The BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, aims to be a turning point towards a truly multipolar or multi-nodal world that has been in transition for a few years now.
An Imperialistic Structure Does Not End in One Day
The U.S. has managed to build an imperial structure based on more than 800 military bases around the world, the imposition of the dollar as the currency of international trade and reserve, the extraterritorial application of its laws, and by creating a network of vassal and semi-vassal states around its hegemony. Nonetheless, the core of its imperial system relies on the dollar. The de-dollarisation led by the BRICS is driving the U.S. to despair, making their sanctions system increasingly meaningless too.
No empire lasts forever, especially one that lacks a strategic vision, as is the case with the U.S. The American empire lost wars or promoted further chaos in Vietnam (1955-1975), Afghanistan (2002-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Libya (2011) and did not win in Syria and has shown an inability to control its ally Israel, which continues to commit war crimes, uphold apartheid, engage in state terrorism, and carry out genocide. Moreover, the U.S. has been incapable of formulating its Middle East policy independently of Israel’s prism.
On top of that, domestically, its infrastructure is crumbling, and its social indicators are rapidly approaching those of developing countries. The U.S. is the only major nation where life expectancy is declining, extreme poverty is increasing swiftly, and so is homelessness. Its citizens do not have universal, free access to healthcare, as happens in most developing countries, such as Latin America. All these issues highlight the fragility of the empire.
The New Sick Man
Once, during its decline, the Ottoman Empire was known as the “sick man of Europe.” Now, it seems the U.S. is playing this role, or perhaps it’s more like a drowning person: it pulls those who are close to it into its struggle and demands loyalty in this slow demise, particularly from European countries that have greatly benefited from its generous policies after WWII. In Latin America, the Monroe Doctrine is still very much in effect, which is why Brazil sometimes seems reluctant to commit fully to BRICS.
Europeans, especially the Germans, have shown signs of wanting independence, and the idea of strategic autonomy has become wishful thinking. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was economically liberal, listened to German business leaders who argued that the future lay not in the Atlantic, but Eastwards toward Russia and China.
The U.S. did not like this shift and managed to make Europeans feel that they still needed Uncle Sam for their protection. Turning their backs on the U.S. was seen as an ungrateful response to American roles in WWII and the Marshall Plan.
The U.S. meddled in Central Europe and Ukraine, expanding NATO eastwards. This move was highly discouraged by prominent American foreign policy strategists like Henry Kissinger, Robert Kagan, John Mearsheimer, and even William Burns, a former Ambassador to Russia and ex-CIA director. The coup orchestrated by the CIA and led locally by Victoria Nuland in 2013 in Ukraine was just the beginning, alongside the sabotage of Nord Stream by the U.S., all part of this complex game to make Europeans dependent on the U.S.
BRICS Ignites Hopes of the Global South and the Discontented
Once again, two blocks are forming, with some countries caught in the middle. The war in Ukraine and the Global South’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia have highlighted the divisions in the world. The war in Gaza and the resulting genocide, supported by many Western nations while they preach values and human rights, has led the Global South to lose faith in the West’s moral standards. They have denounced its double standards and are nearly unanimously supporting the idea of a new world order.
The expansion of BRICS, with over 40 nations waiting to join—including Serbia, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Nigeria and Bolivia—clearly signals that change is expected.
Some European nations are unhappy with the expected outcomes of remaining tied to the old regime– the EU tied to the U.S.- and wish to be part of a more dynamic and prosperous future. For instance, Spain has rejected imposing extra tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, and Turkey wants to join BRICS too, as does Serbia, even if it means giving up potential EU memberships, along with many other nations.
Bulgaria is also unhappy with its EU membership and is sending representatives to BRICS meetings. Moldova was divided over an EU membership referendum. The narrow victory of 0.2% was due to the votes of Moldovans living abroad. Still in Europe, Norway, not being subject to EU rules, has recently taken steps to strengthen economic ties with China, surprising many Atlanticists in Europe.
Therefore, BRICS has taken on the responsibility of driving substantial change for a new world order. However, it is fair to say that BRICS nations have tried to reform the Bretton Woods institutions—especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—and the United Nations to better reflect the new economic, population, and trade realities, but they have not succeeded.
New institutions are being built within BRICS, particularly the New Development Bank (NDB), which, unlike the IMF or World Bank, does not impose economic regime changes and has inclusive practices.
In sum, there are several political and economic groups of nations around the world, but none has the political will or the capacity to promote major geoeconomic and geopolitical changes as BRICS does. Therefore, the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan comes at the right time and with the right political will to build a better, more prosperous, inclusive, free, and less ideologically driven world. The next step should be the merger of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with BRICS.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
