I’m writing this from Rio de Janeiro, where I’m covering the BRICS 2025 summit as a member of the press. There are over 400 journalists in a huge media centre, but we really have no idea what is actually going on in the summit.
The media centre is an amphitheatre complex with several floors, workstations, stand-up positions, lounges, and a huge screen. The screen is, in theory, meant to follow live the multilateral meetings the so-called world leaders are attending. I say in theory because the only actual speech that was transmitted throughout the entire summit was the opening speech by Lula da Silva, president of Brazil.
All the meetings are happening in a building close to the media centre, Rio’s Modern Art Museum. There’s a handful of journalists who are allowed to enter; those are carefully selected to ensure there won’t be any uncomfortable leaks. Of course, this is because of security reasons. It is always about safety and security.
This begs the question: what are all of these journalists writing about? There’s nothing we can really see or hear of what is being discussed; at best, we only have access to second-hand footage or transcripts, which, by the time we get them—thanks to the internet—anyone, anywhere, can get. And only that which is deemed suitable gets passed on.
Despite that, we are hardworking professionals. We make live appearances, record videos, and write articles commenting on the latest developments and what so-and-so says as if we were seeing it and listening to it. Because we are here, our audiences (and our managers) need to feel that it was worth sending us, so we start our speeches and texts with: “Here in Rio…”
“Here in Rio” could be “Here in Washington” or “Here in Moscow.” Generally, it’s all the same. This is not just how this BRICS 2025 summit works; it’s how every summit and every conference attended by decision-makers—politicians, financiers, technocrats—works. Of course, it’s understandable: no intelligent politician would want unvetted press present at sensitive discussions.
So what is the press for? Career journalists grow up believing their work matters. We are writing the history for tomorrow, someone told me once. Granted, there are still a few brave independent journalists who actually report first-hand or do investigative pieces. But most of us don’t really do journalism, but rather, “churnalism”—as I heard it once—because we churn out articles.
I’m here, in Rio, and I know this is how it works. But I have colleagues who report on the summit based on what agencies give them. The agencies’ reporters, from AP to Reuters, are here next to me. And those articles then go into newspapers, online and offline, into news packages, to analysts and commentators. And based on that second-hand reporting, at best, a whole discourse is built up.
Though it might seem otherwise, this is not just a rant about how the media works and how public discourse is manipulated. Readers of this blog are well aware of that, and I’m not naive—that is what corporate and government media are for.
I’m not pointing out anything new either. Since at least the Spanish Civil War in 1936, it became common practice that newspapers and later digital media just printed out propaganda. I am going to take the license to quote George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, where he describes his experience—first-hand—during that war, because it is both to the point and well written:
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
To a great extent, that is today’s news-media, both mainstream and alternative—with a few rare exceptions. I’m not totally dismissing the value of it; there is some use. I learned early that news doesn’t tell you much about why or how something is happening, not even the what—it is just an indication that something might be happening.
That also applies to BRICS—not just this summit, but the organization in general. We can deduce that something might be happening. There are meetings, discussions, budgets for media and activities. They even set up a new bank and make yearly well-sounding declarations. Not unlike other international institutions. In fact, they behave very similarly.
This year’s summit was marked by the absence of Putin and Xi Jinping, by the presence of Iran as a full member in the aftermath of Israeli-US aggression, and the invitation of several Latin American countries. What has transpired the most has been a general call for “multilateralism,” for reform of international organizations, for the establishment of more equitable financial institutions and, because it was Lula’s initiative, for COOP30 and climate change. There has also been a timid condemnation of the attack on Iran—crucially without mentioning who carried it out—and a stronger, yet still insufficient, condemnation of the Gaza genocide.
This is just a report of what is already known. There are other issues which remain unknown. Why the absence of Xi Jinping? Of Putin, we could assume it was not to put Brazilian authorities in a compromising position. Are there inner tensions in the group? There was a condemnation of the Pahalgam attack that China refused to include in the SCO declaration. What is Türkiye’s role? And what was the intention of Mexico’s delegation? Presumably, its presence might have been one of the reasons that prompted Trump’s (quite pathetic) threat.
During the last few weeks, and the few weeks to come, commentators and analysts, both mainstream and alternative, will be indulging in speculation about what all of this means. Some will spin it to seem like this was a tremendous failure, that BRICS is a window-dressing organization to show that something is happening, but it does not go beyond haughty declarations. Others will say that it was a triumph of multilateralism and that it is establishing the foundations of a new world order and a new financial system not dominated by the West.
I, personally, remain skeptical of both. I maintain that we are living through an epoch where one political and financial system—with its necessary layer of ideology—is collapsing and that a new one is painfully being born, though not necessarily an actually different one.
Yes, it might have different players with varying levels of influence; the world has changed since World War Two, and Europe is not very relevant anymore. Crucially, the American empire is also morphing, accepting the trappings of imperial power now that its actual imperium is being called into question. Borders are changing, wars waged, and recycled ideologies being brought to the front with a fake new patina.
New technologies are presented which promise to bring either a utopian or dystopian future, depending on who speaks. They might greatly influence our society, but in reality, they offer nothing really new to the human existential experience. They continue the inertia of a thinking trend started centuries ago.
New constitutions and laws will be written to better reflect the current zeitgeist. We are witnessing the return of the one-party system with a powerful figure at its head—quasi a king—though we dare not call it that. New techno-feudal lords are vying to assert their power and influence with techno-cities and techno-states for whom people are not citizens but customers, and which run like private companies with CEOs at their head.
There is even talk of a fourth political theory which is neither liberal democracy nor Marxism or fascism, but it’s founded on a common “ethnos” that creates culture and claims to be based on Dasein. But is it really?
BRICS fits into this as one international organization to substitute another international organization that, belonging to the dying system, has become obsolete; so that it seems like it is all new, but in fact, it is all very much the same. Because the actual building blocks—the metaphysical assumptions, the dialectical politics, and the financial tools—have not changed. This is clearly observable in how the BRICS 2025 summit proceeds, and in what is said, and how it is reported.
Ernst Jünger, who not only lived but survived through a similarly eventful time, explained it perfectly in his book Eumeswil:
Seen politically, systems follow one another, each consuming the previous one. They live on ever-bequeathed and ever-disappointed hope, which never entirely fades. Its spark is all that survives, as it eats its way along the blasting fuse. For this spark, history is merely an occasion, never a goal.
“Though it might seem otherwise, this is not just a rant…”
I sorry but this is what it is. After reading the whole post I have learned almost nothing about the contents of the 31 page joint declaration, who actually attended (we are told of two who didn’t) and who the new members are. The author could have used the time sitting in the press building going through the declaration, summarizing it and critiquing it. And why are these “so-called world leaders”? That is simply insulting.
That’s a bit unfair. The author is explicitly offering an opinion piece, not a news piece. And if there is no news then perhaps that’s the only kind of piece available.
Presumably “facts on the ground” will get things sorted out although they are slow in coming. All of Trump’s policies so far are more filibuster and posturing and Putin, while fighting a real war, seems in no hurry either.
Speaking of our nutty prez
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/07/first-casualties-from-trumps-increasing-tariff-craze.html
What I enjoyed about Curro’s comments was that he went beyond the usual critique of how journalism works at such conferences, to what I consider a deeper point:
” I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various party lines.”
Please give me more insults like this.
John Helmer has a couple of pieces up about this conference and its Declaration, a video discussion with Nima of Dialogue Works and a pretty lengthy text piece looking at details of the Declaration.
The thing I remember most from both is that Helmer noticed what seemed to him an unusually favorable posture toward certain multi-lateral institutions that are dominated by US (IMF, G20, perhaps others that I don’t recall). IIRC he expressed curiosity about who pushed for this.
Back when iraq was being invaded I watched a BBC journalist on the deck of a US carrier reporting on part of the ground invasion that must have been hundreds of miles away to the studio. It was clear from his location he would have no more idea what was happening in the area he was discussing, than the presenter in the studio. But it looked dramatic. I suspect the studio had actually told him what to say moments before he came on air. It was very clear this was reporting as window dressing.
Another example was in georgia over the last year. Where various media outlets sent journalists there to speak to opposition groups, pro EU groups etc. And all the mainstream media reports would say how the population was pro EU. Then various online pundits would say that was nonsense Georgia was pro russian. Now I’ve spent quite some time working in Georgia. I’ve travelled across a reasonable chunk of it. I’ve talked to a lot of every day people while working. And I have no idea if Georgians are pro EU, pro Russia, or just wish everyone would sod off and leave them alone. But tjese journalists who have spent maybe a week there talking to a select few, or even worse not even been in the country, write as if it is a fact when in reality it is generally what they wish or have been told to say.
Back during the Iraq invasion there was an American reporter giving interviews from the “front” and you could see the city in the background – until it came out that he had never left the US but was doing this all in front of a green screen.
If the members of this club want to retain their sovereignty, they had better come up with a plan.
Imperial managers are getting rabid.
Maybe the story is just what you reported, my friend. Nothing much is coming out of this. Just the usual jolly for the lucky few.
This guy is great. That part about a “fourth political theory” based on “Dasein”; deep thought analysis. Who is he? Google Curro Jimenez and the only link is to the name of a defunct Spanish TV drama.
Here’s a more upbeat account of the conference.
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/
Ben Norton is a long time Lat Am reporter now based in China.
One more link. I’m not sure if this Hudson/Wolff got linked here but a must read.
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/07/why-america-no-longer-makes-its-own-future/
The upshot is that Trump’s budget bill and deficits will wreck the US economy in favor of the wealthy and therefore even if BRICS is just a place holder they only have to wait for our hegemon to crash itself.
Wolff’s summer upper on BRICS
And that’s why the BRICS is important. And I need to say to some of my fellow economists: This is not an argument that the BRICS represent the socialist future, or that the BRICS are homogeneous. They’re not. Mr. Modi in India is a different thing from Xi Jinping in China. And they’re both very different from Lula in Brazil, and so on. They have enormous differences, as an international collection of 25 countries would have to be.
What I’m focusing on is the project they all share. That’s what’s remarkable. They haven’t been able to do that in the past. They haven’t overcome all of their differences to be able to do that in the past. They are now being caught up, in my judgment, in this historic moment of the final end of colonialism that they know they’ve been fighting all of their lives.
They know the end is in sight.
And Hudson says BRICS is why Biden’s Ukraine war destroy Putin with sanctions plan didn’t work. China and India had his back.
Thank you! Always here for Wolff/Hudson commentary.
Putin didn’t go not so much to avoid embarrassing Lula but to stop himself being a target. The west already tried to kill Putin only several weeks ago and if he made that long plane trip who knows if some crazy neocon would hatch a plan to recruit Maverick and a few plucky pilots to intercept him and his escort to shoot the whole lot down. You don’t think that a Lindsay Graham might not like that idea?
For the past three years the Russians have avoided big arrow moves in the Ukraine but settled on a policy of accelerated attrition. That way, it does not spook the west into doing a crazy move like send in a NATO force but undercuts the Ukraine in a death from a thousand cuts. So maybe this is the approach by the BRICS.
Constant deals all the time and especially agreements to use their own currencies for payments and bypass US dollars which on a whim can be sanctioned, taxed or even seized outright. Trump hates BRICS but they are not doing anything specific that he can point at and they even came out and said they supported the use of the US dollar. So maybe it is again a death by a thousand cuts at work here.
The BRICS will feign support for the dollar, until they won’t. The decline of the West is real, they know it and will move on when the threat of US bombing them has receded.
Good points, C.J.
My quick take: there have to be bottom up movements and the countries will have to give in to more people power over corporations. That’s how BRICS becomes more than what it is fighting.
I’m with Patrick Bond on the subject of BRICS.
Definitely an interesting, ironic take on things. TBF, I think the truth is probably somewhere between the BRICS hypers and downers. It’s always seemed to be primarily a diplomatic forum, and diplomacy almost always seems like a glacial nothing-burger until the tipping point when a major agreement is finalized. It seems like the core BRICS members are actually standing up alternative financial plumbing and institutions at a decent clip too.
Of course, it’s definitely not as emotionally satisfying as the Apocalypse of the BRICS Bux. On that day, the true believers say Putin or Xi will shoot laser-eyes, the Federal Reserve Board will spontaneously explode like in Scanners, and the US dollar will be cast into Tartaros for its exorbitant privilege and sins.
More seriously though, I think the last part of this article gets into the most interesting part. I’ve never done a deep-dive on Dugin, but IIUC many of his ideas are solidly and explicitly in the Spenglerian “weirdly open-minded reactionary” tradition. Stripped of bombast, left-right leanings, and philosophical fugues though, isn’t his 4th political theory just a theory of the civilization state?
I’ve never heard anybody say so, but it seems that a civilizational model is guiding a lot of BRICS decisions, even down to the membership list (the UAE is the pragmatic exception that proves the rule). Although I’m sure most members would like to achieve the sort of push-back against US + Europe people read into the organization, maybe it’s primary short-term goal is simply pokemon collecting. I don’t know how much the focus is on core states because they’re large or influential today and how much because they succeed deeply-historical civilizations, but BRICS behavior makes a lot of sense if their current priority is really just filling out a new kind of big tent.
If the BRICS want to establish a “multipolar” world, they will clearly have to confront the United States. However, since they are not prepared to do so, they can only hope that the U.S. will weaken over the next few decades. In the meantime, they can hold meaningless meetings and issue empty joint statements.