It is quite common for us to forget the recent past. Just as in the greatest stages of humankind’s history, the West once applauded the arrival of a new neoliberal world order, which was based on Western values and mantras. Nowadays, the tides have turned again, and the mist is thick, making it difficult to foresee what comes next. Are we marching toward a bipolar world in which both sides seek to form their own separate universes, or is there still a window of opportunity to cooperate within the boundaries of the existing international system?
Movies and theater often dramatize reality. Even in the cinematic universe, no one ever imagined a world order comprised of three superpowers after the Cold War. However, nothing remains the same, and as the saying goes, "You cannot step into the same river twice." This time, the international system is more volatile than ever since the Westphalian period. As Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his opening address on Oct. 22, 2024, “There is a much less stable balance of power.” In such chaos, definitions must change once and for all. For instance, the term "ideal" only applies if there is no battleground on which two wrestlers are threatened by an outsider. Today, the world has become a colosseum, where every gladiator is open to an outsider attack. Thus, the world has become a G-Zero, as Ian Brammer said.
There are early signs of forming a quasi-bipolar world order – a two-headed creation of an Eastern bloc. On the one hand, China is rising as a full-fledged superpower, with capabilities unmatched by its allies or adversaries except for the United States. On the other hand, Russia is emerging as a wise and experienced global actor despite its lack of economic, demographic and technological muscle. In international relations, having such capabilities is not always enough to be a superpower. What matters most is the ability to translate your material edge into policymaking. The United Kingdom is a prime example of this capability-ability matrix. Despite lacking the material base to be a dominant actor in global affairs compared to the U.S. and China, the U.K. successfully conducts policies through which its allies trust in the correctness of its decisions. This is where the emergence and evolution of BRICS+ become relevant.
The current international system is the result of gains and advantages secured after World War II. However, the balance of power has structurally shifted since 1945, and countries that have accumulated both economic and political power under the yoke of the Bretton Woods system are now raising their voices in search of an alternative. While this may initially seem rebellious, China – a country that has greatly benefited from the current system as a free-rider – is not as revolutionary as others. China engaged in multilateral platforms and even signaled its willingness to assume leadership during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. In 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China was ready to be the champion of free trade. Thus, China is more of a status quo power than a revisionist one.
When it comes to Russia, the situation is more ambiguous. Considering the Soviet and Tsarist experiences, Russian bureaucracy is accustomed to a "governing role" among others. Even today, the Russian Federation comprises 83 distinct regions, each with its own identity. In Putin’s view, the time has come to reflect this tradition onto global politics and channel the voices of those who have not reaped the same benefits as China. This is why Putin’s Russia is more eager to expand the BRICS membership base and transform it into an alliance of dissidents. In his address, Putin thus emphasized the need to "strengthen the authority of BRICS" and noted that “more than 30 countries have expressed their desire to join BRICS.”
Recent events have highlighted the chaos of an out-of-tune orchestra. The reason why this orchestra isn’t playing in harmony is quite clear: there is an ongoing fight to be the maestro within each camp. In the Western bloc, the acceptance of U.S. leadership is in question, and there’s plenty of water under the bridge, leading to unresolved tensions. In the Eastern bloc, Russia and China have been subtly competing since the 2014 Crimea War. It might sound a bit exaggerated, but the world seems to be in a state of schizophrenia. This confusion not only leads to momentary decisions and a fluid web of alliances in the international system but also generates a sense of precarity among individuals. No one feels secure, from the smallest being in the international system, the individual, to the main actor in the system, the nation-state. In this atmosphere, it is not uncommon to witness a bombing in the heart of a capital. This precarity dates back to the 2016 Brussels Zaventem bombings and stretches to the latest terrorist attack on the Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) facilities in Ankara, which occurred on Oct. 23, 2024.
In this multilayered and multifaceted world, neither countries nor non-state actors can choose their sides fully. What is known for now is the increasing role of non-Western countries in the system. In the coming days, the fate of BRICS may depend on the roles Russia and China assume within the parameters of this power struggle. Perhaps we will witness the emergence of alternative scenarios where countries are represented equally and their interests align with the interests of all. Until that moment, the question of “what if” will continue to invade our minds and hearts.
In an increasingly fragmented world, the old order is rapidly giving way to new uncertainties. As the global balance of power shifts, nations are caught in a delicate dance between cooperation and rivalry, with BRICS at the forefront of this evolving dynamic. The rise of non-Western powers, particularly China and Russia, suggests a future where global governance could pivot away from Western dominance. Whether this leads to deeper divides or a more inclusive system remains an open question – one that will shape the coming decades.
