How Resilient is BRICS in the Storm of Geopolitics? – Part 2

Introduction

In the first part of this series, we looked at the facts about BRICS and the major economic trends we are currently seeing.

Today's second part focuses on the environment in which BRICS must develop as the most important organization in the Global South. We assess the general circumstances of war, the great danger that a nuclear war would constitute, and the unpredictability of the geopolitical situation, which leads us to describe the current situation as a “storm.”

In the third and final part, we will then attempt to show where this organization could be heading and what can be expected from the Collective West in terms of attempts to prevent this.

Storm

Has World War III Already Begun?

How the current geopolitical situation is characterized and described depends on the perspective of the observer. It is fair to say that, from a purely military point of view, World War III is already in full swing. We already made this claim in February 2023 in our article “Sleepwalkers at work: World War III has probably already begun.” The situation regarding Western involvement has become even more pronounced since the article was published. Direct involvement—such as supplying the Ukrainian army with target information with the help of personnel on the ground—is no longer even seriously disputed. Thus, the question of whether World War III has already begun from a military point of view has been answered, even though the Russians are not stating this openly for reasons of de-escalation.

There are other arguments that could be used to justify the start of World War III. First of all, there is the geographical spread of attacks of all kinds. Secondly, the nature of warfare has changed completely. War can be waged not only kinetically, but also on an economic level or as cyberwarfare.

Cross-border cyberattacks are commonplace and affect all major players in this conflict. Furthermore, the Collective West is waging economic war against Russia by imposing a barrage of sanctions since 2014, intensified since February 2022, that is unprecedented in history. The US has also been sanctioning many other countries, such as Venezuela since 2015 and, previously, Cuba and Iran. The sanctions in Venezuela are directed against companies, individuals, the government and its members, with secondary sanctions against counterparties around the world and against the general public through entry restrictions. The economic sanctions have already led to weight loss in the population due to hunger for years (2018: 11 kg). Thus, the world war can also be well justified with these, albeit new, arguments.

In early 2025, I published the series “The War of Two Worlds Has Already Begun” (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5) and argued that we were facing decades of military conflict between the Collective West and the Global South, but not directly – in my assessment – rather as proxy wars in places of strategic importance to both worlds, such as countries with large reserves of raw materials or control over important trade routes. Admittedly, this thesis is also based on the hope that a direct conflict between the US and China and Russia would not occur, as the risk of a nuclear exchange would then be horrendously high. For this reason, we are presenting the view of my friend and colleague Scott Ritter, who considers the risk of a direct nuclear exchange between the US and Russia to be much greater than I did at the beginning of this year.

The Danger of a Nuclear Armageddon

Two weeks ago, I was invited to the book launch of Scott Ritter's latest work, “Highway to Hell,” in Moscow. The Russian version is titled “Дорога в Ад.”

I know Scott Ritter well personally and have the utmost respect for him as a person, friend, and geopolitical analyst. With his refreshing modesty, he always presents himself as a simple, non-intellectual Marine, but this is revealed to be mere coquetry when he speaks freely for over an hour in front of a critical audience and then spends another hour answering sometimes uncomfortable questions; then you witness his enviable intellectual acuity and his incredibly broad and deep knowledge. Scott Ritter's thesis is indeed frightening and is based on several lines of argument. For example, on the fact that the disarmament treaties have been terminated by the US, will soon expire and, if not renewed, will multiply the risk of a nuclear exchange, as well as on a few isolated statements – for example by David Lasseter – that a nuclear war can be won. Similar thoughts were expressed a few days ago by the well-known Russian geopolitician Sergei Karaganov in an interview in Moscow. It should be noted that he does not represent the opinion of the Kremlin.

These isolated and dangerous statements clearly contradict the joint declaration by the heads of state and government of the five nuclear-weapon states on preventing nuclear war and avoiding an arms race, dated January 3, 2022, in which China, the US, France, Russia, and the UK clearly stated:

«We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought»

Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races

Ritter's statements are credible, unfortunately realistic, and extremely disturbing: he calls on Russia and the US to engage in unconditional and immediate negotiations—we can only agree with him. Furthermore, I would like to refer our readers to Scott's first article with us, where the necessity of arms' control is the subject "The Oreshnik Factor".

The insane statements that tactical nuclear weapons could be used and Armageddon still prevented must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It almost seems as if the unconditional fear of nuclear war, which has protected humanity from nuclear war since 1945, is wearing thin. Assuming that 80% of the world's population would die immediately or as a result of a fully escalated nuclear war, one would not want to be among the remaining 20% who would languish in the inevitable apocalyptic nuclear winter that would follow. I advise anyone who considers the consequences of a nuclear war to be acceptable in any way to watch the 1983 disaster epic “The Day After.”

Despite all these apocalyptic thoughts that one will have after an intensive exchange with Scott Ritter's explanations, I believe—perhaps motivated by naive optimism—that we will be able to prevent this major catastrophe, not least thanks to Scott Ritter's tireless work in revealing this existential issue to decision-makers and raising public awareness of it.

Storm as a Description of the Present

Nevertheless, the situation is extremely dangerous, and even if nuclear war is prevented, there is reason to fear that millions of people will die in the storm that is already raging.

I use the term “storm” in this context deliberately. When I hear the word storm, I don’t just think of strong winds, but of wind systems that can cause the wind direction to change 360 degrees in a matter of seconds – yes, 360 degrees is correct this time. This view is based on childhood memories of Lake Maggiore, a lake surrounded by mountains, a small part of which lies in Italian-speaking Switzerland and most of which lies in Italy, and whose storms are characterized by the fact that the downdrafts cause this phenomenon of immediately changing winds.

So when I hear the word “storm,” I remember how the wind direction can change completely in a matter of seconds. If you assume that in a war, the tide can turn in one direction or the other, then in a storm it's even more unpredictable, especially in storms like the ones I've experienced.

President Trump's behavior, for example, causes every weather vane to spin around its own axis; to this day, I still don't know whether Trump is pursuing a strategy that I don't understand or whether he is intellectually so overwhelmed that he has lost all sense of direction. The longer I watch this spectacle—or rather, this tragicomedy—the more I tend to suspect the latter. There is no way of knowing whether the new 28-point plan will be successful; what can be said with certainty is that the Europeans will do everything in their power, thus, to prevent peace from being achieved. The question is therefore whether Trump can prevail against the Europeans. In doing so, he would – intentionally or unintentionally – also protect Russia's interests. Zelensky's opinion is completely irrelevant in this regard. Which side Trump will ultimately take is as predictable as the outcome of a coin toss.

In connection with the ups and downs of Trump's unpredictable politics, we must say a word about Russia's diplomacy, especially after the publication of the American 28-point plan. At the moment, it looks as if—to put it bluntly—the US is literally “sledding” with Zelensky and the EU leadership. Let's not kid ourselves: Trump's success also depends on the flexibility of Russian diplomacy. In the run-up to Anchorage, the US had apparently demanded “flexibility” from the Russian leadership in order to be able to outmaneuver the Ukraine-Europe axis. And Russia delivered. Putin's statement that the American 28-point plan corresponds to “the framework discussed in Anchorage” is likely to have caused quite a stir around the world.

However, let us not be fooled: this US-Russian alliance of convenience only serves both sides if both sides “deliver.”

Despite all diplomatic concessions, however, we should not delude ourselves: even if fundamental Russian peace conditions are not included in Trump's plan, Putin will only sign it if these conditions are met. And BRICS will fully support Putin in this.

In recent days, the Epstein scandal also seems to have taken on a momentum that leaves one speechless. George Galloway, the eloquent British commentator, published his monologue entitled “Trump will not survive” on Sunday, November 18, 2025.

The assumptions raised in this monologue about the vulnerability of Trump and his administration to blackmail are horrendous, an indicator of a possible loss of control by the Trump administration over the narrative of this scandal, which could not be more distasteful. This, in turn, guarantees the perpetuation of the scandal, because the more unsavoury a scandal is, the longer it stays alive.

Imagine—and this now seems to be a realistic scenario—President Trump having to resign amid this complete chaos, for which he is partly responsible. That would overturn every geopolitical forecast that was considered certain or at least compelling. ...and bring J. D. Vance to the White House.

To find your way in a storm, you also need a compass. The Collective West lost its moral compass in October 2023 at the latest and has not found it again since. As a lifelong diligent student of the Holocaust, I am unable to muster even a hint of justification or understanding for the genocide that is taking place not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank. I have expressed my views in detail on this unsavory topic, which should not even exist, in my article “Genocide as ‘self-defense’ – Western media as accomplices in the genocide in Gaza – We stand up!” If the US would not just carry its morals like a banner in a procession, but would live up to its noble words, this genocide would not be possible; I am deliberately leaving Europe out of this discussion. Europe has long since ceased to exist morally, and if it does, then only as an appendage of the US; unfortunately, this includes my home country, Switzerland. The “ceasefire” concluded a few weeks ago is not a ceasefire – the killing continues. This diabolical deal serves only as a fig leaf. For whom? For the Western media, which promotes genocide, in order to conceal the genocide deliberately and consciously staged by Zionists and orchestrated materially and politically by the West.

The world is therefore in a highly unstable state. Humanity is being tossed about in the waves like a nutshell, more intensely than ever before. This is also due to the fact that the balance of power is spread across many more poles than before, as a result of the developing multipolar world.

“There has probably never been a more vivid metaphor for ‘David versus Goliath’ in military history.”

During the last world war, power—and thus destructive power—was concentrated in a few countries. Today, the number of countries wielding power is much greater. There are numerous reasons for this: the nature of conflict capability is more diverse, as military conflict capability now includes inexpensive drones and guided missiles, which help a small, previously inferior opponent to inflict asymmetrical damage on a much larger and richer opponent. The Houthis, for example, have been fought by Saudi Arabia, the US, the UK, Israel, and France for over 10 years and still have the upper hand. An estimated 350,000 Houthis, of whom only about 20,000 are combat troops, are able to keep five of the largest military powers in the Red Sea at bay. There has probably never been a more vivid metaphor for “David versus Goliath” in military history – a veritable disaster for the prestige of the American and European armed forces.

Cyberwarfare should also be mentioned, where results depend on intellect and creativity rather than gross national product. These two examples, combined with the higher number of participants, cause the number of possible outcomes of this conflict to increase exponentially.

Interim Result

The world is indeed experiencing turbulent times. These are certainly not favorable conditions for the BRICS community to develop in a positive way. One could argue that this is unfair to the Global South, citing the comparatively peaceful post-war decades during which the power structures of the Collective West were able to develop.

But those “born of the storm” are inherently stronger.

However, concepts of fairness should not be used as arguments in geopolitics, because despite fig leaves such as “human rights” and “international law,” it is ultimately the stronger side that prevails—that is all that matters. Nazi Germany did not lose World War II because fairness demanded it, but because it was defeated militarily. This time will be no different.

In this interim chapter, we have established that the geopolitical situation in the world could not be more confusing and that the word “storm” actually describes the situation well. But those “born of the storm” are inherently stronger.

In the third part, we will describe the flashpoints that arise from the lists of members, partners, and candidates of BRICS+.