ER Editor: Macron, or whoever’s playing him or puppeting him, was seeking to attend the upcoming BRICS meeting in August in South Africa. Russia isn’t keen to play ball, naturally, yet South Africa does have the option to allow the invitation as the event host (Moscow Expects Paris to Clarify Motives Behind Macron’s Plan to Attend BRICS Summit).
See today’s report by RT –
There should be no place for the French president at the bloc’s upcoming summit, a senior diplomat has argued
French President Emmanuel Macron’s attendance at a meeting of BRICS leaders would be “inappropriate,” considering his government’s stance against Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said. Paris confirmed this week that Macron is seeking an invitation to the bloc’s summit in South Africa in August.
Speaking to journalists on Thursday, Ryabkov explained that Russia’s opposition to Macron’s potential appearance was based on France’s efforts to isolate Moscow and its support for NATO’s goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia in the Ukraine conflict. …
BRICS+ should tread carefully with possible NATO-aligned ‘Trojan horses’
DRAGO BOSNIC for INFOBRICS
BRICS+ is by far the fastest-growing geopolitical format of our time.
With approximately 30 countries lining up to join, BRICS+ will soon become the world’s largest international organization besides the UN. However, no matter how good this is for the world and the organization itself, BRICS+ needs to be careful about possible NATO/US-aligned ‘Trojan horses’ that might undermine it in the long term. There are several examples of this, France being the latest, with President Emmanuel Macron expressing the desire to attend the upcoming BRICS summit in South Africa.
It seems that the French president aims to become the first Western leader to be invited to such an event, something that could push his geopolitical reach far beyond the influence of any of his NATO counterparts. Since this is the first time a Western leader expressed a desire to attend a BRICS+ summit, many were skeptical about the veracity of such reports, so many media outlets saw this information as not more than mere speculation. However, after French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna confirmed it, there’s no doubt that Macron is actually trying to arrange his attendance at the summit.
“Having a dialogue is always positive, even when we don’t 100% agree on everything,” she stated on June 19, during a joint press conference with Naledi Pandor, her South African counterpart.
Judging by the reaction of major media outlets in China, Beijing sees this initiative as a net positive. This is further reinforced by the writing of the Beijing-based Global Times, which sees Macron’s intentions as “bold but reasonable”, and China Daily, which also believes that the French president’s interest in the summit should be viewed from a “positive perspective”. The latter sees “the French desire for strategic autonomy” as something that “should be valued and encouraged”, because “Macron is by no means a proxy of Washington DC, and he should be welcomed to the gathering”.
The Global Times was much more careful in its assessment of Macron’s apparent tilt, although it kept an overall positive overtone. On the other hand, other key BRICS members, particularly Russia, showed a lot more skeptical attitude. And rightfully so. Western leaders have demonstrated that they’re not to be trusted due to their tendency to unilaterally abandon existing international agreements or even use them to “buy time” for their vassals and satellite states. And while France may seek “strategic independence”, its own previous leader François Hollande openly admitted that he intentionally betrayed Russia’s trust to “buy time” for Kiev.
Paris certainly has a history of opposing the largely unquestionable Anglo-American dominance in the political West. However, the most prominent (or perhaps even the only) example of the actual implementation of such opposition happened under Charles de Gaulle back in the 1960s. And while Macron does have a tendency to compare himself to “le général” (for obvious (geo)political reasons), de Gaulle made numerous concrete moves to regain France’s strategic independence. However, this geopolitical approach subsided soon after he left office and gradually disappeared altogether in the following decades.
Still, France is certainly not the only possible “Trojan horse” within the ranks of the expanded BRICS+ format. Last year, Indonesia was one of the dozens of countries that expressed interest in joining the organization. However, Jakarta previously canceled the acquisition of Russian Su-35 fighter jets, giving in to Washington DC’s unrelenting pressure and blackmail. Worse yet, Indonesia even decided to buy the American F-15EX, a conceptually somewhat similar, yet exponentially more expensive fighter jet, the capabilities of which are highly questionable in comparison to the now legendary “Super Flanker”.
Jakarta’s strategic independence can only be described as extremely dubious after it made such a decision, as even the US itself is not sending the F-15EX, but the more advanced F-22 “Raptors” to counter the deployment of the Su-35 in the Middle East and elsewhere. Worse yet, Indonesia seems to be slowly tilting towards the US “China containment” strategy, as evidenced by the first-ever deployment of nuclear-capable B-52H “Stratofortress” strategic bombers to its island of Sumatra. The USAF aircraft landed there on June 19, although they’ve been permanently stationed at the Australian Tindal Air Base in the northern part of Australia.
Apart from Paris and Jakarta, Ankara might be the most challenging future member of the BRICS+ format, particularly in a post-Erdogan era. Although Turkey’s geopolitical ambitions far exceed its power, they still span from Africa’s Libya to China’s westernmost province of Xinjiang. Ankara’s not only Neo-Ottoman, but also Neo-Seljuk ambitions, mixed with an attempt to harness the power of the so-called “political Islam” wherever that’s (or was) possible, have been undermining the emergence of Greater Eurasia for over a decade. Such expansionism started with the truly unprovoked and brutal NATO invasions of Libya and Syria, ever so euphemistically dubbed “civil wars” in the so-called “free press”.
Despite tense relations between Erdogan and Washington DC, Turkey continues to play a vital role in US/NATO aggression against the Middle East. Its Neo-Ottomanism is also augmented by the decades-old pan-Turkic efforts to establish a bloc of its own. The political West has been supporting such policies since long before the Soviet dismantlement, as long as Turkey firmly remains a NATO member. This might extend the belligerent alliance’s shadow not only to Southern Caucasus, but (even more disturbingly) to Central Asia as well, igniting additional hotspots in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan (tried in late 2021/early 2022) and could even spill over to China’s Xinjiang province.
It’s only logical and expected that the political West will try to undermine and destabilize the emergence of a more firmly established multipolar world. Support for countries on the fringes of Greater Eurasia is geopolitically convenient, as it contributes to the policy of so-called “strategic containment”. Historically, the military elites in both Turkey and Indonesia have been under a relatively firm foothold of the Pentagon, giving the US strong leverage in both countries, while having France as a supposedly “strategically independent” Western player in the BRICS+ camp can certainly be more useful than not having anyone.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.