The Festival of the Russian Threat
The Russian dictator Vladimir Putin extracted as much advantage as possible from the BRICS+ summit, which took place from 22-24 October. He used the event to present the full range of threats currently posed by Russia. Leaders of countries already in BRICS did not appear enthusiastic about such presentations, as evidenced by the summit’s final documents and even some of the speeches. However, it is crucial not to underestimate the risk to global stability posed by Putin’s attempts to leverage BRICS neighbours for his own interests. Primarily, the Kremlin seeks to transform what was formerly an investment-focused economic community, as BRICS once was, into a geopolitical bloc—preferably one in which Russia would hold, if not a controlling stake, then at least a blocking one.
Representatives from 36 countries travelled to the Russian city of Kazan, although the leaders of Cuba, Serbia, and Brazil cancelled their visits at the last moment. Nonetheless, Brazil’s president addressed the summit via video conference, proposing the development of a unique payment system for the group. The situation indeed poses a monumental global challenge. In mid-November, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s capital, is scheduled to host the G20 summit. This group includes all five founding BRICS countries as well as the G7. As of 25 October, it was reported that Putin has declined to participate in the G20 summit due to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant. However, that event would have offered him the opportunity to meet face-to-face with leaders of major democratic nations.
Photo: "Family photo" of the 2024 BRICS summit. Source: Getty Images
There exists a rather unusual theory about the origin of the notion to turn a pragmatic and utilitarian club of developing economies into a geopolitical bloc with grand ambitions—namely, BRICS. Those well-acquainted with the details frequently cite the particularities of Putin’s personality.
In 2014, he received a major diplomatic rebuke from other members of the leading economic club due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which is part of sovereign Ukraine. That year, the G8 (Russia inside yet) summit was scheduled for June in Sochi, a large Russian resort city on the Black Sea coast. This event was meant to take place in a city that was still recovering from the extravagant Winter Olympics of 2014, which Putin regarded as almost a personal gift. The Sochi Winter Olympics were record-breaking in terms of spending, but who considers the cost when it comes to fulfilling an authoritarian leader’s desires? However, Putin was denied the opportunity to showcase the freshly constructed hotels, roads, and sports facilities to global leaders. Russia was shown the door due to its aggression against Ukraine.
Rumour has it that it was after this diplomatic snub that Putin began envisioning an “anti-G7” project, seeking to transform BRICS into an alternative geopolitical bloc. And yet, BRICS had started with such promising intentions!
Photo: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (centre) receiving attention from Putin. Turkey is the only NATO member among possible candidates for BRICS. Source: Getty Images
When Geopolitics Only Causes Harm
The term "BRICS"—or originally, "BRIC"—was coined by investment bankers a quarter-century ago to identify a group of rapidly growing major economies: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. It served as a convenient classification for investment bankers and funds, and this concept soon appealed to the governments of these countries, as it allowed them to coordinate actions to attract significant investment.
Since 2009, BRIC coordination has taken on formal and even ceremonial forms, with the governments of these four countries meeting annually at official summits. In 2010, South Africa joined the group, adding an "S" to BRIC. The first summit featuring South Africa took place in 2011.
In 2014, however, BRICS set a clear course towards expanding the community and transforming it into an ambitious geopolitical project. Ironically, efforts by some European and American politicians to reintegrate Russia into the G7, restoring it to the G8, only fuelled this transformation. In the Kremlin’s view, the G7’s attempts to “reset” relations with Russia were seen as a sign of weakness. Thus, Russia’s leadership fully shifted focus to its own geopolitical ambitions.
Photo: Putin managed to invite both Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (right) and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to Kazan simultaneously. Source: Getty Images
At the start of this year, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates officially joined BRICS. Saudi Arabia has also taken part in BRICS+ as an invited country. This strategic shift towards expanding membership and raising geopolitical ambitions emerged from last year’s BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. By that point, experts began noting that BRICS was positioning itself as a counterbalance to the G7, exploring early moves to create alternatives to the dollar and euro in international trade and as reserve currencies.
And it was a year ago that voices emerged warning that such policies could generate new risks to the global security system, as they may foster a false sense of impunity among authoritarian leaders, giving them a misplaced sense of security from potential international sanctions.
As of October 2024, BRICS+ members encompass around 30% of global land area and 45% of the world’s population. Economically, the figures are less dominant yet still impressive: these nations collectively account for approximately 27% of global GDP. They hold international reserves totalling USD 5.2 trillion.
Putin, in reality, aims to manipulate the so-called "Global South" to serve his own interests. As such, he diligently avoids discussing the colonial nature of the revived Russian Empire he is striving to re-establish.
Credit must be given to Putin’s skill at exploiting the contradictions between developed and developing countries. He plays the “Global South” card, seeking to use developing nations as satellites, attempting to gain some level of immunity from sanctions over his aggressive war against Ukraine.
Putin has further “infected” BRICS by involving Iran—a country bearing responsibility for civilian casualties both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. In both wars, civilians are killed with weapons supplied by Tehran.
Photo: President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy (right) warns of global danger from the UN Security Council podium. Source: president.gov.ua
"...Without creating new and unnecessary divisions of the world into blocs or regional groups."
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, statement during the United Nations Security Council high-level session*
"Putin has violated so many international norms and laws that he will not stop of his own accord. Russia can only be compelled to peace. This is what is needed—to compel Russia to peace as the sole aggressor in this war, the sole violator of the United Nations Charter...
Now, with the third winter of this war approaching, Russia is again trying to destroy our energy sector, and this autumn, they are acting even more cynically. They are preparing to target our nuclear power plants, three of them, for which we have intelligence and evidence. If Russia is prepared to go this far, it means that nothing that you value matters to Moscow. This Russian cynicism will continue to strike if given any foothold in the world.
…there are no different versions of the UN Charter for different parts of the world. There are no regional quasi-charters. There is no separate UN Charter for BRICS or for the G7. There is no Russian-Iranian UN Charter or separate Chinese-Brazilian UN Charter. There is only one UN Charter, which unites everyone—and must unite everyone. And we all know what we must do if we are honest in assessing the situation and genuinely want to stop Russia’s war. And above all—act. Together, of course. Naturally, in unity. Without creating new and unnecessary divisions of the world into blocs or regional groups. Unity always works in favour of peace…”
24 September 2024
“…One Cannot Trust a Country Like Russia”
Peter Stano, EU Foreign Policy Spokesperson
"We can only emphasise that each of these countries (summit participants - TheGaze), most of them, have individual partnerships with the European Union. And we maintain very good lines of communication and cooperation with them.
We can only stress that they know full well that Putin leads a country engaged in illegal aggression against a neighbouring state.
Russia, therefore, is a country that blatantly violates international law and the United Nations Charter. Under Putin's leadership, Russia engages in activities with negative global repercussions. Both individual BRICS members and those invited to the Kazan summit feel these impacts, for instance, through rising food and energy prices.
We believe that all participants at the Kazan Summit will use this event to call once again on Putin to cease the war against the Ukrainian people immediately and to adhere to and respect the principles of the UN Charter and international law.
From the EU’s standpoint, we will not comment on every initiative or declaration of intent by other organisations or groups. If you look at BRICS, it is a fundamentally different organisation (from the EU) with a very different level of integration and cooperation. BRICS consists of countries with many diverse interests that do not always align with each other.
Therefore, it is not for us to comment on their planned actions. Ultimately, if they decide to act collectively, that is one thing. However, most of these countries are well aware that Russia lacks credibility. A country like Russia cannot be trusted to build anything for the future.
As recent history shows, Russia fails to uphold its obligations when it decides to pursue and aggressively advance its interests, including through military force. Therefore, one cannot trust Russia to fulfil its commitments."
Photo: Rumour has it that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud chose not to attend the Kazan summit due to the presence of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured). Source: Getty Images
Kazan Declaration of Intent
The conclusions from the 2024 BRICS+ summit, and specifically the so-called “Kazan Declaration,” are worth reviewing as examples of political language reminiscent of the Soviet era. For instance: “6. We note the emergence of new centres of power, political decision-making, and economic growth that can lay the foundations for a more equitable, democratic, and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity may expand the potential for countries and states with emerging markets to unlock their constructive potential and ensure mutually beneficial, inclusive, and fair economic globalisation and cooperation.”
If one removes certain embellishments from these wordy constructions, what remains are ambitions for global dominance and the rule of brutal power – nothing more and nothing less.
In reality, Ukraine is forced to wage a typical anti-colonial war for its survival against an aggressive empire – Russia, which is attempting to reclaim its former colony, Ukraine.
However, the Kremlin is not merely trying to reclaim its former colony; it also feigns indignation over the sanctions imposed upon it: “10. We are deeply concerned about the negative impact of illegitimate unilateral coercive measures, including unlawful sanctions.”
And the highlight of this document – a claim to a world currency of its own, a project proposed by Russia: “12. We recognise the defining role of BRICS in the process of improving the international monetary and financial system… In this regard, we note the Analytical Report of the Russian BRICS chairmanship on the improvement of the IMFS…”
This is a particularly intriguing point in light of Russia’s colossal issue with sanctions, which has compelled it to conduct trade using Chinese yuan and Indian rupees. If we look back over the past 70 years, only violators of international law and dictatorial regimes have expressed discomfort with the traditional reserve currencies (US dollar, euro, British pound, Swiss franc).
Moreover, the Kazan Declaration includes clauses hinting at the desire to establish a system of international settlements that would be effectively isolated from global financial markets. This seems to be an attempt to shield itself from future international economic sanctions, including the freezing of central bank assets in states subject to such sanctions.
The irony lies in the fact that in informational materials for summit participants, the Russian side politely yet persistently recommended that they carry cash – dollars and euros. Why? The reason is that international bank cards do not function in Russia due to the same sanctions. Yes, the Chinese payment system UnionPay cooperates with Russian banks to bypass sanctions, but even it is not consistently reliable or universally accepted in Russia.
The Kazan Declaration carefully expressed concerns about all known armed conflicts worldwide. However, regarding the aggressive invasion of Ukraine, the declaration was extremely concise – a mere few lines in a 43-page document. Those lines had an unmistakably cold tone.
Among the most prominent guests at the Kazan summit were Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. On the sidelines of the summit, they held discussions that touched on a highly sensitive issue – the situation around the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh, a region in Tibet over which there are territorial disputes between the two countries. It was really great opportunity for both leaders.
Photo: Painting by artist Firinat Khalikov. The artwork "The Last Battle at the Kul Sharif Mosque" depicts students from the madrasah defending the mosque and their educational institution in Kazan in 1552. In the mid-16th century, Kazan was captured and severely destroyed by Moscow’s troops, with much of the civilian population killed. Moscow made Kazan its colonial possession. In the 1990s, a peaceful Tatar independence movement tried to revive but was later suppressed. Source: wiki
Meanwhile, the visit of UN Secretary-General António Guterres was already branded scandalous and drew sharp criticism from Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was entirely understandable given Putin’s reputation and Guterres’ refusal to attend the Ukrainian Peace Summit in Switzerland.
Naturally, Guterres called for peace in Ukraine in his summit speech: “We need peace in Ukraine. A just peace – in line with the UN Charter, international law, and the General Assembly resolution.” However, Putin responded to Guterres’ remarks with a decidedly ungracious retort: “It’s no longer hidden that there are aims to deliver a strategic defeat to our country… Frankly, this is an illusory calculation, one that could only be made by those who know nothing of Russian history.” Putin’s response was not only discourteous but also revealed his own poor knowledge of his country’s history. In the 20th century alone, Russia lost several wars, the most notable being against Japan in Manchuria in 1905, the First World War, the war against Poland in 1921, and in Afghanistan in 1988.
So why did António Guterres risk criticism for visiting a war criminal, especially since the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Putin? Certainly not for sampling Kazan’s local delicacies – a festive Tatar dish made of fried dough and honey. Two theories exist, neither of which is confirmed. The first, very respectable in appearance, suggests that Guterres was engaged in shuttle diplomacy, attempting to persuade Putin to negotiate peace. Possible, but not very likely, especially given Putin’s public reaction to Guterres’ call for peace in Ukraine.
The second theory suggests that the UN leadership seeks to bolster its base to secure new budgets and more autonomy. This independence seems essential for international officials following scandalous allegations of ties between UN agency personnel and terrorists in the Middle East. However, this theory seems almost too conspiratorial and sophisticated to be close to reality.