I stopped taking the article seriously when he classified BRICS as a Chinese organization. It's like these people don't get it, his mentality and recommendations is why BRICS is a thing in the first place. People are tired of a western centric world order and want alternatives.
Actually, I am glad you brought it up, as there were two things in it that caught my attention, that I thought it was noteworthy enough to post.
It was just two paragraphs. It was an atypical kind of rant from people with that ideology, then there was this paragraph in the middle of the article, that really caught my attention.
However, many of these BRICS countries want economic benefits but no part of the fierce U.S.-Sino rivalry, thinking they can still rely on American security. They cannot be allowed to have it both ways.
I think there is a minor point here and a major point.
The minor point is just a practical consideration, such as what if the smaller country rejects the carrot and the stick? This has happened before, when UAE decided to keep its Huawei gear in their network, and cancel their F-35 contract. They did not officially cancel it, they suspended it. Then next, they bought Rafale.
The big thing I got out of it, was this is frustration setting in. Giving ultimatums, that is surely a sign of someone reaching the end of their rope. Look at the recent news, where US Republicans wants more sanctions on Huawei and SMIC (because they succeed), and they want the company executives arrested. Being how funny that is, we miss how frustrated they are.
The point is, frustrated people do things. Uncle Valdimir waited 8 years and finally out of frustration the tanks rolled after speaking to his friend at the Beijing Winter Olympics.
So, obviously further and more dramatic escalations are expected very soon. By both sides.
In short, America and China will continue battling it out on the economic, security, and geopolitical fronts. And BRICS is a significant threat that needs a comprehensive answer from the West.
This is the last paragraph in the article, which confirms that they do not like the direction things are presently going, which means their current plan is not working.
However, this is rather complicated thing I believe.
It is like a sports game, where there is a favourite and and underdog. Clearly I would say, China is the underdog and USA is the favourite. The the game starts and the underdog takes the lead.
The favourite thinks they can comeback, because they are a better team, but that is why you play the game.
The favourite can have that mentality, that they can coast, they finally turn it on, and take the game.
Too many in America has this attitude.
They think, they can be behind, but they are not in trouble yet, and when they turn it on, they will comeback and win.
That last paragraph, he was saying, and I suspect he fully believed it, that America is not in trouble yet, but should have some urgency in turning it on.
However, other than suggesting the USA threaten others with ultimatums and arrest, he had no other ideas.
Kind of ironic. The author knew they could be behind, sense that they could be in trouble if they do not turn it around, but in the end he demanded someone in the West comes up with a "comprehensive answer."
Well, geez, the guy wrote an article this long, he must have thought about it, and in the end, he does not even venture to suggest what a "comprehensive answer," from the West would look like.
For all their bravado, they're still losing.
They do not believe they are in trouble yet, but I think they are.
When there is no plan to change the course of the game, they will be in trouble sooner or later.
