“I can do things you cannot, you can do things I cannot; together we can do great things.” —Mother Teresa
The BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, was a success. It was by far the largest event that Russia has hosted in years, attended by more than two dozen nations, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, South African President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa and President of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and many more. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were officially welcomed into the BRICS alliance.
BRICS stands for with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It started in 2006 with these five nations but consists of many more countries today. Its mission is to reform the global economic system that caused the great financial crisis and has continued to promote warmongering around the world. It is a peaceful alliance built on mutual win-win collaborations. Last week, Xi Jinping and many other world leaders attended this 16th BRICS Summit…but the U.S. was not there. Do Western leaders not have an interest in the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and consultation? Supporting all efforts conducive to the peaceful resolution of crisis? Respecting the legitimate security concerns of all nations? These are just a few objectives the BRICS resolve to accomplish.
One would think the U.S. and NATO would want to be involved in an organization dominated by many of the world’s most important economies, and emerging economies, paving the future of the world. Even the United Nations was there! But the U.S. and NATO, on the contrary, are not aligned with BRICS. This is because US-NATO is a “military” alliance of 32 countries in Europe and North America. It was established in 1949, after World War II, with an anti-Soviet mission, to politically and militarily protect “democracy” from the USSR. Members “collectively secured” under NATO pledge to protect each other in the event that any of its member nations are threatened…a sophisticated nuclear fraternity. There was a similar alliance on the other side called the Warsaw Pact, but it was ended. So NATO is the only big military alliance left to boss around the world.
In 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed, and in 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved. The question on the table was should Germany join the Warsaw Pact or NATO? U.S. President George W. Bush and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev came to an agreement…Germany would join NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be dismantled if NATO agreed not to add more members or expand eastward. The Warsaw Pact was dismantled as agreed upon by the Eastern world power, but the Western world power, NATO, did not stop expanding eastward. They’ve grown from 12 members in 1949, to 32 members today (many from the former Soviet Union). Their recent attempt to bring Ukraine into the alliance was the last straw for Putin.
Having perceived this action as an aggressive provocation of American imperialists, a direct threat to Russia as a sovereign nation, Putin acted out of self-defense. It’s not difficult to understand. Imagine, for example, if Russia tried to set up military bases or nuclear weapons in Mexico or Canada. How would the U.S. respond? Certainly, the U.S. would consider this a direct threat and do something about it. While Western media makes Putin look like a thug, his response to invade Ukraine and stop it from joining NATO was logical, given his perception of what NATO was trying to do. After all, the U.S. controls NATO and has 750+ military bases in at least 80 countries, while the Department of Defense manages over 4,790 military sites worldwide, covering nearly 27 million acres. It’s rather frightening the way they wield their power.
But is all this really about democracy vs. communism? Or something else like resources, money, and power? When did nations become altruists? And when did altruists become militant? Please consider the possibility that things are not as they appear. Similar to the U.S. election process, and the relatively recent Democratic strategy, NATO’s mission has always been “anti” something. They are certainly not pro-democracy, because war is antithetical to the virtues of democracy. The U.S. Presidency will not be won by anti-Trump any more than the world will be won by anti-BRICS and pro-war tactics. BRICS is the only logical and humane way forward, but the U.S. and NATO are more concerned with loyalty, and getting their way, than they are with logic.
The world is not bifurcated by democracy and communism. It is bifurcated by masters and slaves, by debt which controls limited harder-to-access natural resources (the slaves of industrial revolution and technology). We are taught that imperialism was an “Age” that lasted from the sixteenth to the early nineteenth century…that it’s old school and it ended. European nations no longer seek trade routes with the Far East, explore new worlds, and establish settlements in new territories. But they built our entire global system on fiat, debt, and a limited supply of resources, while growing the world population eightfold. Certainly, they cannot continue to suppress the cost of limited resources with a never-ending supply of dollars backed by military power.
As BRICS has been busy architecting a new system of collaboration, we’ve been focusing on elections and strategies of coercion. The Democratic message is “Hate Trump” and “Vote for us because we’ll steal from the rich and give to the poor.” The Republican message is we can eliminate income tax and become prosperous again by bullying the rest of the world with more tariffs. Maybe tariffs could work for awhile for the U.S. only? But definitely not for the long-term. There is no talk about real collaborations or negotiations with other countries. There seems to be no appreciation for BRICS or the real problems that the world faces and gargantuan debt levels and deficits.
In summary, BRICS have a message of hope for the world. They are working on real solutions to real serious problems, and they are making good progress forward. They can’t fix the problems in the world permanently, but they can make the world a more pleasant place to live by slowing down the rate at which we are burning up precious energy and resources. They are finding ways to collaborate more effectively for the benefit of all. While abundance can be managed with coercion, scarcity requires collaboration for people to survive, and scarcity is where the world is heading. The forces of nature will dictate geopolitics, and he who works counternatural to these forces destroys himself.
“Outstanding, sophisticated, and mesmerizing…a spiritual intrigue similar to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.” —ForeWord Reviews