The BRICS Group receives quite a few reports and will most likely receive more in 2025. But the crucial thing is that her leaders ask each another and answer the question whether they want to be just anti-West or something more. At this point, we don't truly know which way it's gonna go. Most comments and analyses are empty wishes and ideas that insert their own ideas into BRICS. All we know is that BRICS is in anti-Western rhetoric, especially anti-American rhetoric. But if we ask for details and details – apart from anti-Westernism – it is much worse Prof. Michał Lubina, a political scientist, global relations researcher, author of bestsellers, says in an interview with PCh24.pl: “A bear in the embrace of a dragon. How Russia became China's younger brother" and "Chinese bagel. From Taiwan to Tibet, that is, how China forms an empire.”
Sir, will 2025 belong to Asia? In Europe, there is simply a increasing crisis in the EU – alternatively of Community action, everyone is trying to play for each another and to interfere with each other. The United States is waiting for Donald Trump to take over, and nobody truly knows what will happen then. There's nothing to mention about Africa and South America... Only Asia seems to be a reasonably unchangeable continent on which the top powers, if they compete with each other, are in specified a way that we do not notice...
Just due to the fact that we don't announcement this competition doesn't mean she's gone.
Asia, or more specifically Asia – Pacific is an area that has achieved unprecedented economical success since the 1980s, as well as safety and peace. This was mostly due to the suspension of conflicts and the control of tensions between the disputed parties. However, this does not mean that there are no conflicts in Asia. They are and they will be. If they yet detonate – and sooner or later this may happen – the full planet will have a much bigger problem than what happens in the mediate East.
One possible starter is Taiwan, another is the Korean Peninsula, another is territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. I am not even talking about Kashmir and many another "flammatory points". These are mostly problems that can lead to immense global perturbations. And as I said before, 1 will explode. We don't know erstwhile it's gonna happen, and I don't think I'm gonna be Wernyhor, and I'm not gonna bet it's gonna happen in 2025.
So on the 1 hand, Asia is simply a symbol of success, Prosperity etc., but at the same time a barrel of powder.
Where is the top possible for a “hot conflict”?
At the moment, on the issue of disputes in the South China Sea, especially between the Philippines and China.
I think there's a Korean Peninsula in second place. Kim Jong Un has late powerfully conquered the stakes – sending arms and troops to Russia in Ukraine most likely involves receiving crucial military technologies in return... What do you call it if not an escalation attempt?
On the another hand, there is confusion in South Korea. At first glance, it seems that this unusual coup of theirs simply means an interior power struggle, but it's a bit of a fire-playing game. This must be handled carefully, this is the Korean Peninsula – a lot can happen there.
Let me repeat: Asia seems safe and unchangeable at first glance, but at the same time it has quite a few dead bodies in a closet that can fall out and make a fuss.
No uncertainty all of Asia, like the remainder of the world, is waiting for Donald Trump's presidency and for what he will do. But the fact is, no 1 can foretell it. The fresh president is simply a modern American version of precolonial Asian oriental rulers, prone to whims and making decisions based on impulses.
And are the biggest Asian players waiting for how the situation in Europe will develop, where we have a clear political crisis? So far, the elites are likely to leave for the lamest and be replaced by politicians of a completely different kind... Second thing: many EU countries are already trying to figure out how to deal with Russia and China, among others, after the end of the war in Ukraine...
Of course they are waiting for the improvement of the situation, due to the fact that the West of Europe is an crucial economical player for them. However, there is simply a request for differentiation, due to the fact that this problem cannot be presented in the pan-Asian perspective.
I would like to draw attention to 2 points. Firstly, it is clear that the result of the war in Ukraine will be an crucial component in the relation between Europe and Asia. If Donald Trump forces both sides of the conflict to talk and to any form of ceasefire, then in Europe it will most likely face any moral condemnation, but not in Asia. Of course, the consequence of this game will be carefully and clearly followed.
The second problem is economical issues and, strictly speaking, European cooperation or competition with China. The question is how much the European Union will be protectionist in its economical policy. And how far will the exchange of punches between the Union and China go?
It is clear that Germany would clearly like that this rivalry should not go besides far; that – in colloquially speaking – we should get along. With France, in turn, the situation is more ambiguous and it is hard to tell which way it will go. However, Western European politicians are surely taken seriously in Asia. Europe is inactive rich, France is besides a atomic state. Even if any leaders, like Chancellor Olaf Scholz, are weak, they inactive represent strong states, and this in Asia matters.
Will India be awakened in 2025?
In this country we have a more evolutionary process. India is, of course, chasing China and wanting to be a leader, a leader of the global South, but that will not happen in 1 year.
On the 1 hand, they have a good diplomatic series, they are very successful and they advance nicely. But they are inactive economically very far behind China. It takes at least decades to catch them, and there's a lot that can happen along the way.
Let us remember that India was taking off from a very low ceiling. It is inactive a terribly mediocre country, and its wealth is inactive very gradual and uneven. Things aren't as violent and spectacular there as they are in China.
After planet War II, many thought India would be 1 of the countries deciding the future of the world, but someway it didn't work out. Will that happen now? possibly in a while. However, I would propose that I abstain from crowning them as a global and even continental leader.
What about Burma, where civilian war has been going on for decades? Will peace yet prevail in 2025? I personally get the impression that there simply can't be peace there; that conflicts are controlled from the outside due to the fact that the most crucial players of the region care about the constant destabilisation of Burma...
I don't truly agree with this, but in 2025 we can see which 1 of us is right.
In my opinion, the conflict in Burma is primarily an interior conflict, and external actors have small influence on it.
W Burma operates quite a few different interior militias, guerrilla groups, armed groups. any of them are connected to abroad, but not all, and the same links are secondary to interior contradictions.
Burma is an example of a country that failed to make what English is called nation-building. It is simply a multiethnic country with multi-level conflicts. It simply failed to build modern statehood, a national state and hence such, alternatively than another consequences.
If the country has more than 100 different cultural and cultural groups, which account for more than 30 percent of the full population, the task of state-creation is very difficult. Burma failed and hence this endless civilian war.
In general, there is simply a fight at 2 theatres of war. 1 is ‘traditional’, a clash between the army and cultural minorities since 1948. The second – a fight between the Burmese guerrilla against juncie military, army, starting in 2021.
In late 2023, the guerrillas took over the strategical initiative and asked juncie quite a few painful blows. This summertime junta Actually, she was on her last legs, with the last of her strength. He seemed to yet fall, like Syria or Afghanistan. That hasn't happened yet.
One reason (not only) was China's commitment. Of all countries, they have the top impact on Burma, but this influence is besides not full and absolutely not omnipotent. In 2024 Beijing was truly frightened that junta could lose and began to support her strongly, blocking any guerrillas, which temporarily saved junta. But will that continue? The minute we talk, junta Despite Chinese support, she lost control of the northern Arakan (western coast of the country). He's already little than half the country.
If it lasts until November 2025, it will organize the announced pseudo-elections in the central part of the country. It will later declare itself civilian government, will be accepted by China and another neighbours, etc. Then he can survive, which will mean that Chinese influence mattered. If junta He will lose despite this support, we will have proof that even specified a powerful state is incapable to force Burma to do its will.
Interestingly, even before 2021, Burma was considered 1 of the most interesting countries in the planet in terms of investment. She was even considered a candidate for a fresh Asian tiger. Unfortunately, the endless civilian war swept Burma to the Syrian level or below.
In my opinion, Burma can be compared to Venezuela. There are natural materials, like oil or natural gas, there are possibilities and therefore... There's an endless civilian war...
W Burma is indeed oil, but they are able to process it, so they must mostly import, which is simply a striking example of the collapse of this country. Yet in colonial times Burmah Oil was born from which BP was created, which fewer people know about. Thus, the “pregnant” of 1 of the world's largest oil companies must import oil. And that, among another things, from Russia...
Gas is no better. Burma actually has quite a few it on the coast, but on everything, and that's what the Chinese have been holding on to for a long time.
As for another natural materials in Burma, precious stones and uncommon earth metals, commonly called uncommon metals, should be mentioned. In this case, any deposits control junta, and any – guerrillas. So it can be said that the situation in this respect is very akin to that in Africa, where we have a country on paper, and real power is held by various armed groups.
Can any another countries in Asia go the way of Burma and become an arena of endless civilian war?
There's no indication of that at the moment. Burma is, unfortunately, an exceptionally unfortunate country on the map of Asia. I don't think she's in danger.
For example, what about Kazakhstan, where any years ago we had bloodyly suppressed protests that broke out after the authorities raised fuel prices?
Kazakhstan, as well as another Central Asian countries, is more threatened by the coup than by civilian war.
What coup do you mean? The fresh dictator will overthrow the old dictator, or something like the “Ukrainian Majdan”?
In my opinion, the most likely script is Kyrgyz. In Kyrgyzstan, erstwhile all few, respective years, individual is beating the President-in-Office. usually the strategy is the same: people enter the palace, the old corrupt president escapes, the fresh president takes over, after which he gives money to his colleagues and the “friend rabbit”, and a fewer years later he himself is overthrown.
This is, in short, the Central Asian model of power. I so believe that the Burmese script, which is simply 1 large civilian war for all, does not endanger another Central Asian countries, or at least not in 2025.
How do you view the BRICS initiative? Is this gonna work? Will Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa make their own currency? Will BRICS counterweight Europe and the United States? Is this gonna be any fresh global opening, any fresh era of globalisation?
Maybe have BRICS make any serious website and then think about creating a currency. due to the fact that the authoritative BRICS website failed to make a profit.
That's half a joke, of course, due to the fact that according to Western thinking, everything is expected to be transparent or pseudo-transparent. There is no request in the East, which does not change the fact that for many the deficiency of a website is simply a symbol of what BRICS is.
There's an interesting thing about BRICS. This group – due to the fact that it is not an organization – receives quite a few applications and most likely in 2025 will receive more. But the crucial thing is that the BRICS leaders ask themselves and answer the question what do they want to be? Do they want to be just anti-West or something more? At this point, we don't truly know which way it's gonna go. Most comments and analyses are empty wishes and ideas, putting their own ideas into BRICS. All we know is that BRICS is in anti-Western rhetoric, especially anti-American rhetoric. But if we ask for details and details beyond anti-Westernism, it's much worse.
And there are many basic specifics to be answered. Will the BRICS Group accept Turkey, which has applied there? What about Saudi Arabia, which in this case should be called “Arabia Schrödinger” due to the fact that it is besides and is not in BRICS? We have a lot more than that. BRICS is inactive in the process of forming its identity. Nevertheless, this is an highly interesting subject and it will surely be worth following in 2025.
