While there are similarities between the EU and BRICS, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also stresses that the differences between the two are very large – and that BRICS should not be classified as an organization at all at the moment.
In recent years, BRICS has received increasing attention, including in Swedish news reports and political debates – while many may perceive that it is not entirely clear what kind of cooperation it is or how it differs from, for example, the European Union.
During the ongoing BRICS summit, Peskov stressed that, unlike the EU, BRICS today “does not have the necessary attributes to be considered an organization” – as it has neither a common charter nor any clearly defined and binding rules.
Instead, he says, it should be seen as an “association of countries that share common values and common guidelines” and committed to the principles of mutual respect and mutual benefit without any “monocentrism”, reports Russian state broadcaster RT.
“Whole set of obligations”
The EU, on the other hand, is described as an organization that has numerous and very clearly defined statutes, laws and regulations, binding documents and “a whole set of mutual obligations”.
According to the Kremlin, BRICS’ sole objective is to pursue the mutual interests of the participating countries, and this is said to be what cooperation is based on.
Today, the 10-member group represents just under half of the world’s population, and just over a third of global gross domestic product, and it is reported that some 30 more countries have expressed interest in either joining or otherwise cooperating with BRICS.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns believes that one of China's greatest advantages is the Chinese Communist Party's ability to think strategically and long-term.
Nicholas Burns, who served as U.S. Ambassador to China for three years, argues that the Western world has systematically underestimated the Chinese superpower’s capabilities in technology, military, and infrastructure.
In a recent interview, the experienced diplomat highlights several areas where China is far ahead of the United States – and warns that American policymakers still fail to see the full gravity of the situation from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests.
Nicholas Burns, 68, concluded his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to China in January 2025 after three intense years in Beijing. With a long career in American diplomacy behind him – having served under six presidents and nine secretaries of state – he returned to Harvard University where he is a professor of diplomacy and international relations.
Now he speaks openly about his experiences and observations from his time in China. And the picture he paints is more alarming than many are willing to acknowledge.
Impressive infrastructure
— We’ve underestimated Chinese power in the world, Burns states bluntly. As an example, he highlights China’s high-speed rail system:
— Those trains are fabulous. We rode those trains. You know, you can go from Beijing to Shanghai in four and a half hours.
The distance is over a thousand kilometers, he points out, drawing a clear comparison with the American rail system Amtrak:
— We have Amtrak’s just not like that.
But it is in scientific and technological capacity that Burns sees the greatest challenge.
— That’s the coin of the realm in our decade, he says and continues:
— In the next few decades. Which society will turn out more scientists and engineers?
Former US ambassador to China Nicholas Burns shakes hands with Xu Kunlin, governor of Jiangsu Province in China during a meeting in 2023. Photo: US Department of State
“Alarming” education statistics
The statistics he presents are striking. 34 percent of first-year students at Chinese universities study engineering or STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In the United States, the corresponding figure is 5.6 percent.
— And they’re a much bigger country, Burns adds.
He also points to a peculiar paradox in American society. At Harvard’s graduation ceremony, where he himself teaches, the pattern is clear:
— At Harvard graduation, where I teach, when we ask our graduate students to stand up as a class, chemistry majors, biology majors, physics majors, largely Asian Americans, Some American citizens, excuse me, Asians, American citizens of Asian ethnicity or Chinese.
The same pattern is visible in business.
— Last week, when President Trump gathered all the tech titans of the United States in the White House, tremendous number of those tech titans are Indian Americans and Chinese Americans, Burns says.
His conclusion is scathing:
— We’re not competing when it really matters for the future. And that’s on technology.
Overlooked military strength
Burns also addresses the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), whose capabilities he believes the Western world underestimates.
— Some people have said, well, it hasn’t fought since 1978. What is what it’s worth? I’ve seen the PLA, he says firmly.
— I think we’ve underestimated their military strength, their technology strength.
FMR U.S AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: “WE’VE UNDERESTIMATED CHINA’S POWER”
Nicholas Burns:
“Those trains are fabulous – you can go from Beijing to Shanghai in 4 1/2 hours, over 1000 kilometers. We have Amtrak, and it’s just not like that.
One of China’s greatest advantages, according to Burns, is the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to think strategically and long-term.
— The Communist Party of China is strategic and they don’t have to worry about, you know, we want to worry about what the press says. I mean, that’s a good thing to have the press challenging the government. They have nobody opposing them. And so they can make big bets over 10, 20, 30 years.
As an example, he mentions China’s systematic Africa policy:
— For 35 consecutive years, the Chinese foreign minister, whoever that person is, has made his first trip of the year in January to Africa to show the Africans you are our priority.
The contrast with the United States is striking.
— I think President Trump never went to Africa in his first term. President Biden went once to Angola for two or three days in December, at the very end of his term, Burns says.
His conclusion is unequivocal:
— They’re strategic, and we’re not competing on that level. So actually, I think the Chinese technology military economics are stronger than we think they are. And I think we’ve underestimated them, and we can’t do that any longer.
Swedish citizens will soon be able to travel to China without a visa. This was announced by Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergård (M) during a visit to Beijing.
Sweden has until now been one of few European countries lacking visa-free entry to China, despite most other nations on the continent having gained access to the new rules.
— This is very welcome news, and businesses in particular have been requesting this for a long time. We don’t know the details regarding implementation or exact design, but I expect we will have this shortly. But as I understand it, it will cover Swedish citizens, Stenergård told publicly funded broadcaster SVT.
In July this year, China expanded its visa-free policy to cover a total of 74 countries, where citizens can visit the country for up to 30 days without a visa. Nearly all of Europe is included in the agreement, but Sweden and the United Kingdom have until now remained outside.
For Swedish travelers and businesses, the change represents a major relief, as visa applications were previously time-consuming and costly.
— Swedish companies have unfortunately been affected by excessive red tape for a long time, not least at the EU level, she says.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
China’s Victory Day parade in early September drew wide attention both at home and abroad. While Chinese audiences saw it as a solemn moment of remembrance and confidence, some foreign media outlets rushed to label it a “show of force,” a “signal to the West,” or even evidence of new global division.
These interpretations ignore the deeper significance of the event and the consistent principles guiding China’s approach to global affairs.
At its heart, the parade was an act of remembrance—marking China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the global triumph over fascism. It was a tribute to the sacrifices of millions and a powerful reminder that peace is never easily won.
The presence of numerous foreign leaders in Beijing during the parade was a statement in itself. They were there not to take sides or escalate tensions, but to stand together in honoring the past and fostering a future built on peace. Their participation underscored a shared commitment to dialogue, not division.
Building capabilities to uphold principles
The weapons and equipment displayed at the parade should be understood within the framework of China’s long-standing defense policy, one based on peace and restraint.
Consider China’s nuclear posture: China remains the only nuclear-weapon state to publicly commit to a No-First-Use policy under any circumstances. This reflects a profound belief that nuclear weapons must never be used, and that a nuclear war can have no winners. China’s nuclear arsenal is kept strictly at the minimum level required for national security.
In terms of conventional forces, the unveiling of new-generation tanks, aircraft, and missile systems such as hypersonic weapons does showcase progress in China’s military modernization. Yet this progress is guided by a doctrine of active self-defense. These systems are designed to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to project power globally. They serve as an anchor for national security and a stabilizer for regional security, deterring interference rather than provoking conflict.
The parade also featured unmanned and AI-enabled systems, highlighting China’s progress in technology and innovation. Importantly, this display went hand-in-hand with China’s call for international dialogue on regulating military uses of artificial intelligence. China has consistently advocated for a balanced approach—one that prevents misuse and humanitarian risks without stifling beneficial technological progress.
A message for the future
Yes, the parade was grand in scale. Yes, it displayed advanced weaponry systems. But above all, it conveyed a message of responsibility, transparency, and an enduring commitment to peace.
In times of rising mistrust and uncertainty, that message carries weight. The real choice before the international community is not between holding parades or staying silent, but between pursuing dialogue or confrontation, cooperation or suspicion. By honoring history and demonstrating its defensive posture, China has extended a hand of reassurance, not a fist of provocation.
The lesson of history is clear: peace is built through openness, cooperation, and mutual respect. This parade was, in that spirit, a step forward—a visible pledge of China’s dedication to a peaceful and stable world.
Hua Gesheng
About the author
Hua Gesheng is a commentator on international and multilateral affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, China Daily, CGTN, etc.
Liberal democracy is under attack from new “autocratic alliances”, claimed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz this week. In the same breath, he acknowledged that the West’s attractiveness is “noticeably diminishing” and that the world no longer looks up to Western values in the same way as before.
Former BlackRock executive Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron painted a dark picture of the West’s crisis on Friday. Both leaders claim that liberal democracy is under attack from various directions, and according to Merz, it is an “axis of autocratic states” that now challenges the liberal world order.
— The centers of power in the world are shifting to an extent not seen since the end of the Cold War. An axis of autocratic states that challenges the liberal order around the world is directly challenging Western democracies, he claimed.
However, why this axis has formed was not explained in detail. In the same speech, he was forced to acknowledge that the West’s attractiveness is declining:
— The radiance of what we in the West call liberal democracy is noticeably diminishing. It is no longer a given that the world will orient itself towards us, that it will follow our values of liberal democracy.
Merz has also recently stated that Germany can no longer afford to finance the welfare state while advocating for investments in military rearmament and continued support for Ukraine.
Macron finds convenient scapegoat
Macron spoke of a “degeneration of democracy” in Europe and found a convenient scapegoat in social media platforms.
— We’ve been guilty of handing over our public democratic space to social networks owned by big American entrepreneurs and Chinese firms, he said.
However, the possibility that the West’s own policies contributed to this development was not addressed at all by Merz or Macron.
— Democratic debate is turning into a debate of hatred, continued the French president.
Merz, Macron, Polish Prime Minister Tusk and British Prime Minister Starmer. Photo: Number 10/CC BY 2.0
Putin sees multipolar world
Russian President Vladimir Putin presented a completely different analysis on Thursday. At the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia, he described the development as natural.
— Multipolarity has become a direct consequence of attempts to establish and preserve global hegemony, a response to the obsessive desire to arrange everyone into a single hierarchy, with Western countries at the top, Putin said.
Putin also claimed that democracy is in decline in the West. As an example, he mentioned Romania, where the court invalidated the presidential election last year.
Merz also acknowledged that Europe has become “economically weaker” and that the social promises made are “so much harder to fulfill today than they used to be”.
The solution? Europe must “refocus on its economic competitiveness” and “oppose a new wave of protectionism in the world”. This is essentially the same mantra European leaders have repeated for decades – so far with limited success.
