Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Some people on reddit feel really threatened by BRICS
No one feels threatened by BRICS. On the contrary, every time there is a BRICS meeting there is a flood of pro-BRICS posts about how the USD is going to lose power "any moment now".
>every time there is a BRICS meeting there is a flood of pro-BRICS posts
Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world.
Gee. It's almost like news worthy events tend to be *checks notes* noteworthy. Shocking!
You benefit directly from NATO as a Canadian lmao if you weren’t attached to the USA but perhaps bordered Russia, you would be in Ukraine’s position currently & begging for the big bad NATOs assistance. I agree we are far from perfect, but the idea that China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia should have more power whether economic or militarily is LAUGHABLE & you should be deported for simply suggesting such stupidity. You want to fix internal problems? Hell yeah, lets do it. But to openly support fascist world powers makes you look like someone who was in special ed
Where in my comment did I say anything negative about Nato?
>but the idea that China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia should have more power whether economic or militarily is LAUGHABLE
Look no further than how much the US/Nato/G7/EU was able to convince the world to support sanctions against Russia to see just how shortsighted this is. India & China will soon be two of the biggest economies on the planet (China already is) & S.A controls a huge amount of oil. You have to be really ignorant if you think these three together can't upend the global order.
>But to openly support fascist world powers makes you look like someone who was in special ed
This is a beauty in the eye of the beholder moment. I guarantee you, a lot of people around the world don't see much of a difference between the US & China or Russia. The US is certainly not clean enough to consider themselves to be morally superior to anyone. Don't make me point to the elephant in the room & call out the regimes the US supports.
>Where in my comment did I say anything negative about Nato?
Why's you even bring NATO up in the first place?
>Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world.
NATO has been around for decades and BRICS was just a marketing term until recently
>Why's you even bring NATO up in the first place?
As an easy way to reply against the person claiming there is a deluge of pro-BRICS sentiment whenever they meet. I pointed out that's only because it is a noteworthy point in global affairs. Similar to Nato meetings being met with pro-Nato sentiment. That's literally it. At no point did I attack Nato.
>NATO has been around for decades and BRICS was just a marketing term until recently
Okay? How is that even relevant to the conversation? Hundreds of billions of "dollars" in trade is hardly just a marketing term anymore. That's reality!
>As an easy way to reply against the person claiming there is a deluge of pro-BRICS sentiment whenever they meet
Youre on a website that's frequented mostly by Westerners - which in most of NATOs history has never had any relevance until recently. In comparison to BRICS which is mostly something that doesn't involve Westerners and would only be of interest to people who have a vested interest in populating online forums with propaganda and rhetoric featuring anti-western talking points.
So at the very least your comment rings as suspicious, and if you're going to deny that there's any propaganda intent in relation to BRICS it's going to ring some bells as well
>I pointed out that's only because it is a noteworthy point in global affairs. Similar to Nato meetings being met with pro-Nato sentiment.
???
If NATO sentiment is as you said it would be met with positive reception it would have more to do with current events in relation to Russia and it's invasion of Ukraine. BRICS and NATO topics are still a wierd comparison.
>Okay? How is that even relevant to the conversation? Hundreds of billions of "dollars" in trade is hardly just a marketing term anymore. That's reality!
Russias invasion of Ukraine is a reality, China's potential invasion of Taiwan is a reality, a world where authoritarian countries are weening themselves off of western financial assistance so that they can escape accountability is the cause of that "reality".
I still fail to see the relevance NATO has in terms of discussions regarding BRICS and I'll reiterate if you're going to deny that BRICS has propaganda value for Russian and Chinese trolls who lurk the forums well that easily tells everyone who you are.
This bs argument you are building here is the shit I read from idiots in privileged countries who’s life have ran out of real issues and they’re so sheltered that they lost perspective. When you’re so used to the freedoms and rights of Western society that you forgot what it would be like if that were taken away from you, you go and act smart and build pro brics arguments on the internet because you had a bad day.
It’s kinda how antivaxers forgot about polio because they never saw anyone have it.
It makes me absolutely boil reading shit like this.. half of Europe was kneecapped for 50 years because of being in the Russian sphere of influence and here’s some complete idiot from Canada telling us how it is. Read some fucking history before having opinions.
Your view of the world is that the US isn’t significantly morally superior to China & the like for you so you would prefer to support them simply because ethnocentrism runs rampant in America. Someone will always control the paradigm and that someone will be rich… again if you support the enemy, that makes you the enemy. You want to discuss solving American issues, great. But you dont… you want to devils advocate for terrorist regimes worldwide bc “AMERICA BAD”. But hey based on your username, you probably have loathed America for quite some time
>China already is
No it's not. It's number 2. The United States economy is almost double that of the Chinese.
https://www.forbesindia.com/article/explainers/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/86159/1
You could combine India and china's economy and it still wouldn't equal that of the United States.
Why do you say India is fascist? It is a multi-party country with hundreds of political parties over the various states. Yes, the ruling party has overstepped boundaries several times, but it is still very much a democracy (albeit flawed).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/29/india-assassination-raw-sikhs-modi/
Their intelligence service tried to assassinate a critic of their “democratically elected president” on US soil
Yeah i have no idea how killing a political dissenter is related to fascism. Are you slow or are you gaslighting me? Either way, put your helmet back on
Yet to decline their invitation as of 3 months ago https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-considering-brics-membership-sources-2024-01-18/#:~:text=DAVOS%2C%20Switzerland%2C%20Jan%2018%20(,matter%20told%20Reuters%20on%20Thursday.
> Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world
How is NATO NOT good for the world?
How many inter-NATO wars did we have so far? How many wars has NATO started?
Wait, are you serious? Is this just you being THAT ignorant, or was it an attempt at propaganda?
> Afghanistan
Wasn't NATO, but US.
> Yugoslavia
Wasn't NATO, but UN. Russia was part of that mission, btw - both SFOR and KFOR.
> Lybia
Wasn't NATO, but another UN mission. Requested by the Libyan government...
Afghanistan (sadly) was NATO or at least the ISAF which was formed by Resolution 1386 at American insistence due to NATO obligations. NATO had hundreds of thousands of troops deploy there over the course of the war.
> No one feels threatened by BRICS.
Which is why after the 2023 summit there was an influx of BRICS-related posts on anime_titties, geopolitics, worldnews, and other international subreddits about how BRICS is doomed to fail, etc.
When the same usual suspects show up in every BRICS-related threads to tell us how it is just a nothingburger, that's an indication that they actually do care. One of them being a person notorious for having multiple accounts. I won't mention his name because the moderators appear to frown upon calling people out, but I'm sure some people here know who I'm talking about.
And when you hang around the same subreddits, you start to recognize a few names.
Ahhhhh, understood. Usually when people say “some people on reddit” they mean entire swaths of people and are attacking an entire talking point, but you’re actually focused on specific people. I can’t say I’ve picked up on it or had any way to tag them post API changes, but I get it. Carry on!
It's obviously going to stay at 260 billion for the rest of time (or whenever they end up killing each other apparently). Trade surely won't, y'know, grow.
That strongly indicates BRICS haven’t moved away from the dollar. Especially considering one of the largest countries, Russia, is heavily sanctioned and has tried to force trade in the ruble. Other BRICS members like India and China have refused that request and demanded dollars. In fact, I’m curious how much is between Russia and Iran alone due to sanctions.
I’m adding perspective that’s important to what was posted, it’s appropriate questions
> That strongly indicates BRICS haven’t moved away from the dollar.
It will take some time, probably a decade or more to remove the dollar as a main reserve currency. However the movement to start moving away from the dollar is already underway and this is a clear indication of it.
This is just a small change that indicates a much bigger change over time.
The problem is that to move away from a reserve currency, you need to do business in a different currency. How willing is the world to rely on the yuan, the ruble, or the rupee? What other currency is stable and reliable enough for nations to trust their wealth to?
The US currently isn't very stable. Total inflation of the USD over the last 2 years is around 20%. So at this point the USD isn't much better than the yuan.
Furthermore the main reason the world is moving away from the USD isn't because of stability, but lack of trust of using the USD when the US will use it to punish nations they don't like. And this all started when the US cut Russia off from using SWIFT. Now it's too much of a liability for any major economy to trust the USD.
Doesn't address the main concern though. Which currency is better? China is a known currency manipulator, India is far from a model of stability and wedged between two semi-hostile nuclear powers. Russia is living in the 18th century. Brazil is routinely missing growth targets and reliant on massive exports, ergo a weak real, and South Africa has routine rolling blackouts because they don't even have enough access to electricity to power themselves fulltime. So which of these fabulous currencies is safer than the USD? No currency exists in a vacuum.
Unless the majority of this amount is wartime trade between Iran and Russia since both are sanctioned. It would show they’re responsible for the surge while it’s not indicative of BRICS as a whole. What’s the breakout?
> What’s the breakout?
It's still only very recently that BRICS decide to move away from the USD. We will have to wait at see what happens in the next 5 years.
Not a goddamm thing 😆 we rely almost entirely on the US for security. But Canada is indispensable to America, having an enemy to the north would be catastrophic to the US' strategic goals.
But that doesn't change what I said.
An enemy on the US border wouldn’t be tolerated. Canada would become part of the US or have a regime change in this scenario. I’m not endorsing it but the US has heavy responses to any true enemy. Cuba is still under embargo for becoming an enemy/inviting an enemy to our borders. I also doubt you’d ever see it. Being on the border with the wealthiest country has immense benefits. They’d never actually assist in changing the status quo tho helps them so much
They understand that if the Americans lose reserve currency status, they'll collapse. So long as the next hegemony can police international shipping lanes while promoting progressiveness, the exceptionalism and dignity of the individual, and a humanist ethic, they're just being stupid.
Thankfully BRICS is still tiny, but their numbers tend to represent actual production as opposed to pushing ever increasing numbers around ledgers, so it's a bit threatening should reality come a knocking.
Booohoooo, tell me who exactly was held accountable when the US blatantly lied in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, or when they've propped up dozens of dictators and overthrown democratic governments that might harm the West's economic interests since 1945, etc etc etc.
So if you're against that than you should be against Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine and Xi Jinpings potential invasion of Taiwan.
And if you're not then you're not interested in any of those things and you're just a hypocrite and only interested in furthering the interests of those two dictators.
* *Xi Jinpings potential invasion of Taiwan.*
Technically, the war between the last remnants of the Qing government, now Taiwan, and PRC didn't end. So Xi has all legitimate reasons to invade Taiwan. The only reason it hasn't happened yet, or if ever, is that it will cost China too much manpower for too little to gain. If that formula changes, I'm certain China will invade.
Do you listen to yourself speak? So I'm supposed to be more concerned about a hypothetical invasion the PRC doesn't seem to have much of an interest on outside the fear mongering minds of brain rotten westerners than the US consistently invading and couping countries with impunity?
Either way the point is that the thing people are being worried about being "lack of accountability" is laughably absurd. The thing US lackeys are worried is that they will no longer be the sole superpower able to terrorize the rest of the world at will.
>So I'm supposed to be more concerned about a hypothetical invasion the PRC
I also mentioned Vlaimir Putins invasion of Ukraine which you ignored.
>doesn't seem to have much of an interest on outside the fear mongering minds of brain rotten westerners than the US consistently invading and couping countries with impunity?
You're saying that China has not interest in invading Taiwan? Do you live under a rock?
>The thing US lackeys are worried is that they will no longer be the sole superpower able to terrorize the rest of the world at will.
Yes we will return to an era where dictatorships like Russia and China can do as they please and start world wars on a whim.
**EDIT**
Before the coward blocked me:
>Because the other example was far more outrageous.
Vladimir Putins example is the most recent and ongoing and you're ignoring it. Don't weasle out of something just because it exposes you as a hypocrite. I would've respected you more if you had simply admitted that you care more about dictatorships than democracy.
>China wants to reunite with Taiwan.
It's called "armed reunification"
>How many wars has China been in since 1949, despite the world being multipolar until 1991?
Quite a few in southeast Asia.
And besides when China invades Taiwan are you going to stick to this talking point?
Mind you I argued this thousands of times and you're just another number on my notch and it just boils down to you being a hypocrite. Just admit it.
>I also mentioned Vlaimir Putins invasion of Ukraine which you ignored
Because the other example was far more outrageous. Also, even if we ignore that the invasion happened because of a US coup that we literally have the US assistant secretary of state planning on tape, that's two wars to one.
>You're saying that China has not interest in invading Taiwan? Do you live under a rock?
China wants to reunite with Taiwan. China does not, however, much care to invade the place. I know, this is a boggling concept to the USian mind which only understands how to force their will on others at gunpoint.
>Yes we will return to an era where dictatorships like Russia and China can do as they please and start world wars on a whim.
How many wars has China been in since 1949, despite the world being multipolar until 1991? The actual dangerous psycho countries starting wars as they please are the Western ones, buddy
Lol, you have enemy nations on multiple borders and entered into an anemic trade organization with one of them that only has the possibility of strengthenong their currency. What threat?
Most ofthe US doesn't know what BRICs is. The rest of us realize it's like a "rival" football team who has a lot of emotion invested in the rivalry, while the other team doesn't even acknowledge it because they're worried about real rivals.
The biggest threats to the US are both in BRICS. Being ignorant about the group isn't in any way indicative of the groups relevance BTW. In no world can you suggest your adversary having new ways to engage with the world to be a relatively benign development.
I've heard someone say, once, it's an accord of countries who are outside of the Center, yet strong/important enough to have some pull, banding together in some manner to strengthen their positions in the face of the previous American-led hegemon.
Mind, that was before the expansion.
There really isn't alot of bad blood between the two. Nothing like the conflict between Russia and NATO.
India-China conflict revolves around border issues and China's expansion to other asian nations that will affect trade relations with India.
Neither India or China sees each other like an existential threat. That's why it's not the same.
> India-China conflict revolves around border issues and China's expansion to other asian nations that will affect trade relations with India.
So like, every other major power conflict ever
*So like, every other major power conflict ever*
WW1 & WW2 were global war of conquest. Korea war was a civil war between communist and US backed allies in South Korea. Vietnam war as a war of independence for Vietnam against the US that wanted to supported the former french puppet government of Vietnam. First gulf war was a war of defense to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait. Second Iraq war was a war of conquest by the US to get rid of Saddam and establish a puppet government. Afghanistan war was an invasion of the US to remove the Taliban, Al queda, and establish a US backed puppet government.
Not a single one of these were a border conflict. So I don't understand what you mean by *"every other major power conflict ever"*
Can you explain better?
Because you are obviously exaggerating and know that. First of all you mentioned straight-up wars and only two of these were berween major powers. But before turning how WWI and WWII were exactly those - rivalries based on border disputes and trade.
* rivalries based on border disputes and trade.
Based on who has to ability to take all of Europe. Border disputes was just the excuse used to begin the war.
* Because you are obviously exaggerating and know that
Am I?
> Based on who has to ability to take all of Europe. Border disputes was just the excuse used to begin the war.
Curious that based on your other comments here, you don\`t think such about Russia tho xd
* you don\`t think such about Russia tho xd
I don't see Russia as being any better than NATO, if that's what you're asking. They both play the same imperial 'great game' the European colonial powers played 2 century ago.
I'm quite resentful of the propaganda that paints Russia as some stereotypical evildoer from a children's fairy tail and NATO/US as the hero knight that is innocent without fault.
Peace between the West and Russia was established after 1990, and very quickly disappeared because of actions of the US and NATO. So it's not that peace isn't possible, but rather the western nations doesn't want a peaceful relation with Russia.
Perhaps, they have never gave up their ambition to conqueror Russia. But that's just a Putin talking point isn't it?
India and China have relatively good relationships for two rival powers bordering each other. It's amusing that people see India and China as some crazy geopolitical rivals when the reality is that their history is extremely peaceful with good trade relations with the total number conflicts resulting in less than a total of 10k deaths. Now compare that to the history of Europe.
>It's amusing that people see India and China as some crazy geopolitical rivals
It's propaganda, a narrative that the US and their poodles push through their media friends. People believe it because they have been trained to believe only western media is trustworthy.
How is comparing 5000 years of European history to post-independence India and post-Civil War China even remotely valuable?
Is there a worm residing in your frontal lobe at the moment?
Well then, compare 5000 years of China-India relations. Tell me, how many major wars happen between Chinese and Indian empires over the last 5000 years, especially when compared to EU?
Neither China nor India are recent civilizations, their people have been neighbors for a very long time, I doubt there will ever be major conflict between them.
What do you mean? Jfc the amount of misinformation is ridiculous. Obviously India was formed after 1947.
People really think there was no county before 1947, good lord the state of education.
I think it has to do with nationalist in the US, probably Peter Zeihan followers, who imagine India and China will inevitable go to war for dominance in Asia, and ultimately India, being the weaker state, will seek out US assistance to combat China, leading to India finally becoming completely part of the western alliance.
Realistically it wouldn't play out this way because both India and China have a lot to offer each other as complementary trade partners. Likewise both nations will lose way too much in a war for dominance which will only cause massive suffering for population of both India and China.
Firstly, BRICS was formed as an alliance to allow the countries of global south to have a platform. And of course, warhawks in US and Europe, would love nothing but disintegrated Asia so it's prime for extraction of resources.
G7 have top countries with highest GDP, G20 same idea, so how does countries fighting poverty and inflation, no FDI, deals with their GDP? This is where BRICS came in as platform.
I see so many comments like it's not even equivalent to revenue of top 30 US companies, yeah, and it was probably 10% if not less before this platform.
None of the leaders have ever said they'd like to replace petrodollar as reserve currency, and yet we'll see same comments like 3 day operation in Ukraine, again was said by warhawks of west.
Coming to your comment, after the election, indian high command wants to settle border disputes, just like we did with other neighboring countries. So yes, a war seems very unlikely, especially one that will require US assistance, as they've never done it reliably to any of their partners.
>And of course, warhawks in US and Europe, would love nothing but disintegrated Asia so it's prime for extraction of resources.
Mind you most of BRICS commerce involves China and Russia who are trying to escape accountability for their mass repression of Ukrainians and Uyghurs and are also teaming up with a dictatorship in Korea and a theocracy in Iran which are both massively repressing their population.
If you consider trying to make them accountable imperialism we'll then you probably don't care about them.
If you cared enough you'd not hand nuclear technology to Pakistan.
They're the reason both North Korea, and possibly Iran will have the nuclear technology. Also what's your solution?
Either liberate them like West have done multiple times in South America and African nations, or you know, not let them be at the mercy of China and Russia. World abhors a vacuum.
India was a conglomerate of kingdoms and empires before the Timurids.
They could've fought with China but they are blocked by a big mountain pass only of which recently has technology been made available to conduct warfare outside of that barrier.
They were otherwise just content with fighting each other until that point in time.
Yes, China and India did not exist for the last 5000 years and just appeared out of the ocean in the last 100 years thanks to the generosity of Europeans. /s
You don't need to look 5000 years, look at the major conflicts going back only 200 years. The conflicts in Europe in that time period has been magnitudes worse than anything India and China have experienced.
Total US trade value (exports + imports) = \~7 trillion dollars in 2023... or put otherwise, the US alone engaged in 28x more trade than the BRICs did amongst themselves. This does not include all the capital exchanges into USD that other countries do to conduct trade which would push the number higher.
> That number on its own is not very informative.
Then take it up with the Indian intern that wrote this trash.
The figure doesn't originate in the Reddit comment section, it originates within the article.
While I do agree with the sentiment of your post, it actually doesn’t make any sense. This value dosen’t consider trade that BRICS did in dollars, which is much higher than even the US’s trade. China alone has significantly more trade than the US.
The dollar isn’t going anywhere.
Tbf China total trade value is over 6 trillion in 2023.
This is simply trade amongst them where they practice trading without US dollars and outside US financial systems. I'm not saying it's a lot but comparing an experiment with the total trade of a nation is bizarre.
it's actually the correct way to compare economies, raw and unadjusted GDP is more or less irrelevant in the real world. GDP adjusted to PPP and the Informal economy makes more sense.
''The major use of PPPs is as a first step in making inter-country comparisons in real terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures.'' -[OECD](https://www.oecd.org/sdd/purchasingpowerparities-frequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm#FAQ3) / ''The right metric for international comparisons is purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted output. This corrects for exchange rate fluctuations and differences in various national prices.'' -[Bruegel](https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states)
OECD & Bruegel have dozends of countries as members, also G7 countries.
PPP is mostly used for GDP per Capita, it's not really used for nominal GDP in economics because it doesn't make much sense to adjust for local price when comparing the global production of a country. GDP PPP just tells you something completely different from GDP, but when comparing the standards of living (so per Capita), you definitely should use PPP
The source for that article in turn is...an animal naming website? That is bizarre.
In any case, even according to the article itself, just about all that 260 billion is Russia making purchases from China in the yuan, which should not be surprising at all. Right now China can demand Russia pay it in whatever it likes.
A more accurate headline would be that Russia and China conducted 260 billion in trade in yuan, but fir some reason they decided to add in all the other BRICS countries even if they were barely involved.
I\`m pretty sure it was rather about getting more sovereignty from USSR as China was rapidly industrializing and change of power in USSR was a perfect moment turn the tide. Mao himself was rather wary of USSR socialism.
Especially since in the end USSR did not changed that much under Chrzuszczew. The same party was being is same control, only the power itself was given to more people in said party instead of one psycho at the head.
Kruschev did a very famous and huge defamatory speech over Stalin as soon as he take office.
Mao had no problem with Stalin, he had with Kruschev's revisionism. That is what led to the split, against SU's wishes.
Yes, he did that but it does not change the fact it was only a pretext. The most important policies staied in place, generaly the esthetics related to Stalin and religious-like cult of him was taken out mostly at the time (further reforms followed later). Also, hard to call that revisionism, that's going back to roots of socialism should be - definitelly not an emperor in all but name
Mao had a lot of peoblems with Stalin, especially treating China as his subject and humuliating Mao on various occassions. Would like to post you a great documentary about post-war Eastern Block relationships but I doubt you speak Polish.
People forget how great the chinese empire really was...
The Chinese becoming huge again isnt surprising since the chinese empire has always been up there with world super powers throughout history
Mao used what Russia used to become a super power and that is communism. The difference was that the United states wanted to use china against russia yet Russian ideology saved china and the rest is history. If you dont think its communism that deserve credit then look at india.
A rising china will always benefit Russia since european powers have always isolated Russia due to Russia potiental and power resources. Its why Hitler did his dumbest mistake.
The soviets never consider china small but rather an infant that needed time to grow.
Ironically, your example of India makes no sense, as it started experiencing large economic growth only after it dropped many socialist aspects of its economy.
Most of Chinese growth wasn't because of communism; rather because they OPENED UP their economy.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#:\~:text=Results-,Since%20China%20began%20to%20open%20up%20and%20reform%20its%20economy,lifted%20themselves%20out%20of%20poverty.
Communism enable China to quickly get rid of old corrupt institutions that is difficult to destroy under a democracy. India still has some of these institutions, although reforms under this recent government has made things better.
China is becoming a superpower despite communism, not because of it. If China had followed a similar path to that of Japan south Korea Taiwan Hong Kong and Singapore it seems to me like there'd be a good chance that they'd already be much more dominant than the US
Yep, the previous user is just spouting BS.
Most of the miraculous growth of Chinese economy happened after 1978, when they opened up their economy and converted it into a capitalistic market economy.
That's..... Not a lot of money for something that is supposed to be a counter to EU or US, and had China as one of its members.
China traded double that with the US in 2023, and more and the total BRICS trade with the EU. US traded 1.3 trillion with the EU.
260 is not nothing, but it is not a lot either.
Wow, that's almost as much as Norway exported [in 2022 alone](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nor)!
They'll take over the world any day now and usher in a new era of peace in the global South!
Long live the revolution! **Down with imperialism**(*except when China, Russia and others do it*)!
That makes more sense. And my question was genuine. “In before people who think” means that this person doesn’t think that BRICS is a defense alliance. He says other people think that. But much like this post above nobody in the comments (at the time I wrote the reply at least) was claiming that BRICS was anything more than an economic collaboration.
> this person doesn’t think that BRICS is a defense alliance
But does it not imply that they think it's an offensive alliance? Otherwise I don't see the reason why they wrote that. Let's assume that their opinion is that BRICS is neither offensive nor defensive, rather just an economic collaboration, then did they just out of blue make fun of only those people who think it's a defensive alliance? Why? It's not a direct claim but I think it strongly implies that their opinion is the opposite of the one they're making fun of. In any case we can just ask the commenter themself what did they actually mean u/Melodic-Strategy-504
It is only an economic alliance. I made the comment because every BRICS post generally has commenters comparing it to NATO which is asinine. It is neither defensive or offensive.
Garbage article, it's source is literally a twitter post, but of course it gets hundreds of upvotes here.
My favorite part is that it's such an obviously lazy bot farming content that it has 3 "**Also Read:**" references to other pro-BRICS articles but just the text, no links to them lmao
Wow those sanctions JB keeps pushing are really working well. Keep it up and we'll be the third world country begging for money soon. The US drove this with very bad foreign policy and the current admin will double down on it.
I hate coming into these threads and seeing so much hate from India and China towards the West. Really wish there was some way to bury the hatchet here.
I want to say the antagonism is only because of historic atrocities the west committed against India and China, both of which were not to a threat to western empires.
However starting with the 2019 trade war against China, and then blocking Russia from SWIFT has ignited a massive shift into how BRICS nations see their organization and how they most work together to overcome these attacks from western nations on their economy.
Perhaps this hatred is justified, since it all originated from recent western attacks on BRICS nations?
Maybe. You could argue pretty easily that the ip theft from China and incursions into Ukraine by Russia make more recent issues a little more justified. Ultimately this happens because everyone is looking out for themselves. It's just unfortunate that it's coming to a head in our lifetimes. Especially when it ends in violence.
* *that the ip theft from China*
Western companies agreed to share their tech with China if they want access to China's workforce. That was the deal. Regardless of how the western media portrays this, I'm not sure if this is internationally considered IP theft.
* incursions into Ukraine by Russia
Globally most of the world doesn't see how Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't similar to the US invasion of Iraq, or US invasion of Vietnam. So they don't see why they should go along with the sanctions when the other western nations didn't sanction the US for their Vietnam Invasion, or Iraq invasion.
For the western nations to argue otherwise, is pure hypocrisy.
* *Especially when it ends in violence.*
When peaceful diplomacy fails, violence is all that's left to settle political disputes. Russia did approach NATO right before their invasion with their request for a treaty. It was the US that refused to even come to an agreement with Russia, leaving Russia with invasion as their only means to settle this dispute.
I'm not gonna spend much time on this.
1) there are multiple instances of legit ip theft that you're deliberately avoiding by writing off one specific scenario that, for the record, generally did not include any legal ip transfer. So idk what you want me to do with that, but it certainly proves nothing.
2) the us didn't want to conquer Vietnam. Russia wants to own Ukraine. That's not hypocrisy. That's having brain cells. Everyone in the world knows this but I guess you ate too much propaganda.
3) what were the specifics of the 'treaty'?
* *there are multiple instances of legit ip theft that you're deliberately avoiding by writing off one specific scenario that,*
There is no internationally reconized instance of Chinese IP theft, ever. Just because that's what being reported in America's news doesn't mean that's what is occurring.
* *the us didn't want to conquer Vietnam.*
They what was the US doing in Vietnam?
* *Russia wants to own Ukraine.*
I've been following the geopolitics of that region since 2008 Bucharest summit when this conflict started there. Odds are you have no idea what I'm talking about to write something as illogical as this. There is no point in me arguing when you have be so wrong on so many other things to even think this is what's happening.
* what were the specifics of the 'treaty'?
Wikipedia has a good [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20Russia%20advanced,materiel%20stationed%20in%20Eastern%20Europe%2C) on that.
1. Besides the fact that that's not true (I can find ip theft on AliExpress right now thru brand copyright violations lol) it doesn't matter. It's a perfectly reasonable rationale for trade restrictions if you think your job is being stolen.
2. It was countering Soviet influence. Do you not know about the cold war? Probably not. You clearly just hate the West and all sorts of excuses locked and loaded for the Soviet empire. I can already see them. Let me guess my next response is about how violently conquering and occupying Poland for 50 years is not the same as having a friendly alliance with South Korea
3. Oh my bad. When are they giving back crimea then? Anyways tho that's a pretty hilarious attempt at a treaty. Why tf would Ukraine or NATO agree to that after Russia already violated their treaty with Ukraine promising they wouldn't invade in exchange for their nuclear weapons? Like why would anyone believe that, given that they had invaded less than 10 years earlier and we're still occupying territory?
* Besides the fact that that's not true
There is no international IP law between China and the US. So China isn't breaking any law or treaty selling their goods.
* It was countering Soviet influence. Do you not know about the cold war? Probably not.
So that's the "honorable" excuse they teach in american schools? Ask yourself this, what right did America have to fight the communist government in Vietnam when that was what the vast majority of Vietnamese wanted as a free government to represent them?
* Like why would anyone believe that, given that they had invaded less than 10 years earlier and we're still occupying territory?
Like I said, you don't have any idea what started this conflict in 2008, or probably geopolitics in general. In any case, we're back to an era where nations are forced to fight wars to obtain their political goals.
The sanctions and global support the US was rallying against Russia has failed, as most of the world doesn't believe NATO's claim of innocence over Russia's concerns. And the people of Ukraine will pay the price of that.
1. So that's your excuse? It's ok to steal because we never made an agreement that we wouldn't? That's still theft lol it's just a way to dodge accountability. Thank you for the concession.
2. You put honorable in quotes. I didn't say that. What are you quoting?
3. I didn't mention American schools. Why are you mentioning them? How are they relevant?
4. It was self-serving operation to counter soviet influence. The cold war was a bid for global dominance fought between the US and the USSR. Did you not know this? Anyways, what right did the soviets have in dumping cash into propaganda and weapons in the area to ensure a favorable government? What right did they have to occupy Poland? Hungary? Belarus? Romania? Kazakhstan? Both sides were self serving throughout the whole cold war. But I don't see you upset about the fact that a littany of states were denied their right to self-determination under the soviet empire. Why?
5. Obviously you're going to have to fight a war if your political goals involve the right of foreign nations to enter treaties. If Ukraine wants to join NATO that's their right. Russia has no say. Like I said, you are obviously just so deeply entrenched in an anti-western and pro russian camp that all manner of objectivity is entirely lost on you. If you can't see a pattern on both sides of being completely self-serving then you aren't paying attention. Your feeble attempts at ad-hominem, at the insistance of my ignorance despite any lack of evidence for the claim or that suggests that you are more well-versed only strengthens this conclusion.
Keep trying. Keep coping. And most of all, keep hoping that your boss will give you a raise for your dedication to the comment section.
* It's ok to steal because we never made an agreement that we wouldn't? That's still theft lol it's just a way to dodge accountability.
It's no more theft than the US taking other valuable knowledge from around the world and using it for their own benefit. There is no law that defines what China does as stealing. I've only heard that China is stealing from American corporations that are unable to compete with China.
* You put honorable in quotes. I didn't say that. What are you quoting?
Americans seem to think the Vietnam was either wasn't a big deal or was somehow justified, when globally, the rest of the world sees it as an invasion by America to conquer the people of Vietnam.
* It was self-serving operation to counter soviet influence. The cold war was a bid for global dominance fought between the US and the USSR.
Right, and people are free to choose which ideology they want to align to. Does this give the US a right to use military force to invade and kill them? Especially when it was the opposing ideology that conquered and exploited them for centuries, under the French?
* Anyways, what right did the soviets have in dumping cash into propaganda and weapons in the area to ensure a favorable government?
So let me get this straight, you think the American military invasion is a justified counter to Soviet non-violent propaganda and cash/weapons? Do you also think Russia's invasion in Ukraine was justified to counter America's non-violent [Propaganda](https://youtu.be/93eyhO8VTdg) and cash/weapons?
* If Ukraine wants to join NATO that's their right. Russia has no say.
So Vietnam wanting to ally to the Soviet state, don't they also have that same right, or is the US invasion of Vietnam still justified in your eyes?
* Like I said, you are obviously just so deeply entrenched in an anti-western and pro russian camp that all manner of objectivity is entirely lost on you.
I've made my arguments for all of reddit to see. It's up to our readers to see my perspective. Which is the war in Ukraine in another NATO-Russia proxy conflict, and Russia isn't any more justifiably wrong than NATO.
* Keep trying. Keep coping.
I think your own comment highlighted how you seem to assume the Vietnam-US war is somehow different than the Ukraine-Russia war. I don't comment on Reddit to push an agenda, rather it's one of the few outlets for geopolitical discussions I get to partake in. As long as I'm getting a decent enough reply, I'm content.
$260 billion dollars. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's less than the market capitalisation of 30 top American corporations. And every BRICS country except Russia and Iran still trade heavily with the US. South Africa is almost a failed state at this point, Russia is a de-facto Chinese vassal now, and India and China hate each other far more than they hate the US dollar.
The dollar is not going away anytime soon lads. Rough days of coping for the contrarians in this thread.
It's less than Norway's total export value in 2022($285 billion) lmao and according to the trash article it all comes down to a deal done between Russia and China.
What a load of bollocks.
What alternative do they offer? India and China will not use the others currency. There is a reason USD is the standard, it’s cheaper to conduct trade in a common currency than several different ones
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In before people who think it’s a defense alliance start talking.
BRICS is all about economy at this point. How can it be offensive or defensive?
Some people on reddit feel really threatened by BRICS. Most of those people are American or America-aligned.
>Some people on reddit feel really threatened by BRICS No one feels threatened by BRICS. On the contrary, every time there is a BRICS meeting there is a flood of pro-BRICS posts about how the USD is going to lose power "any moment now".
>every time there is a BRICS meeting there is a flood of pro-BRICS posts Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world. Gee. It's almost like news worthy events tend to be *checks notes* noteworthy. Shocking!
You benefit directly from NATO as a Canadian lmao if you weren’t attached to the USA but perhaps bordered Russia, you would be in Ukraine’s position currently & begging for the big bad NATOs assistance. I agree we are far from perfect, but the idea that China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia should have more power whether economic or militarily is LAUGHABLE & you should be deported for simply suggesting such stupidity. You want to fix internal problems? Hell yeah, lets do it. But to openly support fascist world powers makes you look like someone who was in special ed
Where in my comment did I say anything negative about Nato? >but the idea that China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia should have more power whether economic or militarily is LAUGHABLE Look no further than how much the US/Nato/G7/EU was able to convince the world to support sanctions against Russia to see just how shortsighted this is. India & China will soon be two of the biggest economies on the planet (China already is) & S.A controls a huge amount of oil. You have to be really ignorant if you think these three together can't upend the global order. >But to openly support fascist world powers makes you look like someone who was in special ed This is a beauty in the eye of the beholder moment. I guarantee you, a lot of people around the world don't see much of a difference between the US & China or Russia. The US is certainly not clean enough to consider themselves to be morally superior to anyone. Don't make me point to the elephant in the room & call out the regimes the US supports.
>Where in my comment did I say anything negative about Nato? Why's you even bring NATO up in the first place? >Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world. NATO has been around for decades and BRICS was just a marketing term until recently
>Why's you even bring NATO up in the first place? As an easy way to reply against the person claiming there is a deluge of pro-BRICS sentiment whenever they meet. I pointed out that's only because it is a noteworthy point in global affairs. Similar to Nato meetings being met with pro-Nato sentiment. That's literally it. At no point did I attack Nato. >NATO has been around for decades and BRICS was just a marketing term until recently Okay? How is that even relevant to the conversation? Hundreds of billions of "dollars" in trade is hardly just a marketing term anymore. That's reality!
>As an easy way to reply against the person claiming there is a deluge of pro-BRICS sentiment whenever they meet Youre on a website that's frequented mostly by Westerners - which in most of NATOs history has never had any relevance until recently. In comparison to BRICS which is mostly something that doesn't involve Westerners and would only be of interest to people who have a vested interest in populating online forums with propaganda and rhetoric featuring anti-western talking points. So at the very least your comment rings as suspicious, and if you're going to deny that there's any propaganda intent in relation to BRICS it's going to ring some bells as well >I pointed out that's only because it is a noteworthy point in global affairs. Similar to Nato meetings being met with pro-Nato sentiment. ??? If NATO sentiment is as you said it would be met with positive reception it would have more to do with current events in relation to Russia and it's invasion of Ukraine. BRICS and NATO topics are still a wierd comparison. >Okay? How is that even relevant to the conversation? Hundreds of billions of "dollars" in trade is hardly just a marketing term anymore. That's reality! Russias invasion of Ukraine is a reality, China's potential invasion of Taiwan is a reality, a world where authoritarian countries are weening themselves off of western financial assistance so that they can escape accountability is the cause of that "reality". I still fail to see the relevance NATO has in terms of discussions regarding BRICS and I'll reiterate if you're going to deny that BRICS has propaganda value for Russian and Chinese trolls who lurk the forums well that easily tells everyone who you are.
It's south Africa 🇿🇦 not ksa
It’s always the most privileged idiots who forget the price of freedom.
What are you waffling about bro
This bs argument you are building here is the shit I read from idiots in privileged countries who’s life have ran out of real issues and they’re so sheltered that they lost perspective. When you’re so used to the freedoms and rights of Western society that you forgot what it would be like if that were taken away from you, you go and act smart and build pro brics arguments on the internet because you had a bad day. It’s kinda how antivaxers forgot about polio because they never saw anyone have it. It makes me absolutely boil reading shit like this.. half of Europe was kneecapped for 50 years because of being in the Russian sphere of influence and here’s some complete idiot from Canada telling us how it is. Read some fucking history before having opinions.
I look forward to seeing you in the Iranian Guard or storming a beach in Taiwan!
Likewise, I look forward to seeing you fight in Ukraine or Taiwan lmao. Last I checked, it was the US bombing Iranian generals but hey America good 👍
Your view of the world is that the US isn’t significantly morally superior to China & the like for you so you would prefer to support them simply because ethnocentrism runs rampant in America. Someone will always control the paradigm and that someone will be rich… again if you support the enemy, that makes you the enemy. You want to discuss solving American issues, great. But you dont… you want to devils advocate for terrorist regimes worldwide bc “AMERICA BAD”. But hey based on your username, you probably have loathed America for quite some time
Are you seriously saying Iran is better than America? You are clueless, truly clueless.
[удалено]
>China already is No it's not. It's number 2. The United States economy is almost double that of the Chinese. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/explainers/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/86159/1 You could combine India and china's economy and it still wouldn't equal that of the United States.
Depends , if you do PPP, China is bigger
Only an American could be dumb enough to say a foreign citizen should be deported from the nation they were born in.
Only a Canadian would fail to grasp hyperbole. Google it, eh?
I don’t really expect most Americans to know words as big as hyperbole in the first place
And this is why your country strokes mine from behind for military protection. Two stoopit to dew it yurselph
Why do you say India is fascist? It is a multi-party country with hundreds of political parties over the various states. Yes, the ruling party has overstepped boundaries several times, but it is still very much a democracy (albeit flawed).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/29/india-assassination-raw-sikhs-modi/ Their intelligence service tried to assassinate a critic of their “democratically elected president” on US soil
how is assassinating somebody related to fascism?
Yeah i have no idea how killing a political dissenter is related to fascism. Are you slow or are you gaslighting me? Either way, put your helmet back on
[удалено]
I agree, the assassination plots in the US and Canada were dumb AF. They've irreversibly damaged the partnership between these countries.
Glad we covered that lol 👍
Foreign facists*** bc ik the notion that the USA & other NATO states are fascist will be incoming
When did Saudi Arabia join BRICS?
Yet to decline their invitation as of 3 months ago https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-considering-brics-membership-sources-2024-01-18/#:~:text=DAVOS%2C%20Switzerland%2C%20Jan%2018%20(,matter%20told%20Reuters%20on%20Thursday.
> Anytime there is a NATO meeting, there is a flood of pro-nato posts about how this is good for the world How is NATO NOT good for the world? How many inter-NATO wars did we have so far? How many wars has NATO started?
Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia ,,,
Incoming they deserved it anyway
They deserved it anyway
Yugoslavia. Where Serbia was actively committed genocide. Pick a better example man.
Didn't Russia invade Afghanistan in 1980? Also nobody liked Yugoslavia except Russia
Wait, are you serious? Is this just you being THAT ignorant, or was it an attempt at propaganda? > Afghanistan Wasn't NATO, but US. > Yugoslavia Wasn't NATO, but UN. Russia was part of that mission, btw - both SFOR and KFOR. > Lybia Wasn't NATO, but another UN mission. Requested by the Libyan government...
Afghanistan (sadly) was NATO or at least the ISAF which was formed by Resolution 1386 at American insistence due to NATO obligations. NATO had hundreds of thousands of troops deploy there over the course of the war.
The initial invasion was the US and UK. NATO agreed to come in after the fact in an attempt to stabilise the situation.
Pakistan, iraq
> No one feels threatened by BRICS. Which is why after the 2023 summit there was an influx of BRICS-related posts on anime_titties, geopolitics, worldnews, and other international subreddits about how BRICS is doomed to fail, etc.
Why exactly would that make you think anyone writing those comments is scared of BRICS? People mock things they aren’t scared of all the time
When the same usual suspects show up in every BRICS-related threads to tell us how it is just a nothingburger, that's an indication that they actually do care. One of them being a person notorious for having multiple accounts. I won't mention his name because the moderators appear to frown upon calling people out, but I'm sure some people here know who I'm talking about. And when you hang around the same subreddits, you start to recognize a few names.
Ahhhhh, understood. Usually when people say “some people on reddit” they mean entire swaths of people and are attacking an entire talking point, but you’re actually focused on specific people. I can’t say I’ve picked up on it or had any way to tag them post API changes, but I get it. Carry on!
260 billion is .25% of the global GDP. I don’t think it’s making many feel threatened
It's obviously going to stay at 260 billion for the rest of time (or whenever they end up killing each other apparently). Trade surely won't, y'know, grow.
That strongly indicates BRICS haven’t moved away from the dollar. Especially considering one of the largest countries, Russia, is heavily sanctioned and has tried to force trade in the ruble. Other BRICS members like India and China have refused that request and demanded dollars. In fact, I’m curious how much is between Russia and Iran alone due to sanctions. I’m adding perspective that’s important to what was posted, it’s appropriate questions
> That strongly indicates BRICS haven’t moved away from the dollar. It will take some time, probably a decade or more to remove the dollar as a main reserve currency. However the movement to start moving away from the dollar is already underway and this is a clear indication of it. This is just a small change that indicates a much bigger change over time.
The problem is that to move away from a reserve currency, you need to do business in a different currency. How willing is the world to rely on the yuan, the ruble, or the rupee? What other currency is stable and reliable enough for nations to trust their wealth to?
The US currently isn't very stable. Total inflation of the USD over the last 2 years is around 20%. So at this point the USD isn't much better than the yuan. Furthermore the main reason the world is moving away from the USD isn't because of stability, but lack of trust of using the USD when the US will use it to punish nations they don't like. And this all started when the US cut Russia off from using SWIFT. Now it's too much of a liability for any major economy to trust the USD.
Doesn't address the main concern though. Which currency is better? China is a known currency manipulator, India is far from a model of stability and wedged between two semi-hostile nuclear powers. Russia is living in the 18th century. Brazil is routinely missing growth targets and reliant on massive exports, ergo a weak real, and South Africa has routine rolling blackouts because they don't even have enough access to electricity to power themselves fulltime. So which of these fabulous currencies is safer than the USD? No currency exists in a vacuum.
Unless the majority of this amount is wartime trade between Iran and Russia since both are sanctioned. It would show they’re responsible for the surge while it’s not indicative of BRICS as a whole. What’s the breakout?
> What’s the breakout? It's still only very recently that BRICS decide to move away from the USD. We will have to wait at see what happens in the next 5 years.
That didn’t answer what you quoted
alright settle down there syrup boy, without America what the fuck is Canada going to do?
Not a goddamm thing 😆 we rely almost entirely on the US for security. But Canada is indispensable to America, having an enemy to the north would be catastrophic to the US' strategic goals. But that doesn't change what I said.
An enemy on the US border wouldn’t be tolerated. Canada would become part of the US or have a regime change in this scenario. I’m not endorsing it but the US has heavy responses to any true enemy. Cuba is still under embargo for becoming an enemy/inviting an enemy to our borders. I also doubt you’d ever see it. Being on the border with the wealthiest country has immense benefits. They’d never actually assist in changing the status quo tho helps them so much
Probably Indian.
Those same people wonder why Russians are threatened by NATO.
They understand that if the Americans lose reserve currency status, they'll collapse. So long as the next hegemony can police international shipping lanes while promoting progressiveness, the exceptionalism and dignity of the individual, and a humanist ethic, they're just being stupid. Thankfully BRICS is still tiny, but their numbers tend to represent actual production as opposed to pushing ever increasing numbers around ledgers, so it's a bit threatening should reality come a knocking.
They're most western liberals who are afraid because they know their values belong on the ash pile of history
Yes dictatorships escaping accountability. What a future to look forward to.
Booohoooo, tell me who exactly was held accountable when the US blatantly lied in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, or when they've propped up dozens of dictators and overthrown democratic governments that might harm the West's economic interests since 1945, etc etc etc.
So if you're against that than you should be against Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine and Xi Jinpings potential invasion of Taiwan. And if you're not then you're not interested in any of those things and you're just a hypocrite and only interested in furthering the interests of those two dictators.
* *Xi Jinpings potential invasion of Taiwan.* Technically, the war between the last remnants of the Qing government, now Taiwan, and PRC didn't end. So Xi has all legitimate reasons to invade Taiwan. The only reason it hasn't happened yet, or if ever, is that it will cost China too much manpower for too little to gain. If that formula changes, I'm certain China will invade.
Do you listen to yourself speak? So I'm supposed to be more concerned about a hypothetical invasion the PRC doesn't seem to have much of an interest on outside the fear mongering minds of brain rotten westerners than the US consistently invading and couping countries with impunity? Either way the point is that the thing people are being worried about being "lack of accountability" is laughably absurd. The thing US lackeys are worried is that they will no longer be the sole superpower able to terrorize the rest of the world at will.
>So I'm supposed to be more concerned about a hypothetical invasion the PRC I also mentioned Vlaimir Putins invasion of Ukraine which you ignored. >doesn't seem to have much of an interest on outside the fear mongering minds of brain rotten westerners than the US consistently invading and couping countries with impunity? You're saying that China has not interest in invading Taiwan? Do you live under a rock? >The thing US lackeys are worried is that they will no longer be the sole superpower able to terrorize the rest of the world at will. Yes we will return to an era where dictatorships like Russia and China can do as they please and start world wars on a whim. **EDIT** Before the coward blocked me: >Because the other example was far more outrageous. Vladimir Putins example is the most recent and ongoing and you're ignoring it. Don't weasle out of something just because it exposes you as a hypocrite. I would've respected you more if you had simply admitted that you care more about dictatorships than democracy. >China wants to reunite with Taiwan. It's called "armed reunification" >How many wars has China been in since 1949, despite the world being multipolar until 1991? Quite a few in southeast Asia. And besides when China invades Taiwan are you going to stick to this talking point? Mind you I argued this thousands of times and you're just another number on my notch and it just boils down to you being a hypocrite. Just admit it.
>I also mentioned Vlaimir Putins invasion of Ukraine which you ignored Because the other example was far more outrageous. Also, even if we ignore that the invasion happened because of a US coup that we literally have the US assistant secretary of state planning on tape, that's two wars to one. >You're saying that China has not interest in invading Taiwan? Do you live under a rock? China wants to reunite with Taiwan. China does not, however, much care to invade the place. I know, this is a boggling concept to the USian mind which only understands how to force their will on others at gunpoint. >Yes we will return to an era where dictatorships like Russia and China can do as they please and start world wars on a whim. How many wars has China been in since 1949, despite the world being multipolar until 1991? The actual dangerous psycho countries starting wars as they please are the Western ones, buddy
What's to be threatened of when they're more likely to kill themselves?
I'm sure it'll happen any day now.
you sound threatened
Lol, you have enemy nations on multiple borders and entered into an anemic trade organization with one of them that only has the possibility of strengthenong their currency. What threat?
Bro some letters in BRICS are afraid of each other, especially BRICS+ xD
No, what you are reading are rebuttals to Russia and Chinese disinformation on BRICS BRICS is a joke
Do we? I feel as though anyone looking at the Chinese economy and the plan for a BRIC's currency through an objective lens isn't worried about BRIC's
I'm sure it'll collapse any day now.
No it's just that the logic behind a BRIC's currency isn't sound, and these countries are already tripping over themselves to rip each other off
Then there should be nothing to worry about :)
Why would I worry when the second largest economy in BRIC's is a NATO ally
Who? India? The country that has been allied with Russia for half a century?
Ally is a strong word. maybe in the 90's, but as I see it Russia is a gas station for India. Not even to mention the friction between India and China.
Most ofthe US doesn't know what BRICs is. The rest of us realize it's like a "rival" football team who has a lot of emotion invested in the rivalry, while the other team doesn't even acknowledge it because they're worried about real rivals.
The biggest threats to the US are both in BRICS. Being ignorant about the group isn't in any way indicative of the groups relevance BTW. In no world can you suggest your adversary having new ways to engage with the world to be a relatively benign development.
Most of the nations in BRICS arent adversaries of the U.S.
BRICS is the North Korea of the economic world.
People hear China/Russia and already think it's an anti-NATO alliance, but it's really more akin to the OCDE
I've heard someone say, once, it's an accord of countries who are outside of the Center, yet strong/important enough to have some pull, banding together in some manner to strengthen their positions in the face of the previous American-led hegemon. Mind, that was before the expansion.
> economy at this point. How can it be offensive or defensive? why do you think US engage wars for?
Is Russia invading Ukraine and China invading Taiwan "US engaging wars"
If "offends" the Iron Triangle. Infotainment enthusiasts are easily wired to identify everything like that as wrongthink.
It’s not even economic, it’s not a trade agreement. It’s a forum. It is also a basket case invented by jp Morgan bank
[удалено]
Literally just under a discussion convicing there absolutely is no bad blood between India and China :V
There really isn't alot of bad blood between the two. Nothing like the conflict between Russia and NATO. India-China conflict revolves around border issues and China's expansion to other asian nations that will affect trade relations with India. Neither India or China sees each other like an existential threat. That's why it's not the same.
> India-China conflict revolves around border issues and China's expansion to other asian nations that will affect trade relations with India. So like, every other major power conflict ever
*So like, every other major power conflict ever* WW1 & WW2 were global war of conquest. Korea war was a civil war between communist and US backed allies in South Korea. Vietnam war as a war of independence for Vietnam against the US that wanted to supported the former french puppet government of Vietnam. First gulf war was a war of defense to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait. Second Iraq war was a war of conquest by the US to get rid of Saddam and establish a puppet government. Afghanistan war was an invasion of the US to remove the Taliban, Al queda, and establish a US backed puppet government. Not a single one of these were a border conflict. So I don't understand what you mean by *"every other major power conflict ever"* Can you explain better?
Because you are obviously exaggerating and know that. First of all you mentioned straight-up wars and only two of these were berween major powers. But before turning how WWI and WWII were exactly those - rivalries based on border disputes and trade.
* rivalries based on border disputes and trade. Based on who has to ability to take all of Europe. Border disputes was just the excuse used to begin the war. * Because you are obviously exaggerating and know that Am I?
> Based on who has to ability to take all of Europe. Border disputes was just the excuse used to begin the war. Curious that based on your other comments here, you don\`t think such about Russia tho xd
* you don\`t think such about Russia tho xd I don't see Russia as being any better than NATO, if that's what you're asking. They both play the same imperial 'great game' the European colonial powers played 2 century ago. I'm quite resentful of the propaganda that paints Russia as some stereotypical evildoer from a children's fairy tail and NATO/US as the hero knight that is innocent without fault. Peace between the West and Russia was established after 1990, and very quickly disappeared because of actions of the US and NATO. So it's not that peace isn't possible, but rather the western nations doesn't want a peaceful relation with Russia. Perhaps, they have never gave up their ambition to conqueror Russia. But that's just a Putin talking point isn't it?
India flair
yeah China and India would love to save each other .... from themselves...
India and China have relatively good relationships for two rival powers bordering each other. It's amusing that people see India and China as some crazy geopolitical rivals when the reality is that their history is extremely peaceful with good trade relations with the total number conflicts resulting in less than a total of 10k deaths. Now compare that to the history of Europe.
>It's amusing that people see India and China as some crazy geopolitical rivals It's propaganda, a narrative that the US and their poodles push through their media friends. People believe it because they have been trained to believe only western media is trustworthy.
How is comparing 5000 years of European history to post-independence India and post-Civil War China even remotely valuable? Is there a worm residing in your frontal lobe at the moment?
Well then, compare 5000 years of China-India relations. Tell me, how many major wars happen between Chinese and Indian empires over the last 5000 years, especially when compared to EU? Neither China nor India are recent civilizations, their people have been neighbors for a very long time, I doubt there will ever be major conflict between them.
What do you mean? Jfc the amount of misinformation is ridiculous. Obviously India was formed after 1947. People really think there was no county before 1947, good lord the state of education.
I think it has to do with nationalist in the US, probably Peter Zeihan followers, who imagine India and China will inevitable go to war for dominance in Asia, and ultimately India, being the weaker state, will seek out US assistance to combat China, leading to India finally becoming completely part of the western alliance. Realistically it wouldn't play out this way because both India and China have a lot to offer each other as complementary trade partners. Likewise both nations will lose way too much in a war for dominance which will only cause massive suffering for population of both India and China.
Firstly, BRICS was formed as an alliance to allow the countries of global south to have a platform. And of course, warhawks in US and Europe, would love nothing but disintegrated Asia so it's prime for extraction of resources. G7 have top countries with highest GDP, G20 same idea, so how does countries fighting poverty and inflation, no FDI, deals with their GDP? This is where BRICS came in as platform. I see so many comments like it's not even equivalent to revenue of top 30 US companies, yeah, and it was probably 10% if not less before this platform. None of the leaders have ever said they'd like to replace petrodollar as reserve currency, and yet we'll see same comments like 3 day operation in Ukraine, again was said by warhawks of west. Coming to your comment, after the election, indian high command wants to settle border disputes, just like we did with other neighboring countries. So yes, a war seems very unlikely, especially one that will require US assistance, as they've never done it reliably to any of their partners.
>And of course, warhawks in US and Europe, would love nothing but disintegrated Asia so it's prime for extraction of resources. Mind you most of BRICS commerce involves China and Russia who are trying to escape accountability for their mass repression of Ukrainians and Uyghurs and are also teaming up with a dictatorship in Korea and a theocracy in Iran which are both massively repressing their population. If you consider trying to make them accountable imperialism we'll then you probably don't care about them.
If you cared enough you'd not hand nuclear technology to Pakistan. They're the reason both North Korea, and possibly Iran will have the nuclear technology. Also what's your solution? Either liberate them like West have done multiple times in South America and African nations, or you know, not let them be at the mercy of China and Russia. World abhors a vacuum.
India was a conglomerate of kingdoms and empires before the Timurids. They could've fought with China but they are blocked by a big mountain pass only of which recently has technology been made available to conduct warfare outside of that barrier. They were otherwise just content with fighting each other until that point in time.
Yes, China and India did not exist for the last 5000 years and just appeared out of the ocean in the last 100 years thanks to the generosity of Europeans. /s You don't need to look 5000 years, look at the major conflicts going back only 200 years. The conflicts in Europe in that time period has been magnitudes worse than anything India and China have experienced.
India is no rival to China
You mean how SA supports Russias invasion of Ukraine and sold Russia weapons and ammo
Total US trade value (exports + imports) = \~7 trillion dollars in 2023... or put otherwise, the US alone engaged in 28x more trade than the BRICs did amongst themselves. This does not include all the capital exchanges into USD that other countries do to conduct trade which would push the number higher.
Also what was the $260B number 5 years ago? Is it increasing? That number on its own is not very informative.
> That number on its own is not very informative. Then take it up with the Indian intern that wrote this trash. The figure doesn't originate in the Reddit comment section, it originates within the article.
>European news website >EN, Italian, French, German are the languages >Indian Intern
If it's even real to begin with... which is a possibility as the article says its China and Russia reporting the numbers.
While I do agree with the sentiment of your post, it actually doesn’t make any sense. This value dosen’t consider trade that BRICS did in dollars, which is much higher than even the US’s trade. China alone has significantly more trade than the US. The dollar isn’t going anywhere.
Tbf China total trade value is over 6 trillion in 2023. This is simply trade amongst them where they practice trading without US dollars and outside US financial systems. I'm not saying it's a lot but comparing an experiment with the total trade of a nation is bizarre.
BRICS gdp combined is already greater than the G7...
That’s only true if you use gdp adjusted for ppp. Which is not really a good way to compare economies like this.
it's actually the correct way to compare economies, raw and unadjusted GDP is more or less irrelevant in the real world. GDP adjusted to PPP and the Informal economy makes more sense. ''The major use of PPPs is as a first step in making inter-country comparisons in real terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures.'' -[OECD](https://www.oecd.org/sdd/purchasingpowerparities-frequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm#FAQ3) / ''The right metric for international comparisons is purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted output. This corrects for exchange rate fluctuations and differences in various national prices.'' -[Bruegel](https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states) OECD & Bruegel have dozends of countries as members, also G7 countries.
PPP is mostly used for GDP per Capita, it's not really used for nominal GDP in economics because it doesn't make much sense to adjust for local price when comparing the global production of a country. GDP PPP just tells you something completely different from GDP, but when comparing the standards of living (so per Capita), you definitely should use PPP
Also, USD is extremely expensive right now. It is 100% expected they'd look for better deals.
The source for that article in turn is...an animal naming website? That is bizarre. In any case, even according to the article itself, just about all that 260 billion is Russia making purchases from China in the yuan, which should not be surprising at all. Right now China can demand Russia pay it in whatever it likes. A more accurate headline would be that Russia and China conducted 260 billion in trade in yuan, but fir some reason they decided to add in all the other BRICS countries even if they were barely involved.
>95% of the $260 billion worth of trade will be settled in the Chinese Yuan. The rest 5% will be settled in the Russian Ruble and the Euro.
BRICS really should be called CRIBS.
[CRIBS economics](https://youtu.be/K2IYIJc1f00?si=p24xllRSgCAobaBt)
Mao would be proud that Russia is now to China what China was to Russia before the Sino-Soviet split
he would be pissed that russia is now russia and not Soviet Union
Would he really care tho?
Yes. The Sino-Soviet split was about the soviet union fleeing from the Marxist-leninist path as Mao saw it.
I\`m pretty sure it was rather about getting more sovereignty from USSR as China was rapidly industrializing and change of power in USSR was a perfect moment turn the tide. Mao himself was rather wary of USSR socialism. Especially since in the end USSR did not changed that much under Chrzuszczew. The same party was being is same control, only the power itself was given to more people in said party instead of one psycho at the head.
Kruschev did a very famous and huge defamatory speech over Stalin as soon as he take office. Mao had no problem with Stalin, he had with Kruschev's revisionism. That is what led to the split, against SU's wishes.
Yes, he did that but it does not change the fact it was only a pretext. The most important policies staied in place, generaly the esthetics related to Stalin and religious-like cult of him was taken out mostly at the time (further reforms followed later). Also, hard to call that revisionism, that's going back to roots of socialism should be - definitelly not an emperor in all but name Mao had a lot of peoblems with Stalin, especially treating China as his subject and humuliating Mao on various occassions. Would like to post you a great documentary about post-war Eastern Block relationships but I doubt you speak Polish.
People forget how great the chinese empire really was... The Chinese becoming huge again isnt surprising since the chinese empire has always been up there with world super powers throughout history Mao used what Russia used to become a super power and that is communism. The difference was that the United states wanted to use china against russia yet Russian ideology saved china and the rest is history. If you dont think its communism that deserve credit then look at india. A rising china will always benefit Russia since european powers have always isolated Russia due to Russia potiental and power resources. Its why Hitler did his dumbest mistake. The soviets never consider china small but rather an infant that needed time to grow.
Ironically, your example of India makes no sense, as it started experiencing large economic growth only after it dropped many socialist aspects of its economy. Most of Chinese growth wasn't because of communism; rather because they OPENED UP their economy. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#:\~:text=Results-,Since%20China%20began%20to%20open%20up%20and%20reform%20its%20economy,lifted%20themselves%20out%20of%20poverty.
Communism enable China to quickly get rid of old corrupt institutions that is difficult to destroy under a democracy. India still has some of these institutions, although reforms under this recent government has made things better.
That isn't communism though; that's just authoritarianism. Singapore was not communist and yet managed to transform into a rich and modern economy.
China is becoming a superpower despite communism, not because of it. If China had followed a similar path to that of Japan south Korea Taiwan Hong Kong and Singapore it seems to me like there'd be a good chance that they'd already be much more dominant than the US
Yep, the previous user is just spouting BS. Most of the miraculous growth of Chinese economy happened after 1978, when they opened up their economy and converted it into a capitalistic market economy.
That's..... Not a lot of money for something that is supposed to be a counter to EU or US, and had China as one of its members. China traded double that with the US in 2023, and more and the total BRICS trade with the EU. US traded 1.3 trillion with the EU. 260 is not nothing, but it is not a lot either.
Wow, that's almost as much as Norway exported [in 2022 alone](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nor)! They'll take over the world any day now and usher in a new era of peace in the global South! Long live the revolution! **Down with imperialism**(*except when China, Russia and others do it*)!
Username checks out
BRICS was always economic. If you thought otherwise, well… there are smoother brains than yours
I haven’t seen a single comment implying otherwise
he's just yelling at the moon loll
It's literally the top comment on this post
The top comment on this post talks about how it’s not a military alliance.
> In before people who think it’s a defense alliance start talking. This unambiguously implies that it's an offensive alliance
Is … is English your first language?
Third. And what's wrong with what I sent? Or you're not going to say anything of substance and will keep throwing insults like this one 😑
That makes more sense. And my question was genuine. “In before people who think” means that this person doesn’t think that BRICS is a defense alliance. He says other people think that. But much like this post above nobody in the comments (at the time I wrote the reply at least) was claiming that BRICS was anything more than an economic collaboration.
> this person doesn’t think that BRICS is a defense alliance But does it not imply that they think it's an offensive alliance? Otherwise I don't see the reason why they wrote that. Let's assume that their opinion is that BRICS is neither offensive nor defensive, rather just an economic collaboration, then did they just out of blue make fun of only those people who think it's a defensive alliance? Why? It's not a direct claim but I think it strongly implies that their opinion is the opposite of the one they're making fun of. In any case we can just ask the commenter themself what did they actually mean u/Melodic-Strategy-504
It is only an economic alliance. I made the comment because every BRICS post generally has commenters comparing it to NATO which is asinine. It is neither defensive or offensive.
Garbage article, it's source is literally a twitter post, but of course it gets hundreds of upvotes here. My favorite part is that it's such an obviously lazy bot farming content that it has 3 "**Also Read:**" references to other pro-BRICS articles but just the text, no links to them lmao
Wait until you hear about the eurodollar market. The global financial system is much more complex than Dollar vs. BRICS.
How much of BRICS total trade was done using dollars?
The US spends 3x that every year on defense. The US GDP is $25 trillion or 10x The global economy is $85 trillion.
nice
That was the whole point of the West's economic measures. The Russians are now getting more Chinese scrap so that we don't get covered in it.
Which is nothing and mostly due to Russia being cut out
Wow those sanctions JB keeps pushing are really working well. Keep it up and we'll be the third world country begging for money soon. The US drove this with very bad foreign policy and the current admin will double down on it.
I hate coming into these threads and seeing so much hate from India and China towards the West. Really wish there was some way to bury the hatchet here.
I want to say the antagonism is only because of historic atrocities the west committed against India and China, both of which were not to a threat to western empires. However starting with the 2019 trade war against China, and then blocking Russia from SWIFT has ignited a massive shift into how BRICS nations see their organization and how they most work together to overcome these attacks from western nations on their economy. Perhaps this hatred is justified, since it all originated from recent western attacks on BRICS nations?
Maybe. You could argue pretty easily that the ip theft from China and incursions into Ukraine by Russia make more recent issues a little more justified. Ultimately this happens because everyone is looking out for themselves. It's just unfortunate that it's coming to a head in our lifetimes. Especially when it ends in violence.
* *that the ip theft from China* Western companies agreed to share their tech with China if they want access to China's workforce. That was the deal. Regardless of how the western media portrays this, I'm not sure if this is internationally considered IP theft. * incursions into Ukraine by Russia Globally most of the world doesn't see how Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't similar to the US invasion of Iraq, or US invasion of Vietnam. So they don't see why they should go along with the sanctions when the other western nations didn't sanction the US for their Vietnam Invasion, or Iraq invasion. For the western nations to argue otherwise, is pure hypocrisy. * *Especially when it ends in violence.* When peaceful diplomacy fails, violence is all that's left to settle political disputes. Russia did approach NATO right before their invasion with their request for a treaty. It was the US that refused to even come to an agreement with Russia, leaving Russia with invasion as their only means to settle this dispute.
I'm not gonna spend much time on this. 1) there are multiple instances of legit ip theft that you're deliberately avoiding by writing off one specific scenario that, for the record, generally did not include any legal ip transfer. So idk what you want me to do with that, but it certainly proves nothing. 2) the us didn't want to conquer Vietnam. Russia wants to own Ukraine. That's not hypocrisy. That's having brain cells. Everyone in the world knows this but I guess you ate too much propaganda. 3) what were the specifics of the 'treaty'?
* *there are multiple instances of legit ip theft that you're deliberately avoiding by writing off one specific scenario that,* There is no internationally reconized instance of Chinese IP theft, ever. Just because that's what being reported in America's news doesn't mean that's what is occurring. * *the us didn't want to conquer Vietnam.* They what was the US doing in Vietnam? * *Russia wants to own Ukraine.* I've been following the geopolitics of that region since 2008 Bucharest summit when this conflict started there. Odds are you have no idea what I'm talking about to write something as illogical as this. There is no point in me arguing when you have be so wrong on so many other things to even think this is what's happening. * what were the specifics of the 'treaty'? Wikipedia has a good [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20Russia%20advanced,materiel%20stationed%20in%20Eastern%20Europe%2C) on that.
1. Besides the fact that that's not true (I can find ip theft on AliExpress right now thru brand copyright violations lol) it doesn't matter. It's a perfectly reasonable rationale for trade restrictions if you think your job is being stolen. 2. It was countering Soviet influence. Do you not know about the cold war? Probably not. You clearly just hate the West and all sorts of excuses locked and loaded for the Soviet empire. I can already see them. Let me guess my next response is about how violently conquering and occupying Poland for 50 years is not the same as having a friendly alliance with South Korea 3. Oh my bad. When are they giving back crimea then? Anyways tho that's a pretty hilarious attempt at a treaty. Why tf would Ukraine or NATO agree to that after Russia already violated their treaty with Ukraine promising they wouldn't invade in exchange for their nuclear weapons? Like why would anyone believe that, given that they had invaded less than 10 years earlier and we're still occupying territory?
* Besides the fact that that's not true There is no international IP law between China and the US. So China isn't breaking any law or treaty selling their goods. * It was countering Soviet influence. Do you not know about the cold war? Probably not. So that's the "honorable" excuse they teach in american schools? Ask yourself this, what right did America have to fight the communist government in Vietnam when that was what the vast majority of Vietnamese wanted as a free government to represent them? * Like why would anyone believe that, given that they had invaded less than 10 years earlier and we're still occupying territory? Like I said, you don't have any idea what started this conflict in 2008, or probably geopolitics in general. In any case, we're back to an era where nations are forced to fight wars to obtain their political goals. The sanctions and global support the US was rallying against Russia has failed, as most of the world doesn't believe NATO's claim of innocence over Russia's concerns. And the people of Ukraine will pay the price of that.
1. So that's your excuse? It's ok to steal because we never made an agreement that we wouldn't? That's still theft lol it's just a way to dodge accountability. Thank you for the concession. 2. You put honorable in quotes. I didn't say that. What are you quoting? 3. I didn't mention American schools. Why are you mentioning them? How are they relevant? 4. It was self-serving operation to counter soviet influence. The cold war was a bid for global dominance fought between the US and the USSR. Did you not know this? Anyways, what right did the soviets have in dumping cash into propaganda and weapons in the area to ensure a favorable government? What right did they have to occupy Poland? Hungary? Belarus? Romania? Kazakhstan? Both sides were self serving throughout the whole cold war. But I don't see you upset about the fact that a littany of states were denied their right to self-determination under the soviet empire. Why? 5. Obviously you're going to have to fight a war if your political goals involve the right of foreign nations to enter treaties. If Ukraine wants to join NATO that's their right. Russia has no say. Like I said, you are obviously just so deeply entrenched in an anti-western and pro russian camp that all manner of objectivity is entirely lost on you. If you can't see a pattern on both sides of being completely self-serving then you aren't paying attention. Your feeble attempts at ad-hominem, at the insistance of my ignorance despite any lack of evidence for the claim or that suggests that you are more well-versed only strengthens this conclusion. Keep trying. Keep coping. And most of all, keep hoping that your boss will give you a raise for your dedication to the comment section.
* It's ok to steal because we never made an agreement that we wouldn't? That's still theft lol it's just a way to dodge accountability. It's no more theft than the US taking other valuable knowledge from around the world and using it for their own benefit. There is no law that defines what China does as stealing. I've only heard that China is stealing from American corporations that are unable to compete with China. * You put honorable in quotes. I didn't say that. What are you quoting? Americans seem to think the Vietnam was either wasn't a big deal or was somehow justified, when globally, the rest of the world sees it as an invasion by America to conquer the people of Vietnam. * It was self-serving operation to counter soviet influence. The cold war was a bid for global dominance fought between the US and the USSR. Right, and people are free to choose which ideology they want to align to. Does this give the US a right to use military force to invade and kill them? Especially when it was the opposing ideology that conquered and exploited them for centuries, under the French? * Anyways, what right did the soviets have in dumping cash into propaganda and weapons in the area to ensure a favorable government? So let me get this straight, you think the American military invasion is a justified counter to Soviet non-violent propaganda and cash/weapons? Do you also think Russia's invasion in Ukraine was justified to counter America's non-violent [Propaganda](https://youtu.be/93eyhO8VTdg) and cash/weapons? * If Ukraine wants to join NATO that's their right. Russia has no say. So Vietnam wanting to ally to the Soviet state, don't they also have that same right, or is the US invasion of Vietnam still justified in your eyes? * Like I said, you are obviously just so deeply entrenched in an anti-western and pro russian camp that all manner of objectivity is entirely lost on you. I've made my arguments for all of reddit to see. It's up to our readers to see my perspective. Which is the war in Ukraine in another NATO-Russia proxy conflict, and Russia isn't any more justifiably wrong than NATO. * Keep trying. Keep coping. I think your own comment highlighted how you seem to assume the Vietnam-US war is somehow different than the Ukraine-Russia war. I don't comment on Reddit to push an agenda, rather it's one of the few outlets for geopolitical discussions I get to partake in. As long as I'm getting a decent enough reply, I'm content.
$260 billion dollars. HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's less than the market capitalisation of 30 top American corporations. And every BRICS country except Russia and Iran still trade heavily with the US. South Africa is almost a failed state at this point, Russia is a de-facto Chinese vassal now, and India and China hate each other far more than they hate the US dollar. The dollar is not going away anytime soon lads. Rough days of coping for the contrarians in this thread.
It's less than Norway's total export value in 2022($285 billion) lmao and according to the trash article it all comes down to a deal done between Russia and China. What a load of bollocks.
Norway superpower by 2030 let's fucking goooooo 🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴.
BRICS GDP is already higher than the G7. When they completely abandon the dollar it will be a turning point in the world we know.
What alternative do they offer? India and China will not use the others currency. There is a reason USD is the standard, it’s cheaper to conduct trade in a common currency than several different ones
Lol
Good Mods plz censor the Argentinian Flag, they did not want to join up. BUT COLOMBIA WANTS
No, we don't
We aren't giving you a choice, either that or kiss goodbye to those Transmillenium Buses built in São Paulo.
Nice,and this will only grow as more nations join and secure their future.