THE queue of states in the global South, and wider, wanting to join the Brics coalition signifies a shift in the global geometry.
It is already undermining what the ruling narrative describes as the “international rules-based order” and what we can best understand as imperialist hegemony policed by the World Bank and the IMF.
The slice of the world’s economy enjoyed by the top G7 capitalist states has suffered a calamitous drop. Within this, the share of the EU bloc has declined, while overall, the share of the G7 is down from 43 per cent to under a third.
The US has been overtaken by China’s growth which, if aggregated with its Brics partner states of Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa surpasses the G7.
It is the increasing pace of economic development among the Brics countries contrasted with the systemic crisis affecting the developed capitalist states that underpin the IMF’s anxieties about the G7 economies.
G7 governments are equally concerned with the changing political balance with the Western position, most especially that favouring the prosecution of the war in Ukraine, the focus of sharp differences.
An unwinnable war
THE Russian missile strike on a theatre in the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv that killed at least seven people, including a six-year-old child, and injured 144 is an atrocity.
The Russian justification for the attacks is that there was a military conference and exhibition in the theatre.
Maybe. We can believe hardly anyone in this conflict and both the siting of military assets in civilian areas (something Ukraine is accused of), or targeting civilian targets (as Russia and Ukraine are both accused) are illegal acts.
There is no moral high ground to be held by any of the contending forces in this military confrontation between Nato and Russia currently being fought out in Ukraine.
Ukraine is constrained by rules of engagement set by its Nato sponsors. These mostly confine the use of Nato-supplied weapons to theatre and keep casualties and the conflict local.
The much-deferred Ukrainian spring offensive has turned into an Autumn stalemate. The utility of the war to meet Nato’s eagerly proclaimed strategic objective — to weaken and isolate Russia — is celebrated by Nato’s cheerleaders even while last year’s peace hopes were snuffed out.
Surfacing in Western media is the private and increasingly public understanding by Nato’s military and intelligence that the war is unwinnable.
The Washington Post last week cited a classified US intelligence report that speculated that “Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail to reach the key south-eastern city of Melitopol,” and that the objective of choking off Russia’s land bridge linking Donbass with Crimea won’t be achieved this year.
Germany’s mass tabloid, Bild, reports on growing tensions over Nato’s criticisms of Ukraine’s military performance and cites an annoyed and anonymous Ukrainian source as claiming Ukraine was merely implementing Nato plans.
High-level doubts about the strategy could be seen last week when Stian Jenssen — chief of staff to Nato boss Jens Stoltenberg — said Ukraine could give up land for Nato membership.
He was immediately slapped down by his boss, but territorial concessions for peace are not a new idea. In March last year, Volodymyr Zelensky himself was open to concessions towards Russia.
The authoritative US magazine Foreign Policy reported that these included a commitment to Ukrainian neutrality, a rejection of any nuclear arsenal, and an acceptance of Russian control over Ukraine’s eastern regions. He even indicated a readiness to change language policies that had disadvantaged Russian speakers.
It was Boris Johnson’s foray to Kiev that killed that moment, and delegates to the upcoming TUC need to work out whether they are with or against him on this.
