China, a leading nation in the BRICS and the Global South, has chosen in practice, not to follow insanity of the West led campaign for deindustrialization. The same political-financial elites endangering the world with their diseased rules-based-order, which insists, by force, if necessary, that the United States must remain the dominant hegemon of the world, are also behind the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Their intentionally misleading assumption, that the industrialization of our civilization, which has led to phenomenal rates of economic growth for humankind, is threatening our planet today. Economic progress, the cause of society’s ability to support billions of people, is now alleged to be criminal. This is a direct assault on what makes the human species, human: our creativity. Humans are the only species endowed with a creative imagination. We homo-sapiens-sapiens are the only living species endowed with ability to discover new scientific principles embedded in the physical universe, which generate technological revolutions. This is properly understood as human progress. No animal, not even our charmingly cute panda bears, possess this quality.

Reject Zero-Growthism

At the core, the so called environmentalist ideology is a hatred of human beings. The foundation of this anti-human perverted view stems from three false axioms: 1) Our planet is a collection of fixed resources. This is not even remotely true, proven by the economies of today utilizing resources, critical minerals, that we previously did not know existed; 2) There is no growth in our universe; 3) Humankind, in its greedy behavior of using up our planet’s “fixed resources” is driving civilization towards its eventual doom. These axioms parallel the pseudo-scientific theory, which stipulates that physical universe, driven by an irreversible entropic process, will culminate in a final state incapable of further development. According to the second law of thermo-dynamics, through the inexorable degeneration-disorganization of energy, our universe will wind-down, until reaching the ultimate state of disorder, deprived of usable energy. This zero-growth belief is the bedrock from which all the dogma postulated by the green-environmentalist movement emanates.

Neither zero-growth ideologies, nor entropy, govern our universe, especially the creative powers of the human mind. The history of the progress of civilization debunks these allegations. The physical universe is anti-entropic, organized to respond to human-noetic interventions by advancing to the next higher plateau of development. The physical universe and the human species were created to generate continuous development, overcoming all so called limits to growth.

Civilization has never had a resource shortage. We advanced from a wood based energy economy, to the exploitation of coal as a new resource, then oil and gas, to uranium based fission energy (still underutilized) to the potential of a fusion powered economy. This long wave of attaining higher levels of energy thruput and energy flux-density, through scientific discovery, and inventing new technologies for new resources, is what we know as: human progress.

Anti-Human Axiom

We humans are transformers of the earth, contrary to the notion that the behavior of human society will harm the planet, as well as the less noxious view that humans are simply caretakers of the earth. In the words of the great German Philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz, there is a pre-established harmony between the noetic powers of the human mind and the physical universe in which we exist. There is no pristine or equilibrium state of nature; only development or lack of development for the human species. To accentuate this concept beyond any misunderstanding: human beings, endowed with the principle of creativity, are in harmony with the developing physical universe.

Parsons Thomas Malthus, patron of the East India Company, a branch of the British oligarchy, espoused the unscientific theory that populations grew at a geometric rate and agricultural production increased only arithmetically. Thus, the deviant insisted, it was necessary to reduce the growth rate of the population. He proposed implementing this downright silly-unproven nonsense, by targeting poor people. He wrote the following in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population:

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into houses, and court the return of the plague.

Whether modern day zero-growthers admit it or not, they are hard core neo-Malthusians. They imbibe with gusto, the erroneous belief that people must be eliminated because human beings are incapable of producing resources for their existence. This baseless axiom forms the underpinning of green-environmentalism and deindustrialization today. In essence, denying scientific progress.

The World Wildlife Fund, now the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the granddaddy of the green-environmental movement, was imbued with neo-Malthusianism in its creation. It was founded in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley, President of the Eugenics Society of Great Britain, Prince Bernhard, a former card carrying member of the Nazi Party, and Prince Phillip, who represented the highest echelon of the British Oligarchy. The now deceased Philip was known for his fanatical antihuman view. He is quoted in 1988, In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to contribute something to solving overpopulation.

Contrary to the belief of the followers “woke culture” of today, that they initiated the movement for zero population growth, the roots of this anti-human view of society were created for them hundreds of years earlier. They fail to realize that they are just Malthus’ donkeys mindlessly braying his evil ideology.

Mathew Ehret exposes the diametrically opposed pro-progress outlook of China and the BRICS, to the deindustrialization policies of the West in his essay: China-BRICS Choose Development. (See excerpt below)

USA vs. China Energy Paradigms

In the USA, overall national energy production has not only stagnated, but has actually fallen from 26,545 Terawatt hours (TWh) in 2000 to 25,825 TWh in 2021, with an increased slide projected into the coming decades by those same forces who 1) sabotaged America’s advanced energy policies over the past decades and 2) wish to induce energy scarcity onto a frightened populous in order to justify a culling of humanity to “sustainable levels”.

In contrast, China has used this same 21-year interval very differently, increasing its annual energy use from 12,470 TWh in 2000 to 43,791 TWh in 2021.

The effects upon quality of life, per capita powers of labor, energy security, food production and educational opportunities have increased dramatically.

The one child limit (imposed by Kissinger and the Club of Rome 40 years ago) has been abolished, and average longevity, which was once led by the USA has been overtaken by China, which has lifted the average life expectancy from 44 years in 1963 to 77. 5 years today, and stands in stark contrast to the USA, whose average life expectance fell to only 76.1 years of age as of September 2022.

China’s purchasing power parity has also superseded that of the USA over the past few years.

How Smart Is Trump?

It is too early to know if President Trump will continue to attack China and the BRICS, becoming a stooge of the China bashing rules-based order. He has already threatened BRICS twice, an institution of over twenty nations, which is the point of the spear for the Global South. The BRICS bloc, (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the UAE), has a total population of around 3.3 billion, over 40% of the global population. BRICS countries account for approximately 46% of global GDP.

President Trump foolishly slapped sanctions on China within his first two weeks in office, and recently made accusations against South Africa, a leading member of the BRICS. There is no inherent conflict between the genuine self-interest of nations. The conflict emanates from the ravenous desire by Western political-financial oligarchy for supremacy. There is no objective reason that all nations cannot collaborate in fulfilling the common aim of humankind: the peaceful development of all nations.

If President Trump is as smart as he proclaims to be, then he would understand that to make America great, we must make the World great.

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for 35 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. Mr. Freeman strongly believes that economic development is an essential human right. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com, and also publishing on: lawrencefreeman.substack.com, “Freeman’s Africa and the World

Since the 1990s, the goal of American foreign policy has been “primacy,” aka global hegemony. The U.S. methods of choice have been wars, regime-change operations and unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions). 

Kazan brought together 35 countries with more than half the world population that reject the U.S. bullying and that are not cowed by U.S. claims of hegemony. 

In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.” 

They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (U.N.) as its indispensable cornerstone.” 

They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”

History of Hegemony

The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. 

In 1630, Puritan leader John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” 

In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world. 

The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked. 

Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former supreme commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in five years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives. 

General Wesley Clark : We Will Invade Seven Countries in Five Years (2007) pic.twitter.com/8dejWGHin2

— Mark Joseph (@Markbevilaqua) October 31, 2024

The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. 

As Brzezinski put it: 

“Russia’s only real geostrategic option — the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself — is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.” (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118)

Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead.

Nor — and this is the plain message from Kazan — did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged. Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did. 

The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). 

The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum. 

Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge. 

American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the U.S. and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan. 

The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development. 

In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.” They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone.” They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”

Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice.

The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. In 1630, John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world.

The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked.

Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in 5 years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives.

The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski, for example, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. As Brzezinski put it:

“Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.” (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118)

Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead.

Nor—and this is the plain message from Kazan—did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged. Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did.

The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum.

Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge.

American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the US and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan.

The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of “A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism” (2020). Other books include: “Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable” (2017) and “The Age of Sustainable Development,” (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

On Tuesday, Vladimir Putin welcomed leaders from 24 countries and delegations from a total of 32 nations. The 16th BRICS summit, running from October 22-24, is the first under the BRICS+ format and includes representatives from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

On the first day, the original BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) officially welcomed Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) into the group. With this expansion, BRICS+ now represents over 40% of the global population, potentially positioning itself as a viable counterweight to the Western-dominated global system.

While the main objectives of the gathering will focus on strengthening multilateralism, equitable global development, and security, attendees will also explore ways to deepen cooperation between BRICS nations and countries from the Global South.

Specific issues discussed among BRICS will include a new BRICS payment system, de-dollarization, a BRICS digital currency, an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a proposal for a new trade platform for grain.

The chosen themes and issues accentuate and exacerbate the growing rift between the West’s existing global order and the Global South. BRICS, especially Russia, clearly intend to use the forum to display their vision of a multipolar economic and geopolitical architecture that starkly contrasts with the Western, primarily United States led, “rules-based” financial, economic, and political order.

Prior to the summit, Russian State Duma Speaker Vyachaslav Volodin publicly underscored these sentiments on Telegram: “Today, BRICS unites 10 countries and 45% of the world’s population. More than thirty states are showing interest in participating in it… The time of Washington and Brussels hegemony is passing.”

While BRICS+ countries are meeting in Kazan, the “rules-based order” and U.S. hegemony continue to be severely undermined by Israel’s ongoing Washington-backed military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. Israel has continued to exhibit an unwavering disrespect for United Nations resolutions, has attacked peacekeepers (referred to as UNIFIL in Lebanon), and even declared U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres persona non grata. Notably, Guterres is expected to attend in Kazan.

Among these increasing Middle East tensions, Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Tehran expects to complete the process of formalizing an agreement with Russia on strategic cooperation during the BRICS summit in Kazan. In mid-September, the Russian government reported the practical completion of the procedures necessary for signing a new interstate agreement on comprehensive strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, it appears that Russia may want to delay the official signing date due to increased tensions between Iran and Israel and Russian apprehension of being drawn in too strongly on Iran’s side. Instead, Russia has sought to use the BRICS gathering as a forum to discuss the war in Gaza and Lebanon. For example, UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed arrived in Moscow on Sunday to much fanfare for an official visit that included high-level talks centered on bilateral cooperation and the situation in the Middle East.

Beyond geopolitics, one of the more prominent issues to be raised during the summit is Russia’s proposal for a BRICS payment system, BRICS Pay. According to Bloomberg, “Russia is proposing changes to cross-border payments conducted among BRICS countries aimed at circumventing the global financial system, as the heavily penalized country seeks to sanctions-proof its own economy.”

Russia has recently experienced delays in international transactions with its trading partners, including BRICS member countries, as banks in these countries fear punitive actions from Western regulators.

The proposal includes plans to create a network of commercial banks that would allow participating countries to process transactions in local currencies as well as establish direct links between central banks. Additionally, Russia is proposing a model based on digital ledger technology that would allow the use of tokens for settlement. The plan also included the creation of centers for mutual trade in commodities such as grain.

Not surprisingly, this idea correlates with a Russian export trade plan introduced in September during the “Made in Russia” forum. Then, Russian government representatives spoke about the growth of the share of “friendly countries” in trade, about stimulating the export of medium and high value-added products, and about the need to supply more expensive agricultural products to foreign markets.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said that the share of national currencies in settlements with partners from “friendly countries” — defined as China, Turkey, India, and Egypt — currently amounts to 90%. Such exports in August were already estimated at 86% of the total export volume.

Putin said BRICS countries should focus on the use of national currencies, new financial instruments, and the creation of an analogue of SWIFT. He called for a “cautious approach in creating a new reserve currency due to differences in the structure and quality of the economies of the BRICS member states.”

Prior to the BRICS summit, however, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said that India has no plan to target the U.S. dollar, an announcement that placed the country directly at odds with China and Russia.

Despite objections from some BRICS+ members, it seems as though de-dollarization is slowly moving towards an economic reality. According to the Jerusalem Post, China has already unveiled plans to use a gold-backed yuan and Russia is trading in currencies tied to gold. Together with the significant gold accumulation by BRICS countries, these actions suggest a world shifting away from dollar reliance. For example, the divergence between treasuries and gold as safe havens has signaled investors’ heightened uncertainty given skyrocketing government debt and their preference for physical assets. Over the last 10 years, central bank purchases of gold have significantly outpaced purchases of U.S. Treasuries.

The Kazan BRICS summit has demonstrated a considerably impressive level of ambition, no doubt fueled by Russia’s chairmanship and the many underlying financial and economic issues with which it is currently wrestling. Although Russian interests obviously are driving the current agenda, it is evident that the issues presented resonate strongly among a variety of countries, from global powers like China to nations throughout the Global South. They all share a common interest in navigating the emerging challenges presented by a rapidly developing multipolar architecture.

Although BRICS 2024 is unlikely to implement immediate solutions to its economic and finance proposals, it has already successfully generated enthusiasm for alternative approaches to the post-World War II order. After several decades of war and harmful sanctions, BRICS+ nations are increasingly distrustful of the United States led “rules-based order” that favors the few at the expense of many. Western nations should take notice that while BRICS will not immediately bring down the existing global architecture, it is a looming threat to the unrivaled dominance of its institutions, which no longer maintain the trust or confidence of a growing majority of the world’s inhabitants.

Michael Corbin has nearly 30 years of experience working in academia, the federal government and with various think tanks covering trade and economic issues related to Russia and Eurasia. He holds an M.A. in Russian and East European Studies from the Ohio State University.

The Kremlin has promoted the event as a showcase of Russia’s enduring global alliances, despite efforts to isolate it from the international community. The summit occurs against the backdrop of intensifying sanctions on Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine. Putin is increasingly isolated, facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes related to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Moscow is portraying the gathering — featuring countries like China, India, Iran and other emerging economies — as proof of its continued relevance on the global stage.

Leaders such as Modi and Xi arrived in Kazan on October 22, just in time for the three-day summit. Xi’s plane was escorted by a Russian fighter jet and greeted on the tarmac by Rustam Minnikhanov, the head of the Republic of Tatarstan. Kazan is the capital of Tatarstan, one of Russia’s most important regions. 

The summit also underscores the challenges facing the international community’s stance on Russia, especially regarding the potential involvement of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, whose attendance remains uncertain. Moscow has suggested that Guterres might participate, but the UN has not yet confirmed his presence.

A key focus of the summit’s agenda is the future trajectory of BRICS, which has welcomed new members such as Egypt, the UAE and Iran, with countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia showing interest in joining.

Speaking to The New York Times, Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre in Berlin, described the summit as an opportunity for Putin to “punch back”.

“Standing next to all of these leaders, shaking hands and taking pictures, Vladimir Putin will be trying to tell the world that Russia is not isolated,” Gabuev said, noting that the Russian president aims to portray Moscow as part of the global majority.

In addition to its symbolic significance for Putin, the summit serves as a platform to promote a shift away from the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Many BRICS members aim to establish a counterbalance to Western economic influence, a likely central topic of discussion at the meeting. With sanctions hindering Russia’s cross-border trade and payments, Putin seeks to persuade BRICS members to adopt an alternative global payment system that bypasses the dollar and other G7 currencies. This approach would help Russia and its allies mitigate the impact of Western financial sanctions, potentially loosening the economic grip held by the US and Europe through their control of global financial systems.

However, as BRICS expands, concerns about maintaining ideological coherence have arisen. While countries like Russia, China and Iran strongly advocate a departure from the dollar and Western financial systems, others, including Brazil and India, adopt a more cautious approach. Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is not attending in person, has stated that BRICS is “not against anyone”, emphasising that it is a forum for economic cooperation rather than geopolitical confrontation. This lack of consensus may complicate the group’s long-term objectives, even as it seeks to bolster economic and technological frameworks less influenced by the US.

There are other potential stumbling blocks. Countries such as India and South Africa, though part of the bloc, have interests that may not always align with those of Moscow or Beijing. Meanwhile, new members like Egypt and Ethiopia bring their own regional conflicts. Critics argue that these divisions could hinder meaningful economic cooperation within BRICS. Nevertheless, for Putin, the Kazan summit is less about resolving these differences and more about presenting strength and unity to both domestic and international audiences, signalling that Russia remains far from isolated despite Western hostility.

But President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is determined to show the West that he has important allies on his side.

This week Russia is hosting the so-called BRICS group — which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — in a gathering of emerging market countries. The meeting, which begins Tuesday, has expanded this year to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

Its wonky name notwithstanding (it was coined by a Wall Street banker in 2001), BRICS now includes countries representing almost half the world’s population and more than 35 percent of global economic output, adjusted by purchasing power.

The conference is intended to present a hefty showcase of economic might but also entice new countries into a coalition Russia hopes to build that would form a new world order not dominated by the West.

“This summit is about Putin punching back,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. Mr. Putin presents his country’s war in Ukraine as “the spearhead of destroying the old world order and helping to build a new one,” Mr. Gabuev said.

“And BRICs is the most potent and representative structure of this new world order,” he added.

That was a message Mr. Putin emphasized at a meeting of officials and businessmen last week in Moscow ahead of the summit.

“In the last decade, over 40 percent of the growth in global G.D.P. of the entire world economic dynamics came from the BRICS countries,” Mr. Putin said, asserting that the developed Group of Seven countries is playing a declining role in the global economy.

“The gap is widening, and it will further widen — this is inevitable,” he said.

Mr. Putin was unable to travel to last year’s summit in South Africa because of a warrant for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court, to which South Africa is a signatory. While other leaders held high-level bilateral meetings, Mr. Putin was forced to deliver his speech, and hold all his meetings, virtually.

This year, Mr. Putin said he would have 17 bilateral meetings in addition to those in the larger group format.

“Standing next to all of these leaders shaking hands and taking pictures, Vladimir Putin will be trying to tell the world that Russia is not isolated,” Mr. Gabuev said.

The Russian leader will be projecting that “Russia is part of the global majority and the part of the international community that is trying to isolate Russia is the West,” Mr. Gabuev said. “So the West is, by default, the global minority that’s ostracizing Russia.”

Beijing and Moscow are keen to see BRICS expand further, and the Kremlin invited representatives from another 20 countries who have expressed interest in membership to participate in this year’s summit.

Both capitals have pushed proposals to dramatically change the global financial system. At the previous summit, there was discussion of creating a BRICS currency, which did not materialize. This year the dominant proposal is for a BRICS payment system, known as BRICS Bridge, that would help Russia circumvent the issues it has had sending and receiving money in global commerce because of sanctions.

Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, has also tried to muster support for an organization that could serve as a replacement for the International Monetary Fund, which froze contact with Moscow in 2022.

While Mr. Putin will get to play the role of host, China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, will arrive at the summit in a commanding position. Mr. Xi is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Mr. Putin, which would mark the fourth face-to-face meeting between the two leaders since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Despite growing pressure from the West on China not to aid Russia’s war effort, Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin have deepened their relationship, in no small part because of their shared grievances toward the United States.

The host nation of the BRICS gathering has grown ever more reliant on Beijing to sustain its war, and China represents more than 60 percent of the grouping’s economic output. (It was roughly 70 percent before the addition of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.) China’s economic heft within the group allows Beijing to pledge more investments and loans to other members.

“Countries are looking for economic benefits from this association,” said Henry Huiyao Wang, president of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing. “That’s what makes BRICS so attractive. And China being the largest economy in BRICS makes it a magnet.”

Analysts said they would be watching how Mr. Xi interacts with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and whether the two leaders build on recent diplomatic momentum aimed at easing border tensions. Courting Mr. Modi would allow Mr. Xi to drive something of a wedge between the West and India, which has drawn closer to the United States in recent years as a member of a security grouping called the Quad.

“It would be huge if Xi and Modi shake hands, smile and telegraph a message that tensions between the two Asian powers are easing, even just a bit,” said Eric Olander, the editor of the website China Global South Project.

Among China’s priorities for BRICS is continued expansion of the group as a way to diminish the power of its chief geopolitical rival, the United States.

As Beijing’s relations with the West have frayed over a host of issues — none more damaging than its tacit support for Russia’s war in Ukraine — as China has shifted more attention to courting developing and non-aligned countries. As more countries join BRICS, Beijing can argue, as Moscow does, that it has more legitimacy as a global power than Washington and its club of rich nations, analysts said.

“China is keen to cast this as a coalition of the Global South against the U.S.-led West,” Yun Sun, the director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said of BRICS. “The caveat is that the bigger the coalition, the less effective its policy coordination and unity.”

The inability of BRICS foreign ministers to release a joint statement last month at a meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations has come to underscore the difficulties the group faces as it grows.

Even before expansion, finding agreement was a challenge, largely because of the simmering rivalry between China and India for leadership of the Global South.

While China can rely on support from isolated, anti-Western member states like Russia and Iran, it will have difficulty persuading India, Brazil and South Africa, the group’s major democracies, to take a more adversarial stance toward the United States. To those countries, BRICS is a way to strike a balance between Beijing and Washington, not an opportunity to pick sides, experts said.

That has also kept BRICS-curious countries like Saudi Arabia out of the group, at least for the time being. Last year, Saudi Arabia was invited to join the BRICS, but has refrained from doing so, even leaving the question of their participation in the summit open. Last week, Russia’s finance ministry had to roll back comments describing Saudi Arabia as a member of BRICS.

Mr. Putin visited Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh last December, when he said that Russian-Saudi relations had reached an “unprecedented level.”

But the oil-rich country is trying to balance its relations with Russia with the need to maintain good ties with the United States and other Western countries.

The BRICS group has been boosted by the return of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to power in Brazil, which will take over the rotating BRICs presidency from Russia in January 2025. During his first two terms in office, between 2003 and 2011, Mr. Lula helped found the bloc and loudly advocated for more cooperation among developing nations.

Reporting was contributed by Ismaeel Naar in Dubai, Ana Ionova in Rio de Janeiro and Amy Chang Chien in Taipei.

Valerie Hopkins and David Pierson reported from Kazan, Russia.

Valerie Hopkins covers the war in Ukraine and how the conflict is changing Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the United States. She is based in Moscow.

David Pierson covers Chinese foreign policy and China’s economic and cultural engagement with the world. He has been a journalist for more than two decades.

This year the group has two main topics to address: the enrolment of more members and setting up a global payment system that does not depend on the dollar.

A lot of progress has already been made on the payment system already after central bankers around the world were freaked out by the US’ decision to weaponise the dollar in its clash with Russia and seize the latter’s hard currency reserves, formerly considered sacrosanct. The process of de-dollarisation has begun, but thanks to the greenback’s dominance, it will take years to unwind. The BRICS are looking at some sort of cryptocurrency, a coin dubbed “BRICS Pay”, that will be based on digital versions of the yuan, rupee and ruble, as a possible replacement, but the earliest that could appear is 2028, say experts.

Ahead of the meeting, Brazil’s Foreign Affairs Secretary for Asia and the Pacific Eduardo Paes Saboia said he wants to see an increased use of national currencies by BRICS member countries in global trade, and less use of the dollar.

“[The issue of reducing the reliance on the US dollar] has already been considered at meetings of finance ministers and heads of central banks [of BRICS],” he told reporters. “I hope that those discussions will be reflected in a certain way in the declaration in Kazan. They will obviously continue during Brazil’s chairmanship [in BRICS in 2025],” the diplomat said.

President of BRICS New Development Bank Dilma Rousseff also said in October that the financial organisation intended to use national currencies for investing in the private sector of the economies of member countries.

Bringing new members into the club will be much harder and strikes at the heart of the vision of what the current members see as the purpose of the organisation. Russia and China would like the BRICS to be some sort of anti-G7, a genuine geopolitical rival to the US and its supporters. Brazil and India have a much more pragmatic view and would like to see the BRICS as enhancing global cooperation and trade to help their countries flourish.

These rivalries were on display last year when Russia and China dominated the last BRICS summit that saw several new members join, including Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) dithering on the sidelines. This year another 27 countries have formerly applied to join what is now known as the BRICS+, with another 22 that have expressed an interest in becoming members.

President Vladimir Putin is keen to see as many countries as possible join in ordere to bulk up the organisation, but India and other countries want to keep the club exclusive so as not to dilute the clout of current members. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented a very difference vision at last year’s G20 summit, hosted by India, which focused more on economic cooperation but also added the African Union as a member, given that it represents all of Africa’s 54 countries.

Notably both Putin and Xi chose to stay away from that summit, highlighting the disagreements between the leading emerging markets and setting Modi up as potential rival leader of the emerging world for both Putin and Xi and a competition between the two biggest Global South clubs. Also notably, the G20 includes the members of the G7, underscoring its more inclusive and cooperative nature.

The delegates at Kazan are well aware of these rivalries but they are attending not because they intend to join one of the camps. This is not a new Cold War, but since the start of the war in Ukraine, we live in an increasingly fractured world and the emerging world countries are simply looking for a counterweight to an increasingly aggressive US. Kazakhstan is a good example that traditionally has maintained very close ties with Russia and still does, but it said this week that it will not apply to join BRICS, as all the countries of Central Asia are following a multi-vector foreign policy that attempts to be partners with both East and West, for fear of being swallowed and made vassal states if they move out of the centre ground.

If it comes to a clash then the BRICS have some formidable weapons at their disposal.

Oil and gas: The BRICS members, including the new members Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran, together control over 50% of the world’s known oil deposits and 43% of global oil production.

Raw materials: Russia is a cornucopia of raw materials and home to large deposits of nearly ever element on the periodic table. While China is poor in most resources, it has caught the US napping by building up a virtual monopoly on the processing of a majority of the world’s rare earth metals and other exotic materials that are now essential in the production of things like EVs and computer chips. As of 2024, the BRICS, along with their new members, control approximately 72% of the world’s rare earth metal reserves.

Raw materials are an Achilles’ heel for the G7. While the US is largely autonomous in most raw materials, especially since the shale revolution in 2016 turned America from being a net importer of oil to a net exporter, the deficit Europe has few of the inputs it needs to run its economies and remains heavily dependent on imports, especially from Russia.  

People: The biggest resources the BRICS have are their people. China and India alone are home to 2.5bn people, or a third of the world’s entire population. With 150mn people Russia is also by far the largest consumer market in Europe. Brazil enjoys a similar status in South America as home to 217mn people, making it the most populous country with a third of the total Latin America’s population of 664mn people.

South Africa is the exception with a total of only 64mn people, or about 4.7% of the total African population of 1.4bn. Nigeria is the biggest country in sub-Sahara Africa. This discrepancy has led O’Neill to criticise its inclusion in the BRICS group, saying “it’s not big enough”, but thanks to its colonial legacy, South Africa has one of the most developed economies in Africa. However, Africa’s rapid development and obvious long-term potential, not to mention the copious natural resources that rival those of Russia, are making it increasingly attractive to the rest of the world.

The G7 countries collectively account for only about 10% of the global population, around 770mn people. Moreover, the US and EU are suffering a growing demographic crisis. Not one of the EU members has a fertility rate of more than 2.1 births per women needed to keep the population stable, and its members are becoming increasingly dependent on migrant labour. In this regard the war in Ukraine has been a blessing, as the 7mn refugees from the country have given EU labour markets a badly needed shot in the arm. For Kyiv, the same migration has been a disaster, as Ukraine now has the worst demographics in the world.

Fertility rates in major emerging markets vary widely but many of the major economies are being lifted by an expanding population. India’s population is more or less stable with a fertility rate of 2, while China’s is decreasing alarmingly with a fertility rate of only 1.2. Brazil is shrinking (1.6), while South Africa (2.2) and Turkey (2.1) are growing.

In regional terms, the G7 countries are suffering from shrinking populations, while Latin America as a whole is stable with a fertility rate of 2, Asia is growing slowly with 2.2 but Africa is the global leader with 4.2.

Looking at long-term economic growth and the Global South will catch up and overtake the G7 purely on demographic-driven growth alone.

Growth: Historically, BRICS nations have posted higher growth rates than the G7. China and India, in particular, have seen rapid economic expansion over the past two decades, with growth rates frequently surpassing 6-7% annually, although China has maxed out and is only expected to grow by some 5% this year. India still has plenty of catch-up growth ahead of it.

Brazil, South Africa and Russia have experienced more subdued growth recently, but are still expanding faster than the G7. Three of the main economies in Europe – Germany, France and Italy – are expected to contract for a second year in a row this year. Europe is in particular trouble, as it has lost its competitive edge and is now falling behind not only the US, but the up and coming emerging markets like China, according to report from former Italian Prime Minister and ex-European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi, who said the EU needs to invest €800bn a year just to stand still.

Together, the 10 countries of BRICS+ represent 35.6% of global GDP by PPP, more than the Group of Seven major democracies 30.3%, but are slightly behind in nominal terms.

The US is in better shape, with an economic growth forecast for 2024 anticipated to moderate after a stronger-than-expected performance in 2023, but it will still grow by between 1.8% and 2.7% for the year, according to various estimates.

Investment and technology: Ironically, it is the West that is funding this transition, as the world’s leading Emerging Markets (EMs) are also moving rapidly up the annual foreign direct investment (FDI) confidence ranking, according to management consultancy Kearney, and are starting to compete directly with the leading developed markets. The much sought after FDI brings with it technology transfers and business skills that accelerate the development of emerging markets.

The West has kept its lead for so long thanks to its superior technology, but that gap is closing. Last year China filed 6mn patents, the US 3mn, whereas all of the EU members collectively filed only 400,000.

On top of that, the West has grown rich by exporting manufacturing to the Global South, politely dubbed globalisation in the West, but increasingly called colonialism in the emerging markets – a theme that Putin plays on constantly. The Global South contributes 90% of the labour that powers the world economy, but receives only 21% of the revenue, according to a recent study published in Nature Communications.

Now wages in the Global South are rising and that gap is closing as middle classes appear in China, India and Africa. Even Russia has seen the emergence of a new war middle class on the back of record-high real disposable incomes up to 9.6% in July. The wealth transferred from south to north will reduce in proportion as time passes as these middle classes expand.

Initially Western companies exported their low-skilled jobs to take advantage of the low wages, but increasing the study found, they are exporting high-skilled jobs as well. The US has responded by slapping export controls on the export of technology to places like China, but a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York says they have backfired and supercharged innovation; in the last few years China has changed from being a net importer of technology to becoming a net exporter.

GDP: The wages in the Global South are still lower than those in the North, but the changing dynamic of wealth is also apparent if measured in PPP-adjusted terms – what you can actually buy for a yuan or a ruble. China has already overtaken the US to become the world’s largest economy in adjusted terms and this year Russia displaced Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world in PPP terms. Of the top five economies in the world, three are now BRICS members. And both China and India are forecast to overtake the US by 2070 in nominal terms too.

The G7 still dominate trade and investment flows, but China has famously launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where it has been pouring money into partner countries, and often into the poorer emerging markets, as those like Russia can take care of their own investment needs. As bne IntelliNews reported from strategic investments in infrastructure to energy and telecommunications, Latin America has become the latest crucial hub for Chinese investments.

The alliance, which aims to counterbalance the Western-led world order, initially included Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa but started to rapidly expand this year. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia joined in January; Turkey, Azerbaijan and Malaysia formally applied, and a number of others expressed a desire to be members.

Russian officials already see the meeting as a massive success. Putin’s foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said 36 countries confirmed participation, and more than 20 will send heads of state. Putin will hold around 20 bilateral meetings, Ushakov said, and the summit could turn into “the largest foreign policy event ever held” on Russian soil.

On the sidelines of the summit, Putin also will meet Thursday with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Ushakov said. It will be the first visit to Russia in more than two years for Guterres, who has repeatedly criticized Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Optics and deals for the Kremlin

Analysts say the Kremlin wants the optics of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its global allies amid continued tensions with the West, as well as the practicality of negotiating deals with them to shore up Russia’s economy and its war effort.

For the other participants, it’s a chance to amplify their voices and narratives.

“The beauty of BRICS is that it doesn’t put too many obligations on you,” said Alexander Gabuyev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “There are not that many strings attached, really, to being part of BRICS. And at the same time, there might be interesting opportunities coming your way, including just having more face time with all of these leaders.”

For Putin, the summit is important personally because it shows the failure of Western efforts to isolate him, Gabuyev said.

The gathering will demonstrate at home and abroad that “Russia is really an important player that is leading this new group that will end the Western dominance -– that’s his personal narrative,” he said.

The Kremlin will be able to talk to major players like India and China about expanding trade and bypassing Western sanctions. India is an important market for Russian commodities, while China is where Moscow hopes to source dual-use and various military-related goods, Gabuyev said.

Russia also wants more countries participating in a payment system project that would be an alternative to the global bank messaging network SWIFT, allowing Moscow to trade with partners without worrying about sanctions.

“The Russian idea is that if you create a platform where there is China, Russia, India and Brazil and Saudi Arabia, many countries that are vital partners for the U.S., the U.S. will not be ready to go after this platform and sanction it,” Gabuyev said.

Goals for Iran and China

Russia is also expected to sign a “comprehensive strategic partnership” treaty with Iran, bolstering the increasingly close ties between Moscow and Tehran.

After the invasion of Ukraine, Iran provided Moscow with hundreds of drones and helped launch their production in Russia. The Iranian drone deliveries, which Moscow and Tehran have denied, have allowed for a constant barrage of long-range drone strikes at Ukraine’s infrastructure.

Iran, in turn, wants sophisticated Russian weapons like long-range air defense systems and fighter jets to help fend off a possible attack by Israel. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov refused to comment when asked whether the treaty will include mutual military assistance.

For China, BRICS is among several international organizations -– along with the security-focused Shanghai Cooperation Organization -– through which it seeks to promote an alternative to the U.S.-led world order.

Xi pushed for enlarging BRICS, and the Kazan summit will consolidate economic, technological and military ties in the expanded bloc, said Willy Lam, a senior China fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

Beijing and Moscow also want to see if a new international trading currency could “challenge so-called dollar hegemony,” Lam said.

The summit will allow Xi and Putin to flaunt their close relationship. The two, who announced a “no-limits” partnership weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, already have met at least twice this year, in Beijing in May and at a SCO summit in Kazakhstan in July.

Although they will continue to present a united front, experts are watching for subtle signs of Xi distancing himself from Putin over the war.

“While Putin will want the China-Russia relationship to appear as good as ever, Xi may also want to signal to Western states and others that Beijing officially remains ‘neutral’ in Russia’s war in Ukraine and is not a formal ally of Moscow,” said Eva Seiwert, a foreign policy and security expert with the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.

“This will be crucial for conveying the image of China as a serious and legitimate peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.”

Balancing acts for India and Turkey

An expected Modi-Putin meeting could see some rebalancing of their ties. Western friends want India to be more active in persuading Moscow to end the war. Modi has avoided condemning Russia while emphasizing a peaceful settlement.

New Delhi considers Moscow a time-tested partner from the Cold War, cooperating on defense, oil, nuclear energy, and space, despite Russia’s closer ties with India’s main rival, China.

Their meeting will be the second in months. Modi visited Russia in July, saw President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine in August and traveled to the U.S. to see President Joe Biden in September.

“India can’t simply abandon Russia because of its deep defense ties, the question of the regional balance of power, and the logic of multi-alignment,” said Raja Mohan, a professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies in Singapore. “At the same time, it also builds and develops its relations with the U.S. and the West because that is where the logic of India’s major economic development and technological growth depends on partnership.”

India and Brazil view BRICS primarily through an economic lens to promote a more equitable distribution of power in the international system, while “China and Russia see it more as a geopolitical forum,” said Chietigi Bajpayee, who studies South Asia at the Chatham House in London.

India and Brazil also don’t want to be “pulled into China’s gravitational orbit,” said Theresa Fallon of the Center for Russia, Europe, Asia Studies.

Another key participant is Turkey, which has applied to join the BRICS group. That comes at a time when the NATO member and European Union candidate is increasingly frustrated with the West. Turkey’s EU membership talks have stalled since 2016 due to disputes with Cyprus and concerns over human rights.

Turkey’s relations with Washington have been strained over its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program after procuring a Russian missile defense system. Erdogan also has accused the U.S. and other Western allies of alleged “complicity” in Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Membership in BRICS would help Erdogan “strengthen his own hand” at a time when ties with the West are at a low, said Gonul Tol, director of the U.S.-based Middle East Institute’s Turkey program.

Middle powers like Turkey “try to extract more from both camps by being in-between camps, by having one foot in each camp,” he said.

Litvinova reported from Tallinn, Estonia. Associated Press writers Harriet Morris in Tallinn; Simina Mistreanu in Taipei, Taiwan; Ashok Sharma in New Delhi; and Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, contributed to this report.

Litvinova is an Associated Press correspondent covering Russia, Belarus, Central Asia and the Caucasus. She is part of the team that covers the Russia-Ukraine war. She has covered Russia and the region for over a decade.

BRICS leaders will soon meet again in Kazan, Russia, for their 16th summit. Writing here last year on the eve of Johannesburg, I had characterized BRICS as a coalition between the “Global East” (comprised of China and Russia) and the Global South, with its expansion a strong signal of the developing world’s deep dissatisfaction with the failures of the US-led order. A year later, BRICS is becoming even more attractive across the Global South, even as the world is increasingly at risk of major-power war.

Continuing the Enlargement

BRICS holds promise on two fronts. The first is its expansion itself, which speaks to the organization’s dynamism and wide appeal. The second is its attempt at problem-solving—chiefly on development finance and alternative currencies.

The induction of new members set in motion in Johannesburg has unfolded rather smoothly: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE joined on schedule at the beginning of this year. BRICS’s newly inducted members come with many potential benefits. The energy-rich UAE brings finance, deep pockets, and a dynamic start-up culture. Egypt occupies a special and prominent place among Arab states. Ethiopia and Egypt are also, respectively Africa’s second- and third-most-populous countries. Iran, though sanctioned and currently in conflict with Israel, is another energy-rich regional power.

The past year has shown that the rush to join BRICS is only growing across the Global South. Thailand and Malaysia’s push for membership marks the future entry of Southeast Asia, a region that has demonstrated major success in economic growth and integration. At the other end of Asia, Turkey and the Eurasian state of Azerbaijan have also applied. President Erdogan will be present in Kazan along with at least 24 other leaders. Several other states are in the membership pipeline.

Will BRICS add new members in Kazan? The grouping is now dealing with a challenge common to all organizations seen as desirable for membership—balancing growth with efficacy. A public setback on cohesion emerged last month when a BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting failed to issue a joint statement. Differences on the Middle East and who should represent Africa in a reformed UN Security Council got in the way.

Additions to core membership are possible, but unlikely at Kazan. However, a new category of “partner” countries will likely be inaugurated, representing a tier below full membership. This would mark the fulfillment of a goal in the group’s summit declaration in Johannesburg (paragraph 92).

Much has been made of BRICS’s “anti-Western” nature due to China and Russia’s outsized heft. But BRICS’s expansion across the Global South can only dilute the influence of Moscow and Beijing in the longer run. The Global South may not necessarily be an ally of the West, but nor is it an adversary. It seeks not containment but “hedge-mony”—the practice of multi-alignment in a world in which “US relative power is slowly eroding and the future of the global order is highly uncertain.”

Delivering on Public Goods

BRICS’s most significant on-the-ground impact has been through its development institution, the Shanghai-headquartered New Development Bank (NDB). The bank enjoys the second-highest rating level of AA+ from Standard & Poor’s. The NDB has maintained a high rating, despite having to navigate Western sanctions against Russia, one of its top shareholders. It has done so by suspending its projects in Russia.

The NDB’s dominant shareholders are the five core members of BRICS, each with an equal share. But it is also open to all UN member states, and recently approved Algeria’s membership. Bangladesh, Egypt, UAE, and Uruguay are the other non-core NDB members. The NDB’s loan disbursements amount to about $4 billion annually, much smaller than the World Bank’s more than $100 billion.

But the NDB has some unique characteristics not seen in other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)—no single dominant shareholder, a rotating presidency between the five core BRICS members, and a serious effort on offering loans in local currencies with a goal of a 30 percent share of the total. These have presented no barriers to its collaboration with traditional MDBs. The emergence and maturing of a professionally managed development bank on the world stage without the West’s or Japan’s participation is a qualitatively new and underappreciated phenomenon.

The threat of crippling Western sanctions is a common vulnerability for all states outside the US core alliance system, thanks to the global hegemony of the mighty US dollar. Bilateral local currency arrangements are growing to achieve greater financial autonomy—most prominently between Russia and China, India and Russia, and within ASEAN. Thus far, these have only made a dent in the dollar’s reign.

Though BRICS is loath to call it “de-dollarization,” the push continues to build up BRICS Pay, a platform aimed to circumvent the US dollar taking advantage of digital and decentralized technologies. Heavily sanctioned Russia is particularly keen to make progress in this area. However, there are indications of mixed support within BRICS for any rapid progress. Even as many states continue to slowly build up local currency pathways on their own, progress on a BRICS-driven platform for such arrangements will make only incremental progress at Kazan.

Navigating a World at War

As the “great-power competition” took off in 2018, BRICS has had to confront a world in which trade and investment became weaponized. The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine marked another descent—outright flirtation with great-power war. Since the Johannesburg summit, Washington’s unconscionable arming and shielding of the current Israeli government, which is prosecuting an assault on Palestine and Lebanon in wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terror attack, has brought us to the threshold of a regional conflagration. Meanwhile, a vast belt in Africa, stretching from the Sahel to Somalia, is in the throes of increasing violence and state failure. Far too much of the world is now at war or on the brink of one.

BRICS has so far deftly managed the pressures from the Russia-Ukraine war. The Middle East presents a more serious challenge. An Israel-Iran war with US participation could threaten the stability and prosperity of the UAE and put Egypt under further pressure to act more strongly against Israel. Meanwhile, tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia show no sign of ebbing. These are precisely the four new members of BRICS.

BRICS has a generally strong record at not letting bilateral tensions affect its functioning—the best example being China and India’s competing responsibly within the grouping. In fact, there is the potential for BRICS to emerge as a venue for adversaries to reduce their bilateral tensions as they engage and socialize.

The continuing expansion of BRICS comes at a time when forces of fragmentation are ascendant, and formal structures of multilateralism seem to be dying a slow death. This has made informal groupings central to problem-solving.

For all its flaws and checkered actors, the growing BRICS is among the many necessary correctives to an out-of-balance world. It cannot replace a flailing UN system. But the persistence and growth of BRICS demonstrates that, while fragmentation may dominate today’s headlines, the impulse for collective action, however uneven and fitful, remains very much alive.

However, things started to change at the beginning of the 21st century, initially on a positive note. New U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin established a warm and friendly relationship. Ironically, it was the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terror attack that facilitated this promising development. Bush was so impressed and grateful to Putin for his invaluable help in the first October 2001 Afghan operation that he offered him not only a red-carpet welcome to Washington but also invited Putin to his home in Texas.  Here is a direct quote from GW Bush made in front of Crawford High School students on November 15, 2001:

“It’s my honor also to introduce President Putin to Crawford. I bet a lot of folks here, particularly the older folks, never dreamt that an American President would be bringing the Russian President to Crawford, Texas. A lot of people never really dreamt that an American President and a Russian President could have established the friendship that we have. We were enemies for a long period of time. When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school students can know Russia as a friend; that we’re working together to break the old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can work together to make the world more peaceful.”

At the follow-up reception at the Russian Embassy upon returning from Texas, Putin emotionally pledged to the U.S. VIP guests that “we are ready to be as close to America as it is ready.”

Regrettably, it didn’t take too much time for those who believed that the new era of U.S.-Russia relations had begun to be disappointed when Bush quickly “thanked” Putin through the “democracy promotion” crusade on post-Soviet space, abrogation of the ABM treaty, and worst of all, pushing for Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO.

Putin felt betrayed and responded with a bitter statement at the February 2007 Munich Security Conference. He said the U.S. self-proclaimed dominance resulted in “no one feels safe!” and emphasized how Russia perceived eastward expansion as a threat: “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?” 

The first case after this speech, when Putin challenged U.S. dominance, was a decisive rebuff to Georgia’s attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in August 2008. The then-President of Georgia, Saakashvili, counted on U.S. military support, but it was only verbal. Eventually, Saakashvili was arrested by the new Georgian government, which recently apologized to Russia for his actions in 2008.   

At the same time, irreversible changes have occurred over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War. The Asia-Pacific region began to play a more significant role in the world’s financial and economic systems. China’s gross domestic product has almost reached the American level. Russia has recovered from the horrors of the 1990s, which oligarchs and Western advisors inflicted. Members of the U.S. Congress have admitted this in their September 2000 report. Also, the “Asian tigers” and African countries have begun to rise to the occasion, with some demonstrating good economic and demographic indicators. 

The next significant move away from a unipolar world order came in June 2009, when, at their first summit, the BRIC states (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) affirmed their commitment to a multipolar world order and global noninterventionism. They called for a new international reserve currency as an alternative to the U.S. dollar. In 2011, South Africa joined the organization, and the group’s acronym changed to BRICS.  Now, it is called BRICS+ after five new  countries – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates joined the alliance.

Recently, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor relayed that 34 countries had formally submitted expressions of interest in joining the bloc, more than 20 of which had actively submitted membership applications.

Suddenly, Washington has found itself in a situation where its ambitions do not match the available ammunition. The world order built by the U.S. does not suit not only those whom the State Department calls the new “axis of evil” or “revanchists” (like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) but also the overwhelming majority of what is now called the “Global South.” A world without aggressive wars, sanctions, information attacks and defamation, income inequality, and contempt for the environment – this is what people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are striving for.

One could say that BRICS + is the reincarnation of the Non-Aligned Movement, filled with much more content. BRICS+ unites two permanent members of the UN Security Council, three nuclear powers, and four on the list of the largest economies on the planet. 

At the upcoming October 22-24 summit in the Russian city of Kazan, at least 33 countries will be represented by their leaders interested in building an alternative world order, not against the West, but parallel to it. Members of the BRICS+ do not intend to revive bloc thinking; they want to form mutually beneficial win-win formats, build a sovereign payment system and reliable logistics corridors. 

Their basic principles are independence and regional sovereignty, multipolarity, peace, free trade without artificial barriers and sanctions, and win-win  cooperation instead of dictation and confrontation. 

Let us conclude with the June 2023 statement of  then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, who acknowledged in a speech to graduates of the National Defense University that the short-lived period of unipolar world was over and “It is becoming increasingly clear that we are really in a multipolar international environment…”

Will the new White House administration make a final bet on confrontation and nuclear escalation, or will it join on an equal footing in forming a multipolar world order?