Yves here. It has been frustrating to see nearly all of the anti-globalist commentary community (at least as represented on YouTube and Substack) fall in line with simple-minded black and white stories about the old US led hegemony, which in a brutal phase of lashing out with its remaining power to retain its dominance, as opposed to the virtuous Global Majority that is seeking to bring a less oppressive era of multipolarity into being. Some observers are noticing a considerable gap between the boosterism and PR and are calling it out.
Admittedly, there have been some exceptions. John Helmer performed a careful reading of the 2024 Kazan Declaration and pointed out how it reaffirmed the centrality of the post-WWII Bretton Woods institutions, such as the UN and the World Bank, and explicitly called for the IMF to continue to be bailouter-in-chief. The documents merely called for more Global South representation in these institutions. We were early to point out that the talk of BRICS forming a new currency was wildly implausible, given how much governance participating states would have to cede for that to happen (see the euro as an object lesson, which also depends on having a supranational legal decider in the form of the ECJ). While BRICS has arguably served as a forum to accelerate the development of information systems to facilitate bi-lateral trade so as to escape the dollar and dollar sanctions, note that that this type of coordination was not necessary for bi-lateral trade to get going.
Having said that, former ambassador Chas Freeman has in passing voiced reservations about BRICS. He said a few months back that it seemed to be mainly in the business of complaining and not advancing a positive agenda and hoped it would start making progress on the latter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVtpuTaWvLU (see at 43:30), Freeman depicts BRICS as conservative, as in interested in preserving existing institutions. Freeman contends the concepts of the UN Charter are worth preserving, but not the UN itself. Freeman depicts preserving the governing precepts of the post WWII order as desirable. But BRICS so far has been taking the position that it can effect what amounts to a hostile takeover of the likes of the UN and IMF by having Global Majority states play a greater role in how they operate.
But the IMF is extremely unlikely to get away from US control. As CADTM pointed out last year:
The USA by itself is entitled to an Executive Director who controls a 16.49% share of voting rights – keeping in mind that important votes require an 85% majority. This means that the USA is the only country that has veto power.
That article also describes in detail how giving sub-Saharan Africa an Executive Directorate was mere optics and was not making the IMF more democratic.
Now to a new article at CADTM by Eric Toussaint, on how BRICS does not provide new model for financing and trade to the Global South. From The BRICS are the new defenders of free trade, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, which included evidence, such as statements from the declaration at the BRICS+ summit in June 2025:
The BRICS+ countries assert that the IMF should continue to be the cornerstone of the international financial system….
They also express their support for the World Bank. In point 12 of their declaration, they indicate a desire to enhance the legitimacy of this institution. However, since their inception, both the World Bank and the IMF have implemented policies that contradict the interests of people and ecological balance.
The BRICS+ have stated their intention to bolster the financial capacities of the IMF and enhance the legitimacy of the World Bank.
The BRICS countries express a desire for improved representation of so-called developing countries within the IMF and the World Bank. That is all….
In their final declaration, the BRICS countries fails to critique the neoliberal policies that the two Bretton Woods institutions actively promote. At no point do they question the debts that these institutions are demanding repayment from indebted countries….
The BRICS countries have emerged as the principal advocates of the WTO, which has been effectively paralysed by President Trump’s actions during his first term in office….
o understand the BRICS+ position, it is essential to recognise that China has secured an advantage over the United States and Europe regarding production and trade, both in terms of costs and productivity, and technological advantages in a number of important sectors. China has emerged as a staunch proponent of free trade, free trade agreements, WTO rules and free competition, while the United States, the EU, the UK and Canada have become increasingly protectionist…
Now, the BRICS have emerged as the main advocates of capitalist globalisation, which is itself in crisis…
The expansion of the BRICS in 2024, now referred to as BRICS+, has generated expectations regarding their potential to provide an alternative to the global economic system largely dominated by traditional imperialist powers, particularly the United States. However, despite their significant demographic and economic influence — comprising nearly half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil fuel resources, 30% of global GDP, and 50% of economic growth — the BRICS+ nations do not appear to seek a departure from the existing international neoliberal framework.
We have pointed out that Putin is firmly neoliberal and with Russia as a key member of BRICS, it’s hard to see that changing.
The discussion below, after the opening section on Charlie Kirk, has a full throated criticism of BRICS for continuing to support Israel and the Gaza genocide. For a short-form related take, consider this recent exchange in comments:
ilsm
September 12, 2025 at 6:43 pm
Saudi Arabia and the UAE joined BRICS in Jan 2024.Saudi has recently joined the Shanghai Coop Organization as a dialog partner. A step to better relations with PRC.
GM
September 13, 2025 at 9:04 am
Great, they joined BRICS (and even that is not true — Saudi didn’t actually do).Did they kick out the US military bases and did they close their airspace for US/UK/Israeli planes?
No.
Well, one of these things matters and the other is performative. Guess which one.
After this long-warm up, to a main event in the form of a full throated critique of BRICS by Vanessa Beeley and Fiona Isabel. They call out how BRICS has not even made the sort of demands for action against the genocide that Iran and pariah Venezuela have, and that many BRICS members not only continue to trade with Israel but some are at even higher levels. Beeley also argues that BRICS looks to be in danger of being very similar to the old order, but with 4 to 5 countries calling the shots as opposed to one.
There is a transcript at Fiona Isabel’s site. I have taken the liberty of hoisting big sections below because the full argument IMHO is deadly.
Vanessa Beeley (10:50): But I think I still, where I’m struggling with the issue of BRICS, BRICS countries and their lack of drive to end the genocide and to actually under the Geneva Convention to effectively prevent genocide and punish those that are accused of committing genocide. And it is very clear now that Israel has been accused under international law of committing genocide. It’s clear to the majority of the world population and you have A nexus of countries which represent half the world’s population, 40% of their fossil energy resources, 50% of world growth, 30% of global GDP, who are literally doing nothing. And their statement at the last BRICS summit that everyone was hailing as the new dawn and the alternative to the Western neocolonialist access, You know, this region and all of the global south, not that I particularly like that term, but all of the oppressed peoples of the world have suffered under for decades, if not centuries. And yet we’re not really seeing any alternative from the BRICS countries.
We’re seeing an increase in trade between China and India and Israel, both of them being heavily involved in the arms trade with Israel and certainly not throttling back. China’s invested through Chinese state companies and the settlement programs in the occupied territories. It’s investing in Ashdod and Haifa port, both of which receive weapons for the Zionist military on a regular basis. India is both an energy supplier, it’s just inked a new deal with Israel in the last few days, but also a weapons mutual trade deals between them. Russia is providing energy, it’s facilitating the delivery of oil from Kazakhstan becauset oil hub is under their control. It’s providing, you know, its trade is not throttling back. It’s increasing. We know that there are a huge number of Russian passport holders, dual nationalities, Israeli-Russian, that are fighting in the IOF against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Brazil is the only one that appears to be really trying to kind of throttle back. Lula is doing his best to reduce the supply particularly of coal to Israel. Even South Africa that has brought the genocide case at the ICJ. Of course, Russia and China also have refused or have not refused. approved joining the case, right?
And what I find most interesting is in their statements this year, it was basically a repeat of the statement of 2024, where they don’t even label it as a massacre or an ethnic cleansing or a genocide. And they’re certainly not calling for any kind of sanctions or boycotting or diplomatic expulsion of ambassadors.
Not a single gesture has been made by any of these countries, apart from, of course, South Africa and Iran, which, of course, I’m not even including it in the discussion. Egypt, we know, is… basically in bed with Israel since 1979 onwards, but increasingly so under President Sisi, actually participating in the persecution of Palestinians from many different perspectives.
And what I find sort of disturbing is this inability by these countries to even address the fact that it is a genocide. and even to uphold the measures that must be taken that have been recommended by Francesca Albanese, by the ICJ, look at Yemen’s adherence to the genocide convention. And Putin at the same time, while he’s never used the word genocide in relation to what Israel is doing, he has used the word genocide in relation to what Ukraine has been doing to Russian nationals in the areas now reabsorbed into Russia by referendum.
So I find it very difficult, added to which Russia and China have condemned, for example, the Israeli attack on Qatar, on Doha, to assassinate Hamas officials. But neither country condemned the murder of almost the entire Yemeni government cabinet around 10 days ago. And there’s a good reason for that, because both Russia and China uphold UN Resolution 2216, which was designed to be able to blockade 23 million Yemenis on behalf of the Saudi puppet regime.
And we know that both Russia and China are also heavily invested with Saudi Arabia and with the UAE, both of which, one, were created to partner with the Zionist entity when the British created the so-called State of Israel, they also effectively created Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that would later provide protection and collaboration for Israel, which we’re now seeing. So I guess what I’m struggling with is nobody is holding them responsible for this situation. But we do have to hold them accountable while they are making very strong statements about international law.
They’re condemning the West for violating international law. And yet, effectively, they’re turning a blind eye to what Israel is doing, which, in my opinion, is the greatest transgression of international law since the UN was created and has been since the creation. of the state of Israel. And I’m struggling with people’s inability to understand that the central cause right now is preventing global genocide, because it’s also ongoing in Sudan, in other countries. But of course, Palestine is center of all of our humanity, compassion, and drive to end this kind of oppression of, I’m not going to call them a defenseless people, but they are disproportionately unable to defend themselves against a US-backed
Zionist aggression against them that’s been ongoing for 100 years.And I guess what I’m trying to say is morally, I’m not understanding why people are so clinging to a bias which blinds them to holding these countries to account and saying to them, you have the power to do something. We don’t expect,
the West is never going to do anything because we know they’re absolutely joined at the hip with Israel. But these countries have an opportunity. They have literally, they have the only capability in the world today, apart from the armed resistance in the region, to actually do something economically, not militarily, economically, to stop what is happening in Palestine.And they’re failing to do it.
And later in the discussion:
Fiona Isabel (23:10): When the majority of countries that have the capability to stop the Holocaust of our time aren’t doing it, then what world can I expect? What difference does it make if China and Russia rise and they’re not doing something different? Then the U S perhaps cosmetically, there is more of a transactional, um, I would say soft power type of, you know, relationship. It is more cooperative. There is some sort of win-win to some, if you have, you know, if they, if there’s a respect, a mutual respect, if you have enough of a, of, of something to show for it, when it comes to Russia and the way they operate pragmatically, um, That is how it is. I mean, they will have respect for Iran, but they don’t necessarily have respect for the rest of the Middle East or West Asia. And I think we’ve talked about this before. They’re not…..
If you’re going to be against hegemony, that is an ideological perspective. I don’t really think they’re against the hegemony. think they want to have a piece of the pie. And that’s very well and fine.
But what I don’t like to see is the xenophiles and the Russophiles and all the people that are either, and you asked why they’re doing this, they’re either doing this because they’re too invested in this rose-colored perspective of what it creating in their mind that China and Russia are something they’re not, or two, they’re profiting off of that financially.
And one of the things that I know for a fact is, for example, the influence of between Israel on Russia is there because I couldn’t even say the word genocide in any of my presentations at RT because Israel will get mad…So for me, there’s this like kind of like gripping desire for people to just sort of kind of justify things that they wouldn’t justify the United States doing. that they wouldn’t justify, you know, anybody, any, any, the UK or any European country from doing, but they justify it or look the other way because there’s also a sense of cognitive dissonance of being, seeing how just hopeless things are. And here we go again.
I’m not trying to rob people of that. That there’s a possibility of another world. But if there is a possibility of another world, we need to actually do it or otherwise we’re just going to repeat the same thing with just different players in different stages. And I feel like that’s where we’re going. I really am….
Vanessa Beeley (32:18): And as we keep saying, if you’re going to hold BRICS countries up, Russia and China up, as some kind of viable alternative to the paradigm we’ve been living in for decades and that the world is sick of, then how can we accept that they’re doing virtually the same thing?…
Fiona Isabel (38:40): It is actually just a very formulaic type of, of cheerleading for a team. It’s just more iterations of that, you know, from the microscopic left, right paradigm to, you know, multipolar and unipolar thing. It’s become just very much iterations of the same type of mentality where you’re just choosing a team and you’re just repeating what is most advantageous for you, what is most popular, what X, Y analysts said and whatever they say goes. And so when you question outside of that, you break people’s brains.
These are long extracts, but even so, there is a lot more supporting detail in the talk and transcript, so please find the time to listen or read. This discussion is an important reality check.
____
1 Even though India has been slapped in the face by Trump, it is not keen about the BRICS project either. From a talk between Glenn Diesen and former Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar after Trump announced his 50% sanctions on (selected) Indian goods if India continued to buy oil from Russia:
Former Ambassador M. K. Bhadrakumar: Look, Professor, this is a brainwave of the Russians, BRICS’ idea and then the Chinese. And our prime minister happened to be visiting Russia at that time and on the sidelines of a multilateral event he was sounded out whether he would sit in for a meeting like this. He agreed, if anything out of sheer politeness. And then it was languishing. You look at the history of this moment, languishing, and then the Russians breathed new life into it in 2014 and in 2020 uh 2022 when they needed it. They brushed it up and brought it up as a platform to defy the US and to orchestrate processes which have a strong anti-American content. Plainly I’m saying that this is what has happened on BRICS.
Otherwise BRICS is a toothless organization and it has absolutely no cutting edge in it. This is completely a doing of the Russians and the Chinese. India had nothing to do with it. That is the plain reality.
Now therefore if Trump is raising dust over it, the person to answer that should be Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. This is “Do not pit India against Trump when it comes to BRICS.” That is maybe a very smart game and they go and lie under the carpet, not being seen at all. But they are the ones, the culprits here, to give a cutting edge to this.
And at earlier time, even Shanghai Cooperation Organization you were had a cutting edge like this and it used to be called Asian NATO. India never, really, never really, was part of giving an anti-American slant to the BRICS. So Trump knows that and Trump is comfortable with that.
If Trump, if BRICS has not gone in the direction of developing a new BRICS currency, Trump should give credit to India because it was India’s opposition, India’s reservation.
Look at it like this: India has no problem with SWIFT. India has no problem in trading with dollars. India is not fearing that, India is not fearing that its resources are going to be confiscated by the Americans. Whose problem is this?
India is interested in one aspect of it which is to transfer the payment system to local currencies because that is an entirely different matter. It is in giving a habitation and a name for India’s currency in the world currency basket commensurate with India’s growing stature as an economic power.
You see it also has no anti-American thrust to it. If there are countries which do not have dollars to spare, India can still trade with them if they trade in local currencies. There is no anti-American content there. And the both these countries India and that country which does it they both have access to SWIFT. Nonetheless we use it like this. So therefore you know, it’s an ingenious thing that is happening here when you speak about on the one hand time-tested friendship and so on between India and Russia and then the Russians going and hiding when there is pressure from the Americans on BRICS and saying that it is, it is India’s can of worms. It is not. It was conceived in the womb of the Russian decision makers. So the Russians must answer this.
