Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru


BRICS embodies transition from neoliberal order toward more multipolar and pragmatic international system, ‘The Asia Times’ states.

The emergence of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — together with its expanding circle of new and partner members, represents one of the most consequential developments in global governance since the end of WWII.

What began as a loose coalition for reform of multilateral institutions has evolved into a more assertive bloc, advancing economic sovereignty and alternative governance models. In doing so, BRICS challenges the intellectual and institutional legacy of neoliberalism, the ideological successor to postwar neocolonial structures.

Neoliberalism transformed postwar neocolonialism into a political ideology

After 1945, the international system was structured around Western-led institutions: the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, International Court of Justice and the United Nations, among others. Their governance reflects the geopolitical conditions of the mid‑20th century.

Repeated proposals to reform these institutions have stalled. In response, BRICS created the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), headquartered in Shanghai, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank.

By 2025, the NDB had approved over $30 billion in projects, mainly in infrastructure and sustainable development, underscoring BRICS’ ability to act as a parallel financial architecture.

Trump shock

Progress toward deeper BRICS integration was uneven until external shocks provided new momentum. The reelection of US President Donald Trump reinvigorated the bloc in several ways:
– Trade Policy: Trump’s tariffs — including 50% duties on Indian goods — signaled to New Delhi the fragility of the US partnership. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded by intensifying diplomatic outreach to Beijing and Moscow while promoting South-South trade. This repositioning reinforced BRICS’ role as a hub for non-Western economic and security cooperation.

– Security Policy: Trump openly questioned NATO’s expansion to Ukraine, aligning partially with Russian concerns and unsettling European allies. His repeated statement — “This war should never have happened” — highlighted divergence from the transatlantic consensus.

NATO expansion

The war in Ukraine has been a turning point in international relations — and in the fortunes of BRICS. Western policymakers have framed the war as a defense of the “rules-based international order,” but from a BRICS perspective, the war reflects the classic neoliberal strategy of economic and financial expansion.

NATO’s eastward expansion, especially the 2008 decision to open the door to Ukraine and Georgia, intensified this confrontation. Western strategies to sanction and isolate Russia — described by US officials as “sanctions from hell” — were intended to induce regime change. Instead, Russia weathered sanctions and deepened economic integration with China, India and other non-Western partners.

Europe, long reliant on US leadership within the Atlantic alliance, now confronts the limits of its Russia policy. By strongly supporting Ukraine yet refraining from direct intervention, European states find themselves committed to a costly war of attrition.

Europe is now rearming and considering the return of conscription. This transition from “welfare to warfare” reflects a reorientation of resources consistent with neoliberal fiscal orthodoxy: social spending contraction paired with military expansion.

Unwilling to admit defeat in Ukraine, Europe doubles down on its failed policies and now stands alone in the world as the last defender of the neoliberal project.

BRICS’ impact lies in pluralizing global governance

The decline of neoliberalism coincides with the rise of nationalist leaders — Trump and Putin — whose policies, though arising from different traditions, converge with BRICS priorities.
Economic Sovereignty: Trump promotes reshoring and tariffs; Putin champions self-sufficiency; BRICS members support industrial policy and state direction of strategic sectors.

Globalization Skepticism: Trump criticizes the WTO and global supply chains; Putin frames globalization as Western dominance; BRICS seeks multipolarity and reforms to global trade rules.
Populist Legitimacy: Trump appeals to the “forgotten American;” Putin to national pride; BRICS leaders such as Lula, Modi, Xi and Ramaphosa employ similar nationalist-populist narratives to justify alternative institutions.

BRICS is steadily reshaping international relations. By establishing new financial institutions, promoting local-currency trade and advocating for multipolar governance, BRICS offers an alternative to Western-led systems.

BRICS’ impact lies not in replacing the G7 or NATO, but in pluralizing global governance, creating a space where Global South voices shape rules and institutions. In this sense, BRICS embodies the transition from a neoliberal order toward a more multipolar and pragmatic international system.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: Unfortunately, our arguments are usually ignored. I have the impression that you, and President Putin as well, are quite effective in maintaining dialogue with countries such as China, India and Brazil. We see an active process of building a new world order. How is this work progressing?

Sergey Lavrov: This work is proceeding without respite and cannot be stopped. It is an objective process. It is not that someone decided to create a new bloc and started hastily drafting documents and principles for unification. Rather, it stems from the natural evolution of the global economy. New centres of economic and financial power have emerged, bringing with them political influence and leadership in advanced technologies that will shape the future configuration of the global economy.
China, but also India and Brazil, have achieved – and continue to achieve – economic success based on the very rules the West itself laid down decades ago in the globalisation model. At its core were principles such as fair competition, the presumption of innocence, the inviolability of property, and so on.

To uphold and enforce these principles, the Bretton Woods system was established, with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WTO still operating today.

That would be all well and good, but as soon as China began to outplay the United States in the economic game on the basis of these same rules, Washington started putting brakes on the functioning of the Bretton Woods institutions. If today the IMF’s voting rights reflected the real share of BRICS countries in the global economy, the United States would lose its veto power. Its share of the votes would decline, and with it the ability to block decisions. That would make for a very different picture.

For years, the US has blocked the WTO dispute settlement system. China has filed hundreds of complaints there, which would inevitably have resulted in rulings against the discriminatory barriers the United States has erected to block the import of high-quality, affordable, competitive Chinese goods.

That is why we now see a crisis in the IMF and the World Bank. The latter, by the way, has in just three years of the Ukraine crisis extended concessional loans to Kiev worth dozens times more than the total amount granted to all African countries combined over the same period. This is a telling example that discredits the Bretton Woods institutions and demonstrates their politicisation.
Meanwhile, the new emerging economies continue to assert themselves. All forecasts point to this being a long-term and sustainable trend. Naturally, these countries will seek – and are already seeking – a fairer role in world affairs. For now, economic concerns are at the forefront. BRICS countries are not always ready to engage directly in political processes or to put forward specific demands. But when it comes to political assessments of the international situation, there is unity both within BRICS and within the SCO. We reject domination and diktat, and advocate for indivisible security across all regions.

Question: Will this unanimity be able to withstand Western pressure – specifically Donald Trump’s demand that, for example, both India and China stop buying Russian oil and gas?

Sergey Lavrov: In fact, we are already seeing how these demands are perceived in Beijing and New Delhi. Beyond the economic fallout – which has, at a minimum, created serious difficulties by forcing these nations to find new energy markets, transition to new sources, and ultimately pay more – there is a potentially more significant moral and political objection to this approach.

China and India are ancient civilisations. They will not be spoken to in such terms: ‘Stop doing what we do not approve, or we will impose tariffs on you.’ The ongoing dialogue between Beijing and Washington, and New Delhi and Washington, shows that the American side understands this. They put forward demands, but then begin seeking mutually acceptable approaches – ones that reflect a balance of economic interests without appearing to infringe on political interests, national pride, or core principles.

Today’s global dynamics are far more fluid and complex than in the era preceding the Soviet Union’s collapse – a period defined by two distinct camps, the Cold War, and détente. The world map now features a greater number of influential leaders. These nations demand recognition for their economic achievements and insist that their geopolitical weight be acknowledged. It will take an entire era to determine how this new multipolar world will be governed.

A range of outcomes is possible, and this is an active topic among political scientists. The future could see either the creation of new international frameworks or a period of chaotic competition – with sanctions, tariffs, and a constant struggle for influence.

We are keen to streamline these processes, but to do so effectively, we must sit down at the negotiating table and seriously consider the proposals put forward by the members of BRICS, the SCO, the African Union, and CELAC. These blocs have many constructive ideas in this regard. By reflecting regional integration – with BRICS already serving as an overarching global mechanism – these associations are actively laying the framework for a multipolar world.

Some of our political scientists (I won’t name them here) argue that a multipolar world will be formed without the West, existing entirely outside the Western system. But this would not be a truly multipolar world; it would be a separate, non-Western one. However, we all share a very small planet, a reality that becomes more palpable with every technological advance – hypersonic systems, quantum computing, and other breakthroughs I hope our country will soon master, along with the rest of the world.

We are therefore convinced that a genuine multipolar system must embrace all regions of the world, including the West. Even as its relative share of global influence shrinks, the West remains an immensely powerful player.

Question: George Washington, the first US president whom I regard as the greatest US president, emphasised in his Farewell Address to the nation that the United States should steer clear of permanent military alliances, which have a logic and dynamics of their own and can undermine the flexibility of foreign policy and involve countries in undesirable conflicts. That is exactly what has happened to NATO. There are no rational arguments for the bloc’s continued strengthening after the end of the Cold War. Today, political analysts and experts argue, including in Moscow, that a correct response to NATO would he a broad military-political integration of the SCO, BRICS and other organisations. Do you think that a response to NATO’s challenge should include new elements of military-political coordination, if not integration by the Global Majority countries?

Belgium
Source: www.cadtm.org

BRICS+ is a diverse coalition consisting of 10 countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, joined in 2024 by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran). Notably some of these nations are direct allies of the United States.

Faced with Donald Trump’s aggressive stance on customs tariffs, the BRICS+ member countries are engaging in negotiations that lack cohesion. There is no evident effort on their part to form a unified bloc. In response to Trump’s attacks, China and India are strengthening their ties and maintaining significant trade relations with Russia, but these nations are not cooperating as a bloc, either with the other two founding members of BRICS, Brazil and South Africa, or collectively as BRICS+.

While the 10 BRICS+ member countries account for half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil energy resources, 30% of global GDP and 50% of economic growth, they do not propose a different development model.

BRICS leaders are deeply rooted in the capitalist mode of production, which has provoked to the current ecological crisis. The BRICS countries support the preservation of the existing international financial architecture (with the IMF and the World Bank at its core) and international trade system (WTO, free trade agreements, etc.).

1. Why are the BRICS countries not condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza?
2. The passivity or complicity of BRICS+ with imperialist wars
3. The BRICS are the new defenders of free trade, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank

 Sommaire 

• What do the BRICS countries propose in terms of the international financial system?
• What is the BRICS+ position on the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?
• Conclusions 

 What do the BRICS countries propose in terms of the international financial system?

Although the 10 BRICS+ member countries represent half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil energy resources, 30% of global domestic product and 50% of growth, they do not propose to implement a different development model.

The BRICS+ countries assert that the IMF should continue to be the cornerstone of the international financial system.

In the final declaration of the BRICS+ summit held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in early July 2025, the following is stated in point 11:

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) must remain adequately resourced and agile, at the centre of the global financial safety net (GFSN), to effectively support its members, particularly the most vulnerable countries.” https://dirco.gov.za/rio-de-janeiro-declaration-strengthening-global-south-cooperation-for-a-more-inclusive-and-sustainable-governance-rio-de-janeiro-brazil-6-july-2025/
They also express their support for the World Bank. In point 12 of their declaration, they indicate a desire to enhance the legitimacy of this institution. However, since their inception, both the World Bank and the IMF have implemented policies that contradict the interests of people and ecological balance.

The BRICS+ have stated their intention to bolster the financial capacities of the IMF and enhance the legitimacy of the World Bank.

The BRICS countries express a desire for improved representation of so-called developing countries within the IMF and the World Bank. That is all. Numerous authors, along with the CADTM have illustrated that both the World Bank, and the IMF perpetuate an anti-democratic under-representation of these developing nations. Moreover, their governance structures tend to favour the interests of the major economic powers and large private corporations.

In their final declaration, the BRICS countries fails to critique the neoliberal policies that the two Bretton Woods institutions actively promote. At no point do they question the debts that these institutions are demanding repayment from indebted countries.

This stance taken by BRICS in support of the IMF and the WB contradicts the interests of the people and the positions held social and/or anti-globalisation movements. (For further details refer to the Q&A series on the BRICS, particularly the section discussing the BRICS’ backing of the IMF to rescue Milei’s far-right government in Argentina.)

 What is the BRICS+ position on the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?

The BRICS+ countries refrain from criticising the neoliberal policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on countries seeking loans from them

The BRICS countries have emerged as the principal advocates of the WTO, which has been effectively paralysed by President Trump’s actions during his first term in office. In 2017, the Trump administration declined to appoint new judges to the WTO’s Appellate Body which acts as the “supreme court” of international trade, resolving disputes between states following an initial panel’s ruling. As this body has remained blocked since 2017, the WTO has been rendered inoperable.
In point 13 of the Rio Declaration of July 2025, the BRICS+ countries affirm their support for WTO rules and assert that the WTO must be at the heart of the global trading system. The BRICS+ countries state:

“We emphasise that the WTO, on its 30^th anniversary, remains the only multilateral institution with the necessary mandate, expertise, universal reach and capacity to lead on the multiple dimensions of international trade discussions, including the negotiation of new trade rules.”

It should be remembered that social movements, La Via Campesina and the anti-globalisation movement (the movement against neoliberal capitalist globalisation) have systematically criticised and condemned the WTO for its detrimental role, as its actions run counter to the interests of workers, farmers, local economies and nature (see box on the WTO).

In the final declaration of the BRICS+ summit in Rio 2025, which spans approximately 40 pages and consists of 126 points, there is no reference to the suspension of patents on vaccine production. These patents, however, serve the specific interests of large private pharmaceutical companies, whose main motivation is the pursuit of maximum profits.

To understand the BRICS+ position, it is essential to recognise that China has secured an advantage over the United States and Europe regarding production and trade, both in terms of costs and productivity, and technological advantages in a number of important sectors. China has emerged as a staunch proponent of free trade, free trade agreements, WTO rules and free competition, while the United States, the EU, the UK and Canada have become increasingly protectionist [2] .

In the name of compliance with WTO rules, the BRICS+ countries denounce the protectionist measures and trade sanctions imposed by the United States and the European powers. Of course, Russia and Iran, which are directly affected by the sanctions, strongly advocate for free trade, oppose protectionism, and criticise them (refer to point 14 of the final declaration).

The BRICS countries have emerged as the primary supporters of the WTO, which has been rendered ineffective since the onset of Trump’s first term in office.

In addition, the governments of North America and Western Europe have abandoned the rhetoric and actions that once favoured globalisation—rhetoric they had previously championed as a path to prosperity from the 1990s to the mid-2010s, while engaging in a trade war with China. During this period, from 1997 to 2013, Russia was invited to attend meetings of the G7 (comprising the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, and Italy). Consequently, the G7 was referred to as the G8 during this timeframe. Meanwhile, the United States regarded China as an intriguing economic and trading partner (Refer to Benjamin Bürbaumer, Chine/États-Unis, le capitalisme contre la mondialisation, La Découverte, Paris, 2024, 302 pages).

The BRICS countries are are the primary proponents of capitalist globalisation, which is in the midst of a crisis

Now, the BRICS have emerged as the main advocates of capitalist globalisation, which is itself in crisis. In point 8 of the final declaration of the Rio 2025 summit, they state:

“We acknowledge that multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to develop their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation.”

Point 43 of the declaration reads:

“We reiterate the importance of ensuring that trade and sustainable development policies are mutually supportive, and aligned with WTO rules.”

 Conclusions 

The expansion of the BRICS in 2024, now referred to as BRICS+, has generated expectations regarding their potential to provide an alternative to the global economic system largely dominated by traditional imperialist powers, particularly the United States. However, despite their significant demographic and economic influence — comprising nearly half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil fuel resources, 30% of global GDP, and 50% of economic growth — the BRICS+ nations do not appear to seek a departure from the existing international neoliberal framework.

On the financial front; the final declaration of the Rio summit (July 2025) reaffirms the central role of the IMF and the World Bank. The BRICS+ nations restrict themselves to advocating for better representation of developing countries without challenging the structural adjustment policies, imposed debts, or the neoliberal orientation of these institutions. Regarding trade, BRICS+ members support the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has been effectively paralysed since the US blockade initiated by Donald Trump in 2017. They underscore its legitimacy and aim to position it at the core of the global trading system, yet fail to address its detrimental effects on local economies, social rights or the environment.

In practice, China, supported by other members, is multiplying free trade agreements and promoting capitalist globalisation based on free trade, even as the former powers of the North are now turning towards protectionism. Thus, far from representing a counter-model, the BRICS+ countries present themselves as the new defenders of a globalised capitalist system in crisis, to the detriment of social movements and alternatives based on social justice, economic sovereignty and environmental protection.

By supporting the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, they perpetuate globalised neoliberalism instead of presenting a viable alternative. This stance illustrates their intention to enhance their influence within these dominant institutions, all the while remaining aligned, with a destructive logic detrimental to both peoples and the planet.

Far from serving as a means of emancipation for the countries of the South, the BRICS+ seem to act as collaborators in managing a crisis-ridden capitalism that has steered the planet towards ecological disaster, an escalation in armed conflicts, and a significant deterioration of crimes against humanity crimes against humanity. In light of this, it falls upon social and anti-globalisation movements to persist in advocating for alternative proposals: protection of common goods, solidarity between peoples, economic sovereignty, ecological bifurcation — a decisive break with the current destructive model — and social justice.

The author would like to thank Omar Aziki, Sushovan Dhar, Jawad Moustakbal and Maxime Perriot for their proofreading and inputs. The author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this text and any errors it may contain.

Footnotes
[1] Paul Bairoch: Economics and World History. Myths and Paradoxes, Nueva York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993, índice, 182 pp.
[2] There are, of course, exceptions, particularly when the EU maintains its advantage in its relations with less advanced trading partners, for example with African countries, where it remains in favour of free trade agreements.

Russia
Source: brics-plus-analytics.org

The “golden middle” of the world economy

With the world economy transitioning towards what some term as fragmentation and/or regionalization, there may be new groups of countries and regional blocs that are likely to ascend to greater prominence on the international stage. In particular, the so-called middle powers are becoming increasingly active in consolidating their efforts in the world economy, while also exploring the possibilities for reforming the current system of global governance. Some of these middle powers such as Vietnam in Southeast Asia, are among the most dynamic in the world economy, while also playing increasingly important roles in their respective regional integration blocs. The world’s “golden middle” may hold the key to the future growth dynamics of the global economy and the creation of new pathways to international economic cooperation, including via the formation of a platform for regional integration arrangements.

One of the issues with the lack of consolidation among the regional powers of the global economy is the “identification problem” for such members[1] of the international community – while for small and large economies the criteria and scale of analysis have been extensively explored, the layer of middle powers and its role for the world economy have been accorded relatively less attention. We refer to the middle powers (used here interchangeably with the term “regional powers”) as economies with a significant regional (but not quite global) clout/influence (including through their respective RTAs) whose size is well above the criteria for small economies as defined by the IMF and the World Bank. Such economies may include the likes of Malaysia and Thailand in Southeast Asia, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, Argentina in South America.

In terms of growth dynamics, middle powers are likely to account for a rising share of global GDP on the back of the outperformance of middle-sized developing economies. One of the successful growth stories among the middle powers of the Global South is Ethiopia that exhibited GDP growth rates consistently in excess of 6% in each of the years within the 2020-2025 period[2]. Another dynamic growth story in this country category is Vietnam that posted positive growth rates in each of the years in the 2020-2025 period, with an annual average rate of more than 5.2%[3]. Overall, existing estimates of the share of the middle powers in global GDP based on proxies such as the shares of BRICS/BRICS+ or the emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) suggest a rising trajectory, with the EMDC category already accounting for nearly 1/2 of global GDP in current prices (more than 60% in PPP terms) and nearly 2/3 of global growth[4].

More generally, there may be reasons why in today’s setting there is a need and scope for middle powers to play a greater role in the global economy and global economic governance:

• There is inherently less rivalry among the middle/regional powers compared to large powers vying for world leadership
• In a world of mounting geopolitical strife, middle powers have a greater neutrality potential compared to small or large economic powers
• With the regionalization of the world economy it is the regional powers (frequently being the main drivers of economic integration in their respective regions) that are taking on greater prominence in the world economy
• Middle powers account for a rising share of global economy, while also pertaining to one of the most disenfranchised categories of countries in the world economy

Indeed, compared to large and small economies, middle powers have greater scope for maintaining a neutral stance on the international stage. While large powers are frequently obsessed with geopolitical ambitions and small countries find it hard to maintain neutrality and independence under the pressures from the largest players, the middle powers have more scope to withstand such pressures, particularly in case they create stable and resilient RTAs in their respective regions as well as networks/platforms among their regional arrangements.

Despite their notable potential, middle powers appeared to be somewhat left out in the current system of global governance that favored large developed economies. In fact, there may be a phenomenon that could be referred to as the “middle power trap”, whereby the role of middle powers in global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank (Bretton Woods institutions) is undermined by the disproportionate share of votes accorded to the largest powers, while on the other hand in other institutions such as the UN and the WTO voting is so fragmented that the middle powers also lose out, this time at the expense of smaller constituencies.

For middle powers then, the way out of the trap may be associated with the creation of a new layer of global governance – one may refer to it as the middle layer positioned between that of global institutions (IMF, WTO) and the country-layer composed of individual national economies. This middle/intermediate layer could be formed by the regional integration arrangements, in which the middle powers play a crucial role. Thus far, no such layer for regional arrangements has been created in the world economy.

A system of global governance with a regional layer of cooperation among regional integration arrangements would arguably have better resilience with respect to geopolitical shocks both in terms of ex-ante reduction in national-level tensions and in terms of ex-post conflict resolution (as the regional layer would facilitate the role of regional organizations in peace mediations). In the economic sphere, such a layer would benefit the international community via:

• Greater development of regionalism and regional ties across the main regions of the world economy
• Lowering dependence on the economic performance of large economic powers via a more regionalized/decentralized pattern of economic cooperation
• Boosting South-South economic ties that are currently well below potential, partly due to the lack of a well-developed framework of regionalism

The dynamics within the “middle power” belt of the world economy could have increasingly palpable implications for the rest of the international community. Greater consolidation of middle powers and their ability to exploit their comparative advantages in boosting regional (RTA) and inter-regional (inter-RTA) trade could improve their longer term growth potential, which in turn may be conducive to the expansion in the ranks of the middle class in these emerging markets. This in turn could set in the virtuous circle of greater wealth-creation propping up social and political stability, which in turn would support further economic expansion. The reverse is what appears to have been in motion in the preceding decades, whereby a high degree of fragmentation among the middle powers resulted in low impulses towards intra- and inter-regional trade, leaving many regional powers in the “middle-income trap” and depriving these economies of the benefits of growth and social/political stability.

Greater coordination and a cooperative platform for regional powers could lead to the formation of a “middle bulge” of neutrality and a more “normal distribution” of voting shares/influence/policy-making in international organizations and the global economy more generally. Such a segment of middle powers in the global spectrum could be similar to the role of the median voter that performs a stabilizing role in the socio-economic dynamics and electoral processes. This in turn could act to attenuate the power excesses of large powers that increasingly would compete to get closer to the center of the global political spectrum by concluding alliances with middle powers, much as electoral contenders seek to secure the support of the median voter. This appears to be already playing out with respect to such a centricity-driven regional bloc as ASEAN, whereby competition among the global powers such as the US and China has been intensifying to forge closer alliances with this regional grouping.

But while the benefits from greater consolidation of middle powers and the creation of a platform for regional integration arrangements appear to be plausible, the more difficult question concerns the constituencies, blocs or groups of economies that would opt to launch such a platform. Anything along the lines of a non-aligned movement (NAM) lacks a constructive vision and sufficient momentum for economic cooperation. The G20 group is dominated by large economies with polarized and highly competitive ambitions – so far calls for the creation of an inclusive platform for regional integration arrangements along the lines of a regional R20 remained unaddressed.

The rising number of middle powers applying to join BRICS would suggest that such a platform for regional arrangements could be launched on the basis of a BRICS+ formation. Thus far there is limited headway in this direction that mostly revolves around the framework of the potential cooperation between BRICS economies and the two Eurasian regional blocs – Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The presence of such heavyweights of the Global South as China and India within the BRICS core necessitates an open and inclusive approach from these large powers in order for BRICS+ to perform the role of a platform for middle powers.
Another possibility is for the regional blocs themselves to launch such a platform. Perhaps of all the regional blocs in the Global South, it is ASEAN that could lead such an effort, given its centricity and neutrality credentials, its economic dynamism and its diversified network of alliances with countries and regions across the world. ASEAN is also the hub for a relatively large number of dynamic and ambitious middle powers such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.

Notwithstanding its potential benefits, the creation of a platform for middle/regional powers may be fraught with difficulties. One of the pitfalls in this respect is the intra-regional competition and tensions among some of the middle powers that are striving for regional leadership – the competition among some of the largest economies in Africa is one of the cases in point. Another problem is the lingering power of distance in cross-regional trade flows that limits the scale of consolidation among the various regions of the global economy. This is particularly problematic with respect to South-South trade and the under-trading compared to potential among the leading regional economies of the Global South.

In the end, middle powers may be the newly discovered juste-milieu of the global economy. They in effect could become the main beneficiaries of a shift away from a unipolar setting in the global economy to a regionalized framework as one of the possible modalities of a multipolar global governance. The consolidation of the middle powers may enable the international community to build new layers of global governance as well as a bulge of neutrality and stability that attenuates the power excesses of large/global powers. The regional/middle powers may lead the process of a re-assembly of global economic governance that is accompanied by stronger regional integration impulses and a closer cooperation among the main regional integration arrangements.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/middle-powers-multilateralism-international-relations/
[2] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
[3] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
[4] https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/2025-01/PB_05-25_Hung%20Tran%20V2.pdf

Yaroslav Lissovolik, Founder, BRICS+ Analytics

Russia
Source: mid.rulink

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Foreign Ministry Mansion for a news conference dedicated to Intervision International Music Contest.

We are holding this news conference in response to the lively interest in this event. The media commented on it widely. The contest will take place on September 20 at the Live Arena concert venue. General Director of Channel One Konstantin Ernst can share more about it, if you ask him to discuss preparations for this event.

First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Sergey Kiriyenko heads the contest’s Supervisory Board. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko heads the Organising Committee in accordance with the Presidential executive order, and the Foreign Ministry has been instructed to provide support in interactions with our international colleagues.

The idea to hold this event was first put forward a couple of years ago by a civil society organisation named Foundation for the Preservation and Support of Cultural Heritage and Promotion of National and World Culture “Traditions of Art” (also known as the Traditions of Art Foundation). The foundation is preserving cultural, religious, spiritual and ethical traditions and we are helping them on behalf of the state.

On September 12, at plenary session of the 11th St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum, President Putin once again presented the Intervision contest as a vibrant event that will fill up the global cultural space, and is already filling it with engaging reports and news.

President Putin noted that an equal dialogue and respect for national traditions and cultural identity of each country is what matters most which approach, without a doubt, finds a lively response in the hearts of the people around the world, not just the countries whose representatives are going to take part in the contest.

Our Ministry assists the organisers in bringing international participants onboard. Performing artists from 23 countries - Russia, the CIS, BRICS, the SCO, Africa, Asia and Latin America - will take part in the contest. Europe and the United States will be represented by one artist each.

On September 12, a colourful drawing ceremony took place at Rossiya National Centre. I’m sure many of you watched it. The drawing of lots was used to determine the order of performances. Cuba will open the show, and India will close it, which is quite symbolic. This order shows the global reach of Intervision. Russia (Yaroslav Dronov aka Shaman) will perform under number 9.

The contestants will perform songs in their national languages ​​as was agreed in advance. Hopefully, the audience and thousands and thousands, millions of viewers around the world - the show will be broadcast on almost all continents - will sense the atmosphere of harmony, mutual respect and friendship.

In addition to the performing artists who are already in Moscow, we are expecting honorary guests from the participating countries. I’m convinced that the guests and the audience members will get the most colourful impressions. At least, the Traditions of Art Foundation and the organisations represented here are doing their best to make it happen, and to make sure that this event gets seared in people’s memories and leaves the best impressions.

Question: Is there a plan to make the Eurovision banner transferable in some sense, so that people can not only visit us but we will also be able to visit other countries in future for semi-finals and qualifying events?

Sergey Lavrov: The Intervision banner, correct?

Question: Of course, the Intervision banner.

Sergey Lavrov: You said “Eurovision.”

Question: You see – the devil’s led me astray. One more question. Konstantin Ernst has already spoken about the voting system. This is interesting because, after years of working on another contest, we faced unfairness there – when audiences awarded our country, among other favourites, the maximum points, yet the jury turned everything upside down. We all hope this time everything will be fair and honest. Will it?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the first part of the question. Interest in this project is substantial. Twenty-three countries are participating alongside Russia, with more having expressed interest. We imposed no restrictions.

We are pleased that all continents will be represented – except Australia. The Australians have their own affairs. Several of our colleagues have already shown interest in hosting the contest next year or in two years’ time. Following the well-trodden path of the Games of the Future, I hope we can make this an annual event. At the very least, as mentioned, there is clear interest. There is every reason to build on the experience accumulated in Moscow – including broadcast logistics and fan zones (many regions have expressed interest in organising these). Demand for such elements is high.

I hope we will soon announce – if not during the final, then shortly after – where the next contest is planned and which country has extended the invitation.

On the voting system: we consulted with Channel One, which has experience in voting mechanisms, including those used in KVN (Club of the Merry and Quick-Witted), which I consider among the most democratic.

But this is the first contest. We are reviving the Soviet-era Intervision, yet we must account for contemporary realities. It was agreed that the jury will comprise representatives from each participating country. The proposed voting system has been universally accepted. Further adjustments will be overseen by the organisers – primarily the Art Traditions Foundation, which proposed this initiative with the backing of the President of Russia. Innovation demands both lessons from past experiences and creative solutions.

Question: Technically, how will the Intervision broadcast differ from our flagship broadcasts – such as those for Victory Day or Navy Day?

Sergey Lavrov (adding after Konstantin Ernst): Let me reveal a secret. During preparatory discussions, Konstantin Ernst admitted that television viewers will see far more than the live audience at Live Arena.

Question: How would you assess preparations for Intervision? Has the Russian Foreign Ministry facilitated simplified visa issuance for participants and spectators?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the Foreign Ministry’s role in preparations, I thank colleagues for acknowledging our efforts.

We have a Department for Multilateral Humanitarian Cooperation and Cultural Relations. Its director, Alexander Alimov, is present here. The overseeing Deputy Minister, Aleksandr Pankin, has been actively supporting the Art Traditions Foundation, working closely with them while leaving creative matters to the organisers. Everyone here has provided robust assistance.

Visas were issued to participants, guests, and foreign journalists covering the event under the most streamlined, convenient, and gratuitous procedures.

We coordinated a special customs regime with the Federal Customs Service of Russia, which has been positively received by those arriving for the contest.

Question: You mentioned that one representative from the United States and one from Europe are among the contest participants. In your view, is this many or few? Or is this indeed considerable given current circumstances? Were there other candidates? If countries on the unfriendly nations list wished to participate, what would they need to do to join?

Sergey Lavrov: We are gradually moving away from the term “unfriendly countries,” though it remains in our legislation. However, as President Vladimir Putin recently emphasised during an event in Vladivostok, for us there are no unfriendly countries – only nations whose governments pursue unfriendly policies toward the Russian Federation.

As for whether this is many or few – we did not approach participant selection from such a perspective. As my colleagues have noted, the quality is exceptional. For us, what matters most is that participants bring with them their culture, their sense of life, their spiritual traditions, and their ethical and moral values. This has been achieved. The rehearsals held so far have confirmed it.
I would prefer not to name individuals whose own governments prevented them from attending. Firstly, this is their private matter. We do not wish to complicate matters for them. Those who wanted to come know full well they are always welcome here. Twenty-three countries for the final is an optimal number.

We shall not speculate about future contests. If participation grows, the competition structure may need refining – perhaps national selections followed by regional rounds. That is a matter for the future. For now, the priority is to ensure the audience enjoys the spectacle being prepared for them.
Question: Why did Armenia not participate this year? Are there any arrangements for Armenian contestants to join in next year’s or future editions?

Sergey Lavrov: Our Armenian friends were well aware of the contest. The question of why no representative of Armenian culture is among the participants is not for us to answer. We would have been delighted to welcome everyone, including our Armenian friends.

Question: Could Intervision become a long-term instrument of soft power, consolidating not so much around Russia as around the idea of sovereignty and resistance to the Westernisation of musical and cultural spaces? What is the fundamental difference between this music contest and Eurovision?
Sergey Lavrov: We are not pursuing any political effect. Our aim is for humanity’s original purpose and identity to be respected and realised through free interaction with others, enriching one another by engaging with each other’s spiritual values. The way participants – already in Moscow – spend time together, rehearsing at various venues and exploring the capital’s beauty, demonstrates that this is something they value. I am confident they will later share their experiences, thus further boosting interest in the contest.

The concept of soft power was introduced long ago – not by us, but primarily by our American colleagues, Hollywood, and the US Agency for International Development, which was recently disbanded by the Trump administration. All of this is soft power. In Soviet times, we had experience with the House of Friendship with Peoples of Foreign Countries. Should this be seen as an attempt to achieve political results? Perhaps. But at its core lies friendship. Today, we meet those who studied in the USSR and later in the Russian Federation, as well as those involved in friendship society initiatives. The sincerity of their satisfaction with these enduring bonds is plain to see. If this influences the policies of their respective nations’ leaderships, then so be it – but it is the result of genuine engagement, not ultimatums.

I saw a video by one of the leaders of Cirque du Soleil, speaking enthusiastically about Intervision and expressing a desire to attend. Now, we see art and sports being weaponised in political struggles.

We are criticised: “You dislike Eurovision because you’re barred from it – hence you invented Intervision.” A year ago, they said Russia invented the Games of the Future and BRICS Games after being excluded from the Olympics. Let those with such a mindset draw their own conclusions. At the World Youth Festival and the Games of the Future, I observed participants taking pride in showcasing their traditions and culture on international platforms – platforms free from discrimination or the imposition of modern reinterpretations, like the rewriting of The Last Supper we witnessed at the Paris Olympics opening ceremony. This alone has a positive impact on them. If so, we are glad to foster the natural, God-given human capacity for goodwill.

Question: You mentioned that the Intervision contest will be broadcast on almost all continents. Will the broadcast be translated? If so, into what languages? Will just the ceremony be translated, or songs will be, too?

Sergey Lavrov: As earlier agreed, the songs will be performed in national languages ​​(the Traditions of Art Foundation came up with this initiative). To be specific, it’s up to the performers. Songs may be performed in a foreign language, but songs in the national language are preferred. Most of the artists will do just that. I’m not sure the lyrics need translation. The music and the vibes created by a performer is what matters most.

Speaking of the broadcast, Konstantin Ernst maintains contacts with many of his colleagues, and most of them have appointed a national broadcaster.

Question: How is Intervision different from Eurovision? Some people in the West are saying there’s an element of politics in Eurovision. However, today we see the Kremlin, the Presidential Executive Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Government present here. Isn’t this a telling sign that Intervision is a purely geopolitical project?

Sergey Lavrov: In some countries, governments are formed following their own guidelines, and governments do not create special mechanisms to support culture. That’s their choice. In the United States and in your country, the United Kingdom, there are no people’s artists or merited artists. An artist is an artist. We have this tradition. The state supports arts, theatre, and the cinema industry.
Your question betrays your fear of competition. Remember, some in the West were up in arms against the Games of the Future when they cleansed the Olympics of strong Russian competitors, and then saw that Russia made the Games of the Future no less significant than the Olympic Games and just as popular. Then, they, including the International Association of Athletics Federations headed by your compatriot Sebastian Coe, planned to ban the athletes who took part in the Games of the Future and the BRICS Games from participating in the Olympic Games.

One must not forget that what we are doing is diametrically opposite to the attempts to use sports, art, and any other human activities for political gains. True, people from other countries get to know us better through events like the World Festival of Youth and Students, the Games of the Future, the BRICS Games, Intervision, and other cultural projects, and they get along with us better than those who ignore us and avoid communication, as almost all of Europe is doing now.

As opposed to the US Agency for International Development, we are not looking to gain leverage over other governments. What the Trump administration has done with it shows that this administration is not willing to use these tools for purposes that eventually come to the surface and clearly show that someone is meddling in other countries’ internal affairs.

There is no point in being afraid of competition. If someone enjoys watching Eurovision, they can do so in our country. We do not ban anyone from watching it. However, this does not mean that alternative approaches to preserving traditions and national cultures, as well as religious, spiritual and moral constructs that we have inherited from our ancestors over many centuries and decades, have no place in our life. If this enjoys great demand, that only makes up happy. But we do not dispute the right of the jury or Eurovision viewers to vote for a bearded man in a dress, or sporting other body modifications.

Question: Thank you for putting together a cultural programme for the Intervision participants. We are already witnessing a dialogue of cultures. The artists are creating new songs sitting in their hotel rooms in the evenings. Will you support this kind of new diplomacy, if the participants decide to engage in such collaborative efforts?

Sergey Lavrov: We will support any and all cultural initiatives. I have great respect for Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko who pays great attention to sports, culture, and other public projects that he is in charge of.

I believe that communication and contacts between people are critically important so that everyone has a chance to have their own perspective on what they are being told. There’s nothing democratic about telling people that Russia is so and so, so don’t go there and don’t ever talk to Russians.
Question: Many Vietnamese are quite familiar with the Soviet Intervision. This is our first time participating in Intervision in Russia. Mr Lavrov, why did you decide to bring back Intervision at this particular moment, and how is it different from previous Intervision and other music contests?
Sergey Lavrov: I think Mr Ernst is better positioned to answer your question, but I want to say why now. Just about any initiative can elicit this kind of question.

If we take the global context, interpersonal communication is in great demand, more than ever. There are attempts to split us and to build new walls to separate us. Visa regulations are introduced to prevent people from visiting Western countries. With these headwinds in mind, interpersonal communication will consolidate the positive and natural trends in evolution of humanity, which, in the grand scheme of things, wants to live a peaceful and prosperous life, and have the opportunity to communicate and to get familiar with other cultures.

What’s the difference? I have no idea. We have a Eurasian film award called Diamond Butterfly. Someone wondered how it is different from the Oscars. It’s a different film award. Why has no one ever tried to pit the Oscars against Cannes? Just because these are Western products, and they get along quite well. However, a product that emerges outside the Western classical cultural framework immediately raises a question: where does this decision come from? Why don’t they knock on our doors at Cannes, or the Oscars? Truth be told, there, too, discrimination has got going. You know, our Chinese friends have a saying: let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.... Let viewers make their own choices. 

Question: What is the significance of the participation of four Latin American countries in Intervision?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe this underscores our positive relations with Latin American nations and their keen interest in deepening and expanding these ties. These countries – Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil – represent all regions of Latin America, each with its own distinct culture, which enjoys considerable popularity here. Therefore, we eagerly await their contributions. We have four Latin American countries, four Arab nations, three African states, five from our shared CIS space, the United States, and Europe. I consider this a representative lineup. We did not aim to impose quotas by continent or region, yet interest has been expressed fairly evenly from all corners.

Question: Why is this international contest so important, and what is its purpose? How were these artists selected? Was there a special procedure?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the second question, I have already explained. This concerns the revival of the contest. An agreement was reached to ensure greater transparency. Each country was free to adopt its own procedure – be it a national competition or public polling. Every participating nation chose its preferred method.

As for the first question, it seems to me that initiatives fostering civilisational dialogue and contact are always timely. President of China Xi Jinping has previously outlined four initiatives, including those pertaining to humanity’s shared future. The revival of Intervision aligns with the need to recognise art and culture as integral to this common destiny.

Question: Why is it important for Russia to host this event? Do you view it as part of Russia’s soft power?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not mention soft power. That was referenced by your colleague on the right or someone else, asking whether we consider it as such. We want Russia and the Russian people to be known.

We regard the barriers erected by the collective West – particularly the role played by the administration of Joe Biden – as detrimental. So, if by soft power you mean the opportunity to make oneself understood, then yes, we are interested.

In Soviet times, the Party and government made decisions to promote a positive image of Russia abroad. Today, we must advance an objective portrayal. We want to be known with all our merits and shortcomings. Indeed, some of our perceived shortcomings provoke envy among many foreign counterparts.

Question: It is a delight to see the Intervision banners featuring the Kremlin and Red Square fly in New York. However, the Western media keep needling us. The Guardian posted an article about Russia allegedly dusting off the old contest, meaning that Intervision has not been held since 1980. Other Western media are coming up with unflattering articles as well. What do you make of it? Maybe it’s just their way to vent frustration, since they are not coming?

Sergey Lavrov: Someone is trying to accuse Russia of pulling weapons out of a chest. Did The Guardian post that? Don’t the British have anything left to blow the dust off? Nothing, apparently. Unfortunately, they keep thwarting contacts between people.

We keep coming back to the same topic. We are for communication and for getting to know each other better. The overwhelming majority of people from foreign countries who come to Moscow for the first time go home with positive impressions. Therefore, the governments of these countries are doing the wrong thing when they take the opportunity to communicate with other people away from their citizens, and it doesn’t do any good to the Western civilisation.

Question: Many in the West think that Intervision is a conservative alternative to Eurovision. Is that so? What’s the difference and what’s the message?

Sergey Lavrov: We’ve been asked these questions several times during the news conference. I’d rather not go over it again and again. Watch the broadcast and you will know the difference.
Question: I have a question about the US participant. Do you think this is a sign of a warming of Russia-US relations? You said during the new conference that this will be a free contest. Are there any aesthetic or value-based restrictions for the participants? Perhaps, barriers stemming from the Russian legislation, or something else?

Sergey Lavrov: These are not restrictions, but rather criteria for presenting national culture and traditions. A participant from the United States will come. The US administration did not object to that, but said it would be a private visit by a particular performer. We want things to calm down a little. There has been a lot of speculation on this matter. There will be a participant from the US. The US administration will not be represented in the jury and will not send an official delegation, but there will be a performing artist from the United States.

Question: I would like to preface my question with a quote from Dmitry Likhachev’s famous policy paper Ecology of Culture. The second quote is from Sergey Lavrov who said, “Intervision is first and foremost about communication.”

Here’s a question from an environmentalist. How do you see Intervision in terms of implementing the principles of sustainable development, such as overcoming poverty and environmental protection, to name a few. Sustainable development is of major interest today. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Sergey Lavrov: If we use the term, then probably Intervision and what we cited as an example - Games of the Future, BRICS Games, World Festival of Youth and Students and others - contribute to sustainable personal development. Sustainable from the point of view of the traditions that our forefathers had been laying down for centuries, millennia, and which reflect the soul of our multiethnic nation. In this sense, yes.

Question: Colombia is among the Latin American countries that are participating in the contest. Is it because it is part of the BRICS New Development Bank? Is it possible for the Intervision contest to be held not only in Russia, but other countries as well?

Sergey Lavrov: We, indeed, began, in conjunction with the Traditions of Art Foundation, discussing groups of participants from BRICS Plus and SCO Plus, but then countries outside these associations, including Colombia, showed interest. We are happy, because a very good performing artist is coming from Colombia.

With regard to our future plans, we said there were such plans at the top of the news conference. Several countries that will be represented at Intervision in Russia are interested in continuing this tradition. Consultations are in their final stage. I think the outcomes will be announced soon.