better than they are so we deserve to be in control" - is this accurate? Should BRICS continue to use a trading system that puts them at a disadvantage because "we're better"?

Here is a list of BRICE countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these nine nations, five are considered to have authoritarian regimes, while India stands out as the only country with a robust democratic system and a strong rule of law.

If you don't believe we're better than these countries, then we clearly have different views on what "better" means.

Fantine · Monday at 9:28 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The idea that Canada or Europe would abandon their alliance with the United States to join an alliance led by China or Russia is unfounded. While it is possible that Europe, Canada, or Japan might reconsider their alignment with the U.S., it is highly unlikely that they would join BRICS or any coalition led by China or Russia. Your assertion demonstrates a misunderstanding of perspectives and appears to be based on anti-Trump sentiment.

You misunderstand me. It's more like fighting a battle on two fronts.

Europe/NATO/Canada trying to Trump-proof their alliance because they deem him untrustworthy.

BRICS trying to gain economic ascendancy in the third world as Trump abandons USAID and opens the door for China to take over the influence we've had. Trump 'fights back' by trying to make our own economic and environmental practices as "unethical" (or more) than BRICS.

As Trump tries to deport international students from the third world, he fails to recognize that USAID scholarships educated many of the third world's political and business leaders. Schooled by American universities, they saw our system at work (well, when it was working before 1/20/2025) and became allies. In the future they will attend universities in China...and we will have lost our influence. https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-04/USAID doc (2).pdf

BCP1928 · Monday at 9:29 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Here is a list of BRICE countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these nine nations, five are considered to have authoritarian regimes, while India stands out as the only country with a robust democratic system and a strong rule of law.

If you don't believe we're better than these countries, then we clearly have different views on what "better" means.

Certainly, if "better" to you means we have a right to global political and economic hegemony.

Fantine · Monday at 9:49 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM, do you not realize that in six short months we are hanging on to a robust democratic system with our fingernails, and our 'strong rule of law' has been compromised by a shredded constitution? If you believe, as I do, that a robust democratic system is important, you need to begin speaking truth to power and truth about power as we try to hang on to 2026 and 2028.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 9:50 AM

BCP1928 said:
No wonder BRICs is annoyed.

They're annoyed because they can't do things like annexing neighbors, fund terrorism, pollute out the wazoo, and run sweatshop economies without risk of getting sanctioned, so they'd rather have their own little economic ecosystem where they can do all of those things without any risk of feeling it in the pocketbook.

Right now, sanctions are the primary tool used to discourage bad behavior without having to escalate conflicts to the next level.

In a geopolitical system of economic carrots and sticks, if you take away the carrots, get ready for a bunch of stick fights.

BCP1928 · Monday at 9:55 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
They're annoyed because they can't do things like annexing neighbors, fund terrorism, pollute out the wazoo, and run sweatshop economies without risk of getting sanctioned, so they'd rather have their own little economic ecosystem where they can do all of those things without any risk of feeling it in the pocketbook.

Right. They want to be able to decide what to do about those things themselves rather than letting us do it for them. They can't quite get it through their heads that we apply sanctions out of righteousness rather than merely in our own interests.

ThatRobGuy said:
Right now, sanctions are the primary tool used to discourage bad behavior without having to escalate conflicts to the next level.

In a geopolitical system of economic carrots and sticks, if you take away the carrots, get ready for a bunch of stick fights.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 10:19 AM

BCP1928 said:
Certainly, if "better" to you means we have a right to global political and economic hegemony.

No country is inherently entitled to global hegemony. However, I would prefer for the United States to hold a leadership position internationally rather than ceding that role to China or Russia.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 10:40 AM

BCP1928 said:
Right. They want to be able to decide what to do about those things themselves rather than letting us do it for them. They can't quite get it through their heads that we apply sanctions out of righteousness rather than merely in our own interests.

If "let bigger, more established, more stable entities make certain decisions for the good of everyone" is going to be something that people object to, then a good portion of the Keynesian economic philosophy (and the liberal political philosophy) falls apart.

I would argue that the Western sanctions against places like Russia and Iran were done for righteous reasons and not selfish ones.

In a purely economic sense, it would've been much cheaper financially for Western Europe to turn a blind eye to Russia and Iran in order to get cheap oil & gas if it were just pure selfish greed without any regard for externalities.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 10:49 AM

Fantine said:
You misunderstand me. It's more like fighting a battle on two fronts.

Europe/NATO/Canada trying to Trump-proof their alliance because they deem him untrustworthy.

BRICS trying to gain economic ascendancy in the third world as Trump abandons USAID and opens the door for China to take over the influence we've had. Trump 'fights back' by trying to make our own economic and environmental practices as "unethical" (or more) than BRICS.

As Trump tries to deport international students from the third world, he fails to recognize that USAID scholarships educated many of the third world's political and business leaders. Schooled by American universities, they saw our system at work (well, when it was working before 1/20/2025) and became allies. In the future they will attend universities in China...and we will have lost our influence. https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-04/USAID doc (2).pdf

You're right; I misread your point.

By reducing USAID support in developing countries, President Trump allowed BRICE to gain influence and weakened U.S. alliances. Simultaneously, initiating a tariff war with EU or NATO members further undermined these partnerships.

Fantine · Monday at 11:36 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
They're annoyed because they can't do things like annexing neighbors, fund terrorism, pollute out the wazoo, and run sweatshop economies without risk of getting sanctioned, so they'd rather have their own little economic ecosystem where they can do all of those things without any risk of feeling it in the pocketbook.

Right now, sanctions are the primary tool used to discourage bad behavior without having to escalate conflicts to the next level.

In a geopolitical system of economic carrots and sticks, if you take away the carrots, get ready for a bunch of stick fights.

We're getting more like them every day.

BCP1928 · Monday at 11:57 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
If "let bigger, more established, more stable entities make certain decisions for the good of everyone" is going to be something that people object to, then a good portion of the Keynesian economic philosophy (and the liberal political philosophy) falls apart.

Exactly. What you are talking about is neoliberalism, which only makes decisions for its own good.

ThatRobGuy said:
I would argue that the Western sanctions against places like Russia and Iran were done for righteous reasons and not selfish ones.

In a purely economic sense, it would've been much cheaper financially for Western Europe to turn a blind eye to Russia and Iran in order to get cheap oil & gas if it were just pure selfish greed without any regard for externalities.

Europe still sees Russia as a military threat. As for Iran, it's always and ever will be about the oil and gas.

The BRICS Conference fights back...

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Dona Quixote

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Similar threads