After the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, the process of Eurasian integration has undoubtedly entered a phase of transformation from the realm of ideological concept into the sphere of political reality. Whether discussing military potentials, the economy, science or industry, the West’s loss of power in global terms has been evident for some time.
Considering relevant indicators, Chinese economic and industrial capacities far surpass those of Western countries. On the battlefield of Ukraine, Russia is primarily confronting the collective West’s overall potential using its own forces, achieving significant economic growth despite facing the highest number of sanctions imposed on any country in human history. At the same time, Brazil, India and South Africa are nations that also exert considerable influence on the international stage and possess indigenous capacities for the development and advancement of their societies. With its economic, demographic and resource potential, Iran, along with other new BRICS members, strengthens this bloc making it an indispensable actor whose importance in both local and global politics, according to all current indicators, will continue to grow in the foreseeable future.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, stated in June of this year that the BRICS expansion process would be temporarily halted to better integrate new members and more adequately organize the accession process itself. All these developments point to an increased level of seriousness that BRICS is assuming, both from the perspective of its member states and the rest of the world. Moreover, despite the temporary suspension of expansion, more than forty countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America have expressed interest, either officially or declaratively, in joining.
Although BRICS is in the media spotlight, it represents just one element within the political ecosystem of Eurasian organizations that are interconnected through various channels, collectively forming a integration process of the Eurasian space, not only economically but also politically and in terms of security. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative holds the potential for economic transformation and development across a vast area, from the Pacific to the European shores of the Atlantic. Simultaneously, Vladimir Putin recently reiterated the necessity of developing a Eurasian security architecture, whose ultimate goal is to eliminate foreign military presence from the Eurasian space.
The Chinese vision of economic development for the Eurasian supercontinent, in correlation with the Russian vision of security architecture within the same space, forms the foundation for the formulation and realization of Eurasia as a centre of global processes—a scenario that has always caused significant concern among Anglo-Saxon and Euro-Atlantic geopolitical theorists, as it inevitably implies reducing the roles of the United States and the United Kingdom to second or third tier political actors.
From the perspective of Balkan countries, it is now quite clear that the EU is no longer a “road without an alternative”. An alternative exists and is emerging precisely at a moment when the promise of joint European progress and peaceful development is being undermined by the decisions of European elites themselves. Ideologically driven and strategically short-sighted, Europe is losing its former advantages and beginning to face systemic problems that, accumulated and ignored for decades, now demand solutions.
Three decades spent within the geopolitical framework of Euro-Atlanticism and under the economic norms of neoliberalism have regressed the Balkan states in terms of their economic outcomes, demographic potentials and levels of state sovereignty, calling into question their sustainability over the long term. Simultaneously, there has been no shortage of attempts at social engineering aimed essentially at eradicating the indigenous identity of the people and its expressions.
The increasingly apparent signs of Brussels’ arbitrariness, the totalitarian tendencies of the European bureaucracy, along with the promotion of what were until recently considered deviations, put the very survival of the Union into question and create space for debate on the meaningfulness of membership in the EU as it stands today.
Whether Europeans themselves accept it or not, Eurasian integrations are emerging as an option through which Europe might find solutions to its problems. The reliance of European capitals on America is temporary. The U.S. is a maritime power that will inevitably withdraw from Europe when the costs of its presence outweigh the geopolitical benefits. At the same time, the United States is a modern empire already exhibiting signs of weakening and fatigue.
In a world transitioning from a hegemonic system to multipolarity, those who adapt to the coming changes in time will reap the benefits of that transition—a task before the contemporary Serbian political elite. Today, Europe and the West in general have very little to offer that is of substantial importance and, as such, cannot serve as a model for the development of collectives or individuals. On the path to multipolarity, we cannot afford the luxury of choosing a path that would cost us yet another century.