Why Did BRICS Back Russia On Crimea?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Zachary Zeck of The Diplomat,

There’s been no shortage of reports and commentaries on the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia’s role in it. Yet one of the more notable recent developments in the crisis has received surprisingly little attention.

Namely, the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has unanimously and, in many ways, forcefully backed Russia’s position on Crimea. The Diplomat has reported on China’s cautious and India’s more enthusiastic backing of Russia before. However, the BRICS grouping as a whole has also stood by the Kremlin.

Indeed, they made this quite clear during a BRICS foreign minister meeting that took place on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague last week. Just prior to the meeting, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop suggested that Australia might ban Russia’s participation in the G20 summit it will be hosting later this year as a means of pressuring Vladimir Putin on Ukraine.

The BRICS foreign ministers warned Australia against this course of action in the statement they released following their meeting last week. “The Ministers noted with concern the recent media statement on the forthcoming G20 Summit to be held in Brisbane in November 2014,” the statement said. “The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can unilaterally determine its nature and character.”

The statement went on to say, “The escalation of hostile language, sanctions and counter-sanctions, and force does not contribute to a sustainable and peaceful solution, according to international law, including the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter.” As Oliver Stuenkel at Post Western World noted, the statement as a whole, and in particular the G20 aspect of it, was a “clear sign that [the] West will not succeed in bringing the entire international community into line in its attempt to isolate Russia.”

This was further reinforced later in the week when China, Brazil, India and South Africa (along with 54 other nations) all abstained from the UN General Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. Another ten states joined Russia in voting against the non-binding resolution.

In some ways, the other BRICS countries’ support for Russia is entirely predictable. The group has always been somewhat constrained by the animosities that exist between certain members, as well as the general lack of shared purpose among such different and geographically dispersed nations. BRICS has often tried to overcome these internal challenges by unifying behind an anti-Western or at least post-Western position. In that sense, it’s no surprise that the group opposed Western attempts to isolate one of its own members.

At the same time, this anti-Western stance has usually taken the form of BRICS opposition to Western attempts to place new limits on sovereignty. Since many of its members are former Western colonies or quasi-colonies, the BRICS are highly suspicious of Western claims that sovereignty can be trumped by so-called universal principles of the humanitarian and anti-proliferation variety. Thus, they have been highly critical of NATO’s decision to serve as the air wing of the anti-Qaddafi opposition that overthrew the Libyan government in 2011, as well as what they perceive as attempts by the West to now overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

However, in the case of Ukraine, it was Russia that was violating the sanctity of another state’s sovereignty. Still, the BRICS grouping has backed Russia. It’s worth noting that the BRICS countries are supporting Russia at potentially great cost to themselves, given that they all face at least one potential secessionist movement within their own territories.

India, for example, has a long history of fluid borders and today struggles with potential secessionist movements from Muslim populations as well as a potent security threat from the Maoist insurgency. China suffers most notably from Tibetans and Uyghurs aspiring to break away from the Han-dominated Chinese state. Even among Han China, however, regional divisions have long challenged central control in the vast country. Calls for secession from the Cape region in South Africa have grown in recent years, and Brazil has long faced a secessionist movement in its southern sub-region, which is dominated demographically by European immigrants. Russia, of course, faces a host of internal secessionist groups that may someday lead Moscow to regret its annexation of Crimea.

The fact that BRICS supported Russia despite these concerns suggests that its anti-Western leanings may be more strongly held than most previously believed. Indeed, besides backing Russia in the foreign ministers’ statement, the rising powers also took time to harshly criticize the U.S. (not by name) for the cyber surveillance programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden.

The BRICS and other non-Western powers’ support for Russia also suggests that forging anything like an international order will be extremely difficult, given the lack of shared principles to act as a foundation. Although the West generally celebrated the fact that the UN General Assembly approved the resolution condemning the Crimea referendum, the fact that 69 countries either abstained or voted against it should be a wake-up call. It increasingly appears that the Western dominated post-Cold War era is over. But as of yet, no new order exists to replace it.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
FieldingMellish's picture

"However, in the case of Ukraine, it was Russia that was violating the sanctity of another state’s sovereignty."

So goes the Western meme.

DeadFred's picture

Why did they back Russia? Matbe because they were the cleanest dirty shirt in the conflict?

CrashisOptimistic's picture

They have experience with the IMF.  They have seen the face of evil.

DeadFred's picture

What I really want to know is why I'm reading from multiple sources that Russia has just backed the Ruble with gold and I'm not seeing anything about it on my go-to gold site ZeroHedge? Bad reports or is Tyler working on the post as we speak?

Anusocracy's picture

They backed Russia because they are getting wiser to the destabilization techniques the US uses.

Breakaway movements, or an outright coup as in Ukraine, sponsored by the US.

wee-weed up's picture

Putin or Obozo?

Putin. No contest.

AldousHuxley's picture


NEW WORLD ORDER now refers to BRICS as the NEW WORLD


America is the OLD WORLD


Europe especially PIGS are the new west Indies to be colonized by the Yuan.

UselessEater's picture

No. Its a game to bring forward the beakaway civilisation for want of a better term.

This game plays the people For the corp interests hidden behind NGO B.S.. We're thinking in nationality, they;re herding us into regionalism for the opposite reason and devestating effect.



GoldenTool's picture

Yes, nationality is the new red team/blue team.


"Lorem ipsum dolor abire"

mickeyman's picture

It isn't nationalities. It's the master plan of the grains. Glutenfrei's theory is being proven before our eyes.  http://www.worldcomplex.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-wisdom-of-grains.html

Bankstein Swissgoldberg's picture

Thank you for this one. Dr Glutenfrei explains it all, indeed.

sessinpo's picture

New world, old world. It's all the same.


Meet your new boss. Same as the old boss.

beefman's picture

ask putin what he thinks about you. you would be surprised. your best bet is with OBAMA.


SilverIsMoney's picture

Maybe cause it's a totally bogus report?

Philalethian's picture

This is just up on the line, Fred.

Covers the rafters of wonders and illusions in the grand matrix.:


No doubt there will be a fine full coverage ZH report here later today.

Who said single digit silver, and double digit gold?

Luckhasit's picture

I wonder the same thing.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Because Rooshia is Just Another Brick in da Wall Street.....right?

Edit: Just noticed thsi was another DiPOOPlomat piece. Urgh! Whassup ZH?



disabledvet's picture

Sure. The last thing the G-20 wants is the West (read USA) taking over Ukraine.

Food prices will skyrocket globally and living standards will suffer a material setback beyond belief.

No one is supporting Russia here...and of course the tell is Xi's visit to Germany "asking for a tour of the death camps."

Russia is not anyone's "friend" right now...save perhaps the USA's.

The only question is "will Putin go for it?"
Turkey's economy has already collapsed...the table has been set. Does he just "walk on in their"? That's a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure...brand spanking new, top of the line.

We shall see...but that sure looks like a "G-2" if he does.

CharlieSDT's picture

Are you smoking something?

BearClaw's picture

Actually the reason for Xi asking to tour WW2 concentration camps was to hit Japan for its own atrocities and the "tell" was Frau Merkel's declining to accompany him ahead of the EU parlimentary elections in May.



UselessEater's picture

Crash, everyone has seen "The Face" and has experience with "The Face".  Yet most seem content to let the actors change costume and pretend they a new characters in a different play.



"was to support a foreign policy within a new world order that was to feature the United States as the leading power – a programme defined by the Rockefeller Foundation as ‘disinterested’, ‘objective’ and even ‘non-political’…"

a.k.a. the Breakaway Civilisation??? see Cath Austin-Fitts

dirty belly's picture

"200,000 people signed up to go to Mars last year, where as in the first month or two of Obamacare, only 60,000 signed up.  A one way to Mars was more popular than Obamacare."  Cath Austin-Fits

UselessEater's picture

IMO the point is to stop thinking about nations - they have and are being F'd beyond all recognition.

Its micro-cosims hiding behind "nations" running this shit.

These microbes will not be destroyed by war nor reset nor ....... anything. You and I most likely will be.


Reptil's picture

hear hear... any country "helped" by the IMF is doomed economically.

please watch this long but interesting video about Argentina?
it correctly identifies the stages in a takeover and dismanteling of a country.
an "IMF model" if you like...

StychoKiller's picture

"Gentlemen, we must hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately." -- Ben Franklin

Anusocracy's picture

They looked at Natalia Poklonskaya and realized she was with the good guys.

daveO's picture

Oil and Gas. Russia is far more stable than the Arabs.

tsuki's picture

This is where this piece of propaganda lost me.  To spend 5 billion dollars to violently overthrow a country's democratically elected government to install a puppet does not violate another state's soveregnity, but standing by while a democratic election of the people of a section of that country decides whether to acknowledge a takeover by a foreign entity does.  Hmmmm. 

Aussiekiwi's picture

You have captured the situation perfectly tsuki, now all you need to do is fly your third rate diplomats around the world demanding sanctions for daring to give the people of a state the right of self determination, its just so damn anti democracy and against the American 2 part dictatorship to allow the peasants to make these kinds of decisions, that's what Goldman Sachs is for..

disabledvet's picture

Goldman Sachs is bank rolling this invasion.

Move along...

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

That's why Kirk is packing his bug out bag.

As a cosmic disciple of TRUTH, Kirk finds the odious stench of bullying, corruption, fraud, hypocrisy, lies, and violence as unacceptable and intolerable.

One to beam up, dammit!

lakecity55's picture

If what the west had to offer was so fucking cool, it would not take 5 billion $ to persuade them.

daveO's picture

That $5 Billion is like a $2000 rebate on an over priced Ford Escort. They'll live to regret it!

Freddie's picture

Why do the Tylers post NeoCon shit like this?   We all knew exactly how things really went down because we learned the news here on ZH!   aka "F**k the EU!" Nudelman, Yats, Klitchko, McCain with Soros plus links to sites like Vineyard Saker, Dimitry Orlov, Dr. Jim Willie and Moon of Alabama plus RT.

Tylers should be more careful or point out NeoCon BS before posting it. 

Please note - I am NOT blog pimping but this is some of the best coverage on the Ukraine.




francis.sawyer001's picture


This is the 'rhetorical' WHY?

Why can you ask such a question and have a 3 year life on this forum, when mere mortals ask such questions and have a life of just days?

Why can the BBC go where ZH fears to go??


Federizzle's picture

Cheers for the links bro. 

sessinpo's picture

Freddie         Why do the Tylers post NeoCon shit like this?   We all knew exactly how things really went down because we learned the news here on ZH!   aka "F**k the EU!" Nudelman, Yats, Klitchko, McCain with Soros


Perhaps we have different definitions of neocon (NeoConservative)

I see nothing conservative about udelman, Yats, Klitchko, McCain with Soros. These guys are either progressives, liberals, socialist or commies like Putin himself!

It's not about whether the left side or right side wins. They are the same side these days, which is not truly conservative. It's about who gets power.

peter4805's picture

"However, in the case of Ukraine, it was Russia that was violating the sanctity of another state’s sovereignty."


And this was the point where I quit reading this thinly disguised piece of propaganda.

Bankstein Swissgoldberg's picture

When a russian tank enters your backyard, maybe you'll change your mind. It's normal to say that Russia violated international law on this matter, (Neocon) propaganda is more like saying: "USA is not violating sovereignty, it just implements freedom and hope and security."

At least that's my opinion.

Anusocracy's picture

We have a trillion dollar security state here.

That's what I worry about, not Russian tanks.

Zerozen's picture

I just checked my back yard...still don't see any Russian tanks.

daveO's picture

They only have one 30 yr. old Aircraft Carrier to park in the Black Sea. I wouldn't worry, either.

DavidC's picture

It WASN'T Russia violating the sanctity of another state's sovereignty, it was the USA going in with $5bn to destabilise a democratically elected prime minister (whether he was a 'nice' person or not) and the mess that has ensued since then as a result of the USA's actions.


NoDebt's picture

Another deep-thinking article by the 20 lb. brains at 'The Diplomat'

The US still thinks it's shit don't stink.  The rest of the world disagrees.  Questions?


disabledvet's picture

Only one. "Why are the Russians and the Americans who actually run things in agreement here?"

sessinpo's picture

So you are a junky. You have a dealer "USA", For what ever reason, he raises your prices so you go to dealer two ." Russia."

Now look at your situation if dealer USA and dealer Russia collude.

I used this analogy because I think you are smoking something and you might actually get it.

DrData02's picture

All hell is going to break loose now.  Who the hell let the BRICS know what we were up to??  It's going to be damn difficult to continue to screw them over if they pursue this course.  Someone better call Nuland to set up a few coups.