Did anyone else find the article’s central claim to not really be all that supported? After reading it, it seemed to me like this is a big triumph for China. Yeah, that is a metric that matters....
Did anyone else find the article’s central claim to not really be all that supported? After reading it, it seemed to me like this is a big triumph for China.
Together, the 11 BRICS states will have a higher share of global GDP based on purchasing power parity than the G-7 industrialized countries.
Yeah, that is a metric that matters.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are close U.S. security partners. Even if they have their differences with Washington, they are unlikely to abandon U.S. security guarantees for untested Chinese promises
This is them testing the waters.
Well, India is already part of at least two such “small circles.”
This, and the rest of that paragraph, is a huge stretch. Countries engaging in multilateral organizations is a repudiation of China’s call for multilateralism? BRICS is itself a “small circle” — There’s no substance to this entire line of argument and does absolutely nothing to take away from the impact of BRICS.
The smarter policy folks in the West should therefore whine less about the supposed rise of BRICS—and focus instead on the many contradictions within the forum they can exploit.
I thought this wasn’t a triumph, but the west needs to be trying to take it down also? This is reminiscent of “The enemy is both strong and weak”. I really don’t see this is anything but a huge win for China.
It's not that this is a loss for China or anything but BRICS hasn't shown itself to be terribly cohesive or terribly effective at actually getting anything done since it's start and there's no...
It's not that this is a loss for China or anything but BRICS hasn't shown itself to be terribly cohesive or terribly effective at actually getting anything done since it's start and there's no reason to believe that that is likely to change now by introducing even more competing interests.
In the big picture I think countries that are concerned about being exploited by the United States would also be concerned about being exploited by China, maybe even more so.
In the big picture I think countries that are concerned about being exploited by the United States would also be concerned about being exploited by China, maybe even more so.
Did anyone else find the article’s central claim to not really be all that supported? After reading it, it seemed to me like this is a big triumph for China.
Yeah, that is a metric that matters.
This is them testing the waters.
This, and the rest of that paragraph, is a huge stretch. Countries engaging in multilateral organizations is a repudiation of China’s call for multilateralism? BRICS is itself a “small circle” — There’s no substance to this entire line of argument and does absolutely nothing to take away from the impact of BRICS.
I thought this wasn’t a triumph, but the west needs to be trying to take it down also? This is reminiscent of “The enemy is both strong and weak”. I really don’t see this is anything but a huge win for China.
It's not that this is a loss for China or anything but BRICS hasn't shown itself to be terribly cohesive or terribly effective at actually getting anything done since it's start and there's no reason to believe that that is likely to change now by introducing even more competing interests.
In the big picture I think countries that are concerned about being exploited by the United States would also be concerned about being exploited by China, maybe even more so.
Archive