I’m by no means an analyst of any kind, but I happen to have had a few thoughts, and I decided to put them down. They’re not phrased that well, but I don’t want to use any LLM to embellish them. I’m sure Grok would be able to put it the way I like (ChatGPT is too politically correct), but AI-generated texts sound strange, “metallic,” once you consider them in their entirety. Well, I didn’t have the time to better organize my ideas.

On BRICS, China, and Europe

If we look at the BRICS+ family, we got:

  • BRICS founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
  • BRICS+ members: Ethiopia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE.
  • BRICS+ partners: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.

I’m not sure what the BRICS founders thought about their organization. OK, they disapproved of the post-Cold War, unipolar world led by the US. But the multipolar world advocated by Russia and China isn’t as simple as that.

The most effective multinational organizations are those centered around a strong leader. NATO has the US as the leading member. The Warsaw Pact and Comecon were ruled by the USSR. The UN doesn’t have a leader, or maybe it has five, and it’s ineffective.

BRICS cannot have two equal leaders, Russia and China.

I’m pretty sure that Russia believes it is ruling the game. When people from BRICS+ come to Valdai or to other economic or security forums where Putin can be found, they prostrate themselves before him. He seems to be their pope. After all, many Latin American and African countries stand for Russia, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. To them, Russia is the successor of the USSR, and, even if it’s not communist anymore, it’s at least opposing the US, and that’s all that matters. Cubans have forgotten how Russia abandoned them to “El Período Especial” and don’t realize how fascist today’s Russia is.

India probably feels entitled to an important role in the international community, and so does Brazil. South Africa must be representing Africa, although it’s not the only important country on the continent.

But to me, China is ruling BRICS and BRICS+, and here’s why I believe so.

This organization is not a military alliance. It’s something that promotes economic cooperation and security through cooperation. It also strives to become “an alternative to the UN,” and it’s more global than local alliances such as ASEAN, the African Union, and the various Pan-American bodies such as OAS, UNASUR, CARICOM, Mercosur, ALADI, and many more. The relationships between various multinational organizations in the Americas are as complex as the relationships between various multinational organizations in Europe, which makes them dysfunctional.

But Russia and Brazil have about the same GDP, both nominally and PPP-adjusted. Roughly, they both compare to Italy’s GDP! This is pathetic, considering Russia’s natural resources.

China is a different animal. It cannot but rule the BRICS family.

Of course, China also has the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But it cannot cover the entire planet. Let’s note, however, that BRI has “captured” former Soviet republics, reducing Russia’s influence in the region.

At the same time, BRI and BRICS promote China’s investments in Africa and Latin America: what the former Western colonizers have abandoned can benefit from China’s interests.

Another relevant aspect. Historically, the Russian Empire, the USSR, and now Russia have never been able to colonize in a positive way. Russia, in any form or shape, knows how to destroy, to ravage, to kill, and to dilapidate. With extremely few exceptions (say, Cuba), Russia never helped other countries to develop.

In contrast to Russia and to the decaying Western investments (which never go to Africa and too little to Latin America), China knows to invest in the regions that matter to get access to resources that matter. It’s a soft colonialism, never by military force, and typically in win-win setups. Meanwhile, China is securing resources and markets.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are in BRICS+ thanks to China, not because of Russia, despite all having good mutual relations. (OK, Belarus is there for Russia’s sake.) Many other countries are in the BRICS+ “brotherhood” thanks to China and are hoping to benefit from BRI or similar programs.

My opinion is that China is extremely pragmatic, as a rule. China doesn’t love the regime in Pyongyang, but it’s a political asset against the West. China doesn’t really love Russia. Despite the official statements, Xi doesn’t respect Putin that much. But China depends on Russia’s exports of energy resources. China also benefits from 80-90% of the oil exported by Iran.

In the whole BRICS+ and BRI architecture, despite the several bilateral win-win agreements and deals, it’s always China that’s in the center, more often than Russia. And it’s never about political might!

To some extent, China is more effective than the UN, despite not being able to stop the wars in Ukraine and Iran. But its programs are always thinking in the long run. When China seizes Taiwan, it will be with minimal damages, because the idea is to have its economy impacted as little as possible. I expect another “One Country, Two Systems,” like in Macao and Hong Kong, to prevent the alienation of people and flight of the businesses. Contrast this to how Russia is destroying the very areas of Ukraine that it then claims for itself!

From all the authoritarian governance models present in the BRICS+ countries, China’s is the most effective one, economically.

It is a pity that, in the context of Trump’s trade war with an entire planet, the European Union doesn’t realize that it has to ally to China against the US, despite the European reliance on the US-led NATO and despite Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine. Russia really has a destructive approach to international relations, doesn’t it?

The EU is fragile. Russia has breached many treaties to which European countries were signatories, but it didn’t double-cross China. Maybe the EU could benefit in many ways from an alliance with China.

China’s leadership within BRICS+ is about economic centrality. Its reliance on Russian energy and Iranian oil is tactical, not a sign of dependence on Russia as a leader. Xi’s pragmatic approach further solidifies China’s position in the world. We need to understand that.

About 30% of China’s population can be considered middle-class, absolute poverty is very low, and the modernization of the society is unprecedented in its history and in the world. The cost? A single-party system and censorship. But in the last 30 years, China’s leaders have always been engineers or economists, whereas in the West one could often find complete nincompoops, and I’m not only thinking about Trump. Unlike in its socialist period, the planning in the capitalist stage of China’s economy seems to be surprisingly effective. Capitalism means, combined with strong, pragmatic leadership, instead of endless debates and no action, as we have here in the West.

It was also our Western greed that helped China develop. Now we have to accept that we, Europeans, are economically dependent on both the US and China. Being at odds with both of them is unsustainable.

Two videos related to China

Christine Lagarde, contradicting Ursula von der Leyen’s stance against cooperation with China (Xinhua, 2025-06-14: ECB chief calls on EU, China to continue cooperation):

This is not capitulation to China! This is not the same as moving production to China! That was the making of greedy European (and American) CEOs, and it was high treason. For once, Lagarde is purely technical and pragmatic.

Now, Victor Gao, on China’s dissatisfaction regarding the war on Iran, including the fact that the US is helping Israel in the matter:

On China’s visa policy changes

Even before the pandemic, I’ve read a number of articles claiming that China wants to make it increasingly difficult for foreigners to come visit China, unless they’re business visitors and have people on the ground able to help them logistically. Apparently and allegedly, information on which credit cards to use and how, or about Chinese SIM cards and other practical issues, was difficult to obtain. I didn’t pay much attention to the topic, as I wasn’t interested in visiting China.

The other day, I was browsing the unofficial X account President Xi Jinping – Commentary. It’s not an official account. And that’s not only because Xi isn’t personally tweeting, nor because it includes “commentary” in the name. But governmental accounts use a gray badge, not a blue one! The blue badge doesn’t “verify” anything as long as one pays.

OK, so the posts on the aforementioned account are very strongly in favor of China’s policies. What’s worse, they’re much better than the official propaganda! Compare those tweets, which tend to include beautiful imagery and persuasive assertions, to the general note of the articles in China Daily: the global edition in English, the normal edition in English; People’s Daily in English; or Xinhua in English. No wonder that some people do believe that Xi actually said everything that can be found there! He didn’t, but he could have.

One of the tweets included this:

The “traditional wisdom” (read: Google’s AI Overview) is that “Citizens from 43 countries can visit China visa-free for up to 30 days for business, tourism, family visits, or transit.” But, “Additionally, citizens from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay are also included, with the policy taking effect on June 1, 2025.”

What’s missing from the above picture is Uzbekistan, which is strange, because between the two countries there’s a mutual agreement in force since June 1, 2025​​, meaning that Chinese nationals can visit Uzbekistan visa-free for up to ​​30 days, with a cumulative limit of ​​90 days per 180-day period.

The Wikipedia page for Visa policy of mainland China will reveal the complexity of China’s relations with the rest of the world.

There are several visa-free regimes for ordinary passports:

  • Permanent regime of 90 days per visit: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, San Marino. The first 3: “No more than 90 days within any 180-day period.”
  • Permanent regime of 60 days per visit: Mauritius.
  • Permanent regime of 30 days per visit: 24 countries. For 7 of them: “No more than 90 days within any 180-day period.” For Belarus: “No more than 90 days within any 1 calendar year.”
  • Temporary regime of 30 days per visit: European Union member states (except Czech Republic, Lithuania and Sweden), plus other 22 countries. Of all these, the EU ones and other 13: “Until December 31, 2025.” For Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay: “Until May 31, 2026.” For Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia: “Until June 8, 2026.”

I suppose the temporary regimes are periodically evaluated and adjusted as considered appropriate. The peculiarity of some regimes (60 days) might have to do with bilateral agreements, even if the respective country is small!

You won’t find in the above lists the UK, the US, Canada, or even Mexico!

Reasons for being excluded from China’s visa-free policy: Czechia has taken strong pro-Taiwan actions; Lithuania allowed Taiwan to open a “Taiwanese Representative Office” in Vilnius using “Taiwan” instead of the customary “Taipei”; Sweden has criticized China’s human rights record in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and is pushing for technology export controls to China.

Other visa exemptions include tour groups from Azerbaijan, Moldova, or Turkmenistan (30 days), Russia (15 days), sea farers and air crew members from Poland, Russia, or Ukraine.

The 24-hour Transit Without a Visa (TWOV) policy allows eligible travelers to enter mainland China without a visa from nine key hub airports. In addition, visiting the closest city to the airport is possible, subject to approval.

The 240-hour land side transit is possible for citizens of 55 countries at specific ports of entry. Eligible countries: those who are visa-exempt in general, plus Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, the UK, and the US.

But the most up-to-date page on the subject is on China Briefing: China’s Visa-Free Policies: Latest Updates.

All in all, this complex, yet very generous policy shows, in my opinion, a great opening regarding international tourism, especially the temporary additions for most EU countries!

🐼

I wish I were 24 years old.

Of course, I’d also visit several Latin American countries. Or move there.