Connect with us


The Role of BRICS and Russia for a Multipolar World



Authors: Edgar Gandra and Charles Pennaforte*

Geopolitics and international relations have undergone several transformations throughout the 20th century. One of the most important of these is the two major world wars and the post-war cold re-organization of the world.

The re-order of the world-system in the post-war period involved the “Pax Americana “and the creation of a world order linked to the United States, parallel to the rise of the USSR to the status of military and ideological power, disputing with the US the condition of hegemonic power, in a bipolarity that has vanished with the disintegration of the socialist ideological bloc. While the United States consolidated as hegemon, they had to deal with the end of their systemic cycle of accumulation and their consequent decline trajectory.

The first two decades of the 21st century marked the resurgence of other powers, with the reappearance of Russia and China: Russia recovering part of its sphere of influence in its surroundings, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin; and China consolidating itself as a global economic power, both of which play an important role on the geopolitical board.´

These countries took advantage of the gaps generated by another structural crisis of world capitalism, materialized in the financial crisis of 2008, the consequences of which have influenced the relative decline of the United States ability to impose its majority will on the world system, as it has since the end of the 2nd World War.

Based on the decline of US influence in recent decades, the emergence of important actors at the beginning of the 21st century and the questioning of their unilateral postures, the emergence of the BRICS represented a common multipolar and multilateral world perspective for tackling global problems.

Despite the disbelief of the central core of capitalism (EUA – Europe), the BRICS gained geopolitical projection of great importance at the beginning of the 21st century. The countries that participates up this power bloc own 26% of the territory, 42% of the population and 14% of the world’s GDP, as well as contributing more than 50% of the world’s GDP increase between 2005 and 2010.

For many Western analysts, the BRICS had no possibility of organizing a common agenda that would involve a large-scale articulation on the international stage. Such a prediction has not come true.

China and Russia, the two currently most powerful BRICS countries, face competition from the United States for areas of influence. The aggressive rhetoric of Washington and the economic measures against Beijing demonstrated the great concern of the Donald Trump administration with the development of the country’s economic and geopolitical in recent years. Despite the decline in its economic growth, Beijing has been increasing its economic influence in various parts of the world, either through the New Silk Road project or through its operations on the African continent, for example. In addition to its companies competing on an equal footing with Western companies (Huawei, for example), China has been taking advantage of the geopolitical and economic gaps created by the US in recent years to increase its influence.

On the other hand, Moscow has been suffering the impacts of a series of economic measures that seek to weaken its national project carried out by Vladimir Putin. This is with more emphasis since 2014, when Russia returned Crimea to its borders, faced with the possibility of a pro-Western government (NATO) in Ukraine and at the gates of its territory with clear objectives of creating “fragile spots” along its borders. Washington, for example, sees Moscow in recent years as a growing “threat” to American strategic interests. It’s worth remembering that Russia has never adopted an offensive stance against any country, except when its geopolitical security may be affected as in the case of the totally unnecessary NATO approach.

Russia has showed no “expansionists” or “imperialists” perspectives. On the contrary, Russia has defended in international forums the basic principles of diplomacy, against any form of unilateral actions.

Western media reports a reversal of intent by placing Russia as a belligerent country with expansionist aspirations. The historical facts show just the opposite. The Obama, Trump and now Joe Biden administrations aimed to prevent in every way the consolidation of Russian role of global protagonists in the construction of an environment without hegemony in the international system (geopolitical primacy).

As China and Russia are the main actors of the BRICS, the weakening of both in the geopolitical and strategic aspect (the actions of Washington and partners go in this direction) would represent the very decline of the bloc and its objectives of building a new global governance in a multipolar and multilateral world.

The New Development Bank

The BRICS consolidation since its foundation has gained shape, its economic initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NBD), which point to a still increasing intra-bloc and extra-bloc concertation. The so-called BRICS Bank can still accelerate the institutionalization of the group, which until then functioned more as a forum for discussions than as a formalized institution.

The creation of the NDB was seen by some analysts as a timely reflection on the changes in world power, while others accentuated the fact that the bank is yet another illustrative element of China’s global ambitions in terms of power projection. The creation of a possible competitor in offering financial resources on fairer bases than those offered by the IMF and/or World Bank would change the traditional monetary power centre set up since the end of WW II. As a consequence, the geopolitical center of power would be altered, accentuating the decline of the traditional core of capitalism. The consolidation of the NBD as a real alternative would be an important gain for the Sino-Russian geopolitical architecture of creating another geo-economic pole.

In a context in which the world’s economy is suffering immense upheavals because of Covid-19, causing a large number of infections and deaths and forcing the most diverse regions of the world to make drastic isolations of their populations, global international cooperation takes on new importance, as the most affected countries, such as Brazil, need financial assistance to deal with the crisis, the NBD has reappeared with a prominent role in this context of the pandemic, which offered the most advantageous prospects of financial support to face the crisis, among the development banks that Brazil resorted to. In addition to the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries, members of the bank have held virtual meetings to develop financial solutions in the fight against Covid-19.

In the first moment, the NBD provided, in April 2020, a credit line of U$ 1 billion for each country of the block. A further disbursement of US$ 10 billion is planned to be divided between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

The BRICS moves between the expectations of reaching half of world GDP in 2030, as assumed by the most optimistic perspectives before the pandemic and the estimated decline of 5% of the GDP of the countries in the bloc in 2020, as pointed out by the Analytical Center of the Government of Russia. Taking into account that the statistics of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund estimate about 5% of the fall of the World GDP for 2020, it can be assumed that the BRICS countries have not suffered great shock as a block, given the global scenario. China and India, in this sense, have good expectations of recovering their economy, compensating for the worse performance of Brazil, Russia and South Africa.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a further component in this geopolitical scenario in which the BRICS will have to demonstrate its ability to propose alternatives to the collapse of the world order, with a review of globalization, multilateralism, and the international trade regime.

Nowadays the BRICS is trying to establish itself as an alternative to the reordering of the world system. In this context of unforeseen circumstances, the BRICS has to deal with the demands for its affirmation as an institution and bloc of international power, as well as being subject to the systemic transformations engendered by the United States, which struggle to remain its hegemony.

In a scenario of uncertainties, the BRICS group, seeks to be an actor capable of proposing alternatives amid an order that collapses, facing the rearrangements of power in global geopolitics. The countries that make up the group, called emerging countries, will need to (re)emerge in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and its correlated crises, another disruptive element in this geopolitical framework. The economic recovery capacity of the BRICS countries in relation to the rest of the world can foreshadow the future of the bloc.

*Charles Pennaforte , Professor at the Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL), Brazil

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading


Putin’s post-Soviet world remains a work in progress, but Africa already looms



Russian civilisationalism is proving handy as President Vladimir Putin seeks to expand the imaginary boundaries of his Russian World, whose frontiers are defined by Russian speakers and adherents to Russian culture rather than international law and/or ethnicity.

Mr. Putin’s disruptive and expansive nationalist ideology has underpinned his aggressive

 approach to Ukraine since 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the stoking of insurgencies in the east of the country. It also underwrites this month’s brief intervention in Kazakhstan, even if it was in contrast to Ukraine at the invitation of the Kazakh government.

Mr. Putin’s nationalist push in territories that were once part of the Soviet Union may be par for the course even if it threatens to rupture relations between Russia and the West and potentially spark a war. It helps Russia compensate for the strategic depth it lost with the demise of communism in Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, equally alarmingly, Mr. Putin appears to be putting building blocks in place that would justify expanding his Russian World in one form or another beyond the boundaries of the erstwhile Soviet Union.

In doing so, he demonstrates the utility of employing plausibly deniable mercenaries not only for military and geopolitical but also ideological purposes.

Standing first in line is the Central African Republic. A resource-rich but failed state that has seen its share of genocidal violence and is situated far from even the most expansive historical borders of the Russian empire, the republic could eventually qualify to be part of the Russian world, according to Mr. Putin’s linguistic and cultural criteria.

Small units of the Wagner Group, a private military company owned by one of Mr. Putin’s close associates, entered the Centra African Republic once departing French troops handed over to a United Nations peacekeeping force in 2016. Five years later, Wagner has rights to mine the country’s gold and diamond deposits.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Russian mercenary presence persuaded President Faustin-Archange Touadera that the African republic should embrace Russian culture.

As a result, university students have been obliged to follow Russian-language classes starting as undergraduates in their first year until their second year of post-graduate studies. The mandate followed the introduction of Russian in the republic’s secondary school curriculum in 2019.

Mr. Touadera is expected to ask Mr. Putin for Russian-language instructors during a forthcoming visit to Moscow to assist in the rollout.

Neighbouring Mali could be next in line to follow in Mr. Touadera’s footsteps.

Last month, units of the Wagner Group moved into the Sahel nation at the request of a government led by army generals who have engineered two coups in nine months. The generals face African and Western sanctions that could make incorporating what bits of the country they control into the Russian world an attractive proposition.

While it is unlikely that Mr. Putin would want to formally welcome sub-Saharan and Sahel states into his Russian world, it illustrates the pitfalls of a redefinition of internationally recognised borders as civilisational and fluid rather than national, fixed, and legally enshrined.

For now, African states do not fit Mr. Putin’s bill of one nation as applied to Ukraine or Belarus. However, using linguistics as a monkey wrench, he could, overtime or whenever convenient, claim them as part of the Russian world based on an acquired language and cultural affinity.

Mr. Putin’s definition of a Russian world further opens the door to a world in which the principle of might is right runs even more rampant with the removal of whatever flimsy guard rails existed.

To accommodate the notion of a Russian world, Russian leaders, going back more than a decade, have redefined Russian civilisation as multi-ethnic rather than ethically Russia.

The Central African Republic’s stress on Russian-language education constitutes the first indication in more than a decade that Mr. Putin and some of his foreign allies may expand the Russian world’s civilisational aspects beyond the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Some critics of Mr. Putin’s concept of a Russian world note that Western wars allegedly waged out of self-defense and concern for human rights were also about power and geopolitical advantage.

For example, pundit Peter Beinart notes that NATO-led wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya “also extended American power and smashed Russian allies at the point of a gun.”

The criticism doesn’t weaken the legitimacy of the US and Western rejection of Russian civilisationalism. However, it does undermine the United States’ ability to claim the moral high ground.

It further constrains Western efforts to prevent the emergence of a world in which violation rather than the inviolability of national borders become the accepted norm.

If Russian interventionism aims to change borders, US interventionism often sought to change regimes. That is one driver of vastly different perceptions of the US role in the world, including Russian distrust of the post-Soviet NATO drive into Eastern Europe and independent former Soviet states such as Ukraine.

“People with more experience of the dark side of American power—people whose families hail from Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Haiti, or Mexico, where US guns have sabotaged democracy rather than defended it—might find it easier to understand Russian suspicions. But those Americans tend not to shape US policy towards places like Ukraine,” Mr. Beinart said.

Continue Reading


Neighbours and Crises: New Challenges for Russia



Through all the discussions that accompanied the preparation of the Valdai Club report “Space Without Borders: Russia and Its Neighbours”, the most clear question was whether Russia should or should not avoid repeating the historical experience of relations with its near abroad. This experience, in the most general terms, is that after Russia pacifies its western border with its foreign policy, the Russian state inevitably must turn to issues related to the existence of its immediate neighbourhood. With a high degree of probability, it will be forced to turn to its centuries-old method for solving problems that arise there: expansion for the sake of ensuring security.

Now Russia’s near abroad consists of a community of independent states that cannot ensure their own security and survival by relying only on their own forces; we cannot be completely sure of their stability. From Estonia in the west to Kyrgyzstan in the east, the existence of these countries in a competitive international environment is ensured by their link with one of the nuclear superpowers. Moreover, such connections can only complement each other with great difficulty. As the recent developments in Kazakhstan have demonstrated, they are not limited to the threat of an external invasion; even internal circumstances can become deadly.

The dramatic events in that country were intensified by external interference from the geostrategic opponents of Russia, as well as international terrorists, but it would be disingenuous to argue that their most important causes are not exclusively internal and man-made. We cannot and should not judge whether the internal arrangements of our neighbours are good or bad, since we ourselves do not have ideal recipes or examples. However, when dealing with the consequences, it is rational to fear that their statehood will either be unable to survive, or that their existence will take place in forms that create dangers which Russia cannot ignore.

In turn, the events experienced now in relations between Russia and the West, if we resort to historical analogies, look like a redux of the Northern War. The Great Northern War arose at the beginning of the 18th century as the result of the restoration of Russia’s power capabilities; the West had made great progress in approaching the heart of its territory. Within the framework of this logic, victory, even tactical victory, in the most important (Western) direction will inevitably force Russia to turn to its borders. Moreover, the reasons for paying more attention to them are obvious. This will present Russia with the need to decide on how much it is willing to participate in the development of its neighbours.

The developments in Kazakhstan in early January 2022 showed the objective limits of the possibilities of building a European-style sovereign state amid new, historical, and completely different geopolitical circumstances. More or less all the countries of the space that surrounds Russia, from the Baltic to the Pamir, are unique experiments that arose amid the truly phenomenal orderliness of conditions after the end of the Cold War. In that historical era, the world really developed under conditions where a general confidence prevailed that the absolute dominance of one power and a group of its allies creates conditions for the survival of small and medium-sized states, even in the absence of objective reasons for this.

The idea of the “end of history” was so convincing that we could accept it as a structural factor, so powerful that it would allow us to overcome even the most severe objective circumstances.

The Cold War era created the experience of the emergence and development of new countries, which until quite recently had been European colonies. Despite the fact that there are a few “success stories” among the countries that emerged after 1945, few have been able to get out of the catch-up development paradigm. However, it was precisely 30 years ago that there really was a possibility that a unipolar world would be so stable that it would allow the experiment to come to fruition. The visible recipes of the new states being built were ideal from an abstract point of view, just as Victor Frankenstein was guided by a desire for the ideal.

Let us recall that the main idea of our report was that Russia needs to preserve the independence of the states surrounding it and direct all its efforts to ensure that they become effective powers, eager to survive. This desire for survival is seen as the main condition for rational behaviour, i.e. creating a foreign policy, which takes into account the geopolitical conditions and the power composition of Eurasia. In other words, we believe that Russia is interested in the experiment that emerged within the framework of the Liberal World Order taking place under new conditions, since its own development goals dictate that it avoid repeating its past experience of full control over its neighbours, with which it shares a single geopolitical space.

This idea, let’s not hide it, prompted quite convincing criticism, based on the belief that the modern world does not create conditions for the emergence of states where such an experience is absent in more or less convincing forms. For Russia, the challenge is that even if it is technically capable of ensuring the immediate security of its national territory, the spread of the “grey zone” around its borders will inevitably bring problems that the neighbours themselves are not able to solve.

The striking analogy proposed by one colleague was the “hallway of hell” that Russia may soon face on its southern borders, making us raise the question that the absence of topographic boundaries within this space makes it necessary to create artificial political or even civilisational lines, the protection of which in any case will be entrusted to the Russian soldier. This January we had the opportunity to look into this “hallway of hell”. There is no certainty that the instant collapse of a state close to Russia in the darkest periods of its political history should be viewed as a failure in development, rather than a systemic breakdown of the entire trajectory, inevitable because it took shape amid completely different conditions.

Therefore, now Russia should not try to understand what its further strategy might be; in any case, particular behaviour will be determined by circumstances. Our task is to explore the surrounding space in order to understand where Russia can stop if it does not want to resort to the historical paradigm of its behaviour. The developments in Kazakhstan, in their modern form, do not create any grounds for optimism or hopes for a return to an inertial path of development. Other states may follow Ukraine and Kazakhstan even if they now look quite confident. There are no guarantees — and it would be too great a luxury for Russia to accept such a fate.

This is primarily because the Russian state will inevitably face a choice between being ready for several decades of interaction with a huge “grey zone” along the perimeter of its borders and more energetic efforts to prevent its emergence. It is unlikely that Moscow would simply observe the processes taking place on its immediate periphery. This is not a hypothetical invasion of third forces — that does not pose any significant threat to Russia. The real challenge may be that in a few decades, or sooner, Moscow will have to take on an even greater responsibility, which Russia got rid of in 1991. Even now, there seems to be a reason to believe that thirty years of independence have made it possible to create elements of statehood that can be preserved and developed with the help of Russia.

from our partner RIAC

Continue Reading


Do as You’re Told, Russia Tells the Neighborhood



The Kremlin has always argued that it has special interests and ties to what once constituted the Soviet space. Yet it struggled to produce a smooth mechanism for dealing with the neighborhood, where revolutionary movements toppled Soviet and post-Soviet era political elites. Popular movements in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and most recently Kazakhstan have flowered and sometimes triumphed despite the Kremlin’s rage.

Russia’s responses have differed in each case, although it has tended to foster separatism in neighboring states to preclude their westward aspirations. As a policy, this was extreme and rarely generated support for its actions, even from allies and partners. The resultant tensions underlined the lack of legitimacy and generated acute fear even in friendlier states that Russia one day could turn against them.

But with the activation of the hitherto largely moribund six-nation Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Kazakhstan seems to be an entirely different matter. Here, for the first time since its Warsaw Pact invasions, Russia employed an element of multilateralism. This was designed to show that the intervention was an allied effort, though it was Russia that pulled the strings and contributed most of the military force.

CSTO activation is also about something else. It blurred the boundaries between Russia’s security and the security of neighboring states. President Vladimir Putin recently stated the situation in Kazakhstan concerned “us all,” thereby ditching the much-cherished “Westphalian principles” of non-intervention in the internal affairs of neighboring states. The decision was also warmly welcomed by China, another Westphalia enthusiast.

In many ways, Russia always wanted to imitate the US, which in its unipolar moment used military power to topple regimes (in Afghanistan and Iraq) and to restore sovereignty (in Kuwait.) Liberal internationalism with an emphasis on human rights allowed America and its allies to operate with a certain level of legitimacy and to assert (a not always accepted) moral imperative. Russia had no broader ideas to cite. Until now. Upholding security and supporting conservative regimes has now become an official foreign policy tool. Protests in Belarus and Kazakhstan helped the Kremlin streamline this vision.

Since Russia considers its neighbors unstable (something it often helps to bring about), the need for intervention when security is threatened will now serve as a new dogma, though this does not necessarily mean that CSTO will now exclusively serve as the spearhead of Russian interventionist policy in crises along its borders. On the contrary, Russia will try to retain maneuverability and versatility. The CSTO option will be one weapon in the Kremlin’s neighborhood pacification armory.

Another critical element is the notion of “limited sovereignty,” whereby Russia allows its neighbors to exercise only limited freedom in foreign policy. This is a logical corollary, since maneuverability in their relations with other countries might lead to what the Kremlin considers incorrect choices, like joining Western military or economic groupings.

More importantly, the events in Kazakhstan also showed that Russia is now officially intent on upholding the conservative-authoritarian regimes. This fits into a broader phenomenon of authoritarians helping other authoritarians. Russia is essentially exporting its own model abroad. The export includes essential military and economic help to shore up faltering regimes.

The result is a virtuous circle, in the Kremlin’s eyes. Not only can it crush less than friendly governments in its borderlands but it also wins extensive influence, including strategic and economic benefits. Take for instance Belarus, where with Russian help, the dictator Aliaksandr Lukashenka managed to maintain his position after 2020’s elections through brutality and vote-rigging. The end result is that the regime is ever-more beholden to Russia, abandoning remnants of its multi-vector foreign policy and being forced to make financial and economic concessions of defense and economics to its new master. Russia is pressing hard for a major new airbase.

A similar scenario is now opening up in Kazakhstan. The country which famously managed to strike a balance between Russia and China and even work with the US, while luring multiple foreign investors, will now have to accept a new relationship with Russia. It will be similar to Belarus, short of integration talks.

Russia fears crises, but it has also learned to exploit them. Its new approach is a very striking evolution from the manner in which it handled Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2014, through the Belarus and Armenia-Azerbaijan crises in 2020 to the Kazakh uprising of 2022.

Russia has a new vision for its neighborhood. It is in essence a concept of hierarchical order with Russia at the top of the pyramid. The neighbors have to abide by the rules. Failure to do so would produce a concerted military response.

Author’s note: first published in cepa

Continue Reading



Human Rights2 hours ago

UNRWA condemns demolition of Palestinian home in East Jerusalem

The UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, on Thursday urged Israeli to immediately halt all evictions and demolitions in...

South Asia4 hours ago

India’s Unclear Neighbourhood Policy: How to Overcome ?

India has witnessed multiple trends with regards to its relations with its neighbours at a time vaccine diplomacy is gaining...

Central Asia6 hours ago

Post-Protest Kazakhstan Faces Three Major Crises

Kazakhstan suffered greatly from the biggest protest since its independence.  As I recently returned to Almaty, I saw that everyday...

Southeast Asia8 hours ago

Maximizing Indonesia’s Public Diplomacy Through Indonesia’s First Mosque in London

Indonesia and UK have established bilateral cooperation in December 1949 in which the bilateral cooperation includes economic cooperation, tourism, energy,...

Europe10 hours ago

Is British Democracy in Danger?

On Sunday 12th of December 2021 Boris Johnson went on national television to warn about a tidal wave that would...

East Asia12 hours ago

The Global (Dis) Order Warfare: The Chinese Way

Since the ascension of Xi Jinping, two important developments have come to dominate the global headlines. One, the so-called wolf...

Americas14 hours ago

Perils of Belligerent Nationalism: The Urgent Obligations of Planetary Community

“…the worst are full of passionate intensity, while the best lack all conviction.”-William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming By definition,...