BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

...This time Russia is not facing Reaganesque rearmament, but it is facing nuclear-tipped sanctions, more destructive than many realize ...

It is great to see non-military force succeed.

[Polish_Silver]

non military force

It is great to see non-military force succeed.

Whole heartedly agree, and I think Obama should make it public so that people see we have non-military options in almost every situation.

The Soviet economy had run out of cash for food imports. Unwilling to impose war-time rationing, its leaders sold gold, down to the pre-1917 imperial bars in the vaults. They then had to beg for "political credits" from the West.

I liked that part. They are sitting on the best farmland in the world and they need to import food.
Also, when nations are chronic importers, they have to sell gold, then it's game over. "POOM".

However, the US has much greater ability to adapt. Just lower our wages a bit, and we out compete europe in enough areas to balance the trade.

[touchring]

Re: non military force

More cheap gas and oil for the world's biggest consumer economy to scoop?

[GRG55]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

We're in a loooong process of "decommissioning the US Dollar". These sorts of changes take a lot of time...in the case of this little step fifteen years to get to an MOU. Basically an agreement to agree, with no agreed pricing mechanism. So I doubt anybody in Washington is too concerned. Yet.

Russia, China find compromise on gas deal after 15 year standoff

MOSCOW: China has accepted an olive branch from Russia's Gazprom after years of tough talks which had failed to yield a deal on gas supplies, though the main point of conflict - price - remains.

Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) agreed on Friday night that 38 billion cubic metres per year of Russian gas would flow to China starting in 2018 and come only from Russia's East Siberian fields, rather than the West Siberian fields which also supply Europe.

In signing the memorandum of understanding, Gazprom gave up its a dream of using its core fields in West Siberia to supply both Europe and China to become a "swing supplier" capable of sending the same gas east or west, depending on the most lucrative price option.

The 38 bcm is less than the planned 68 billion cubic metres per year it would have shipped under an earlier agreement which envisaged shipments from both untapped new fields in East Siberia which would be linked to China by a new pipeline, and West Siberia...



China, Russia gas deal set, but clash over price

James Byrne
25 March 2013 | 15:17 GMT

With the long-postponed China-Russia gas deal making headway during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first foreign trip since taking office, Keun-Wook Paik, author of Sino-Russian Oil and Gas Cooperation, and former adviser to China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), spoke to Interfax about the developments and their implications.

Interfax: CNPC and Gazprom just signed a memorandum, which envisaged an agreement on a 38 billion cubic metre per year eastern gas pipeline signed in 2013, with the project commencing in 2018. Is this real progress?

Keun-Wook Paik: The significance of the Gazprom-CNPC deal lies in the fact both sides cleared all the remaining uncertainties on the export route and volumes, but the price issue still remains.

Gazprom’s acceptance of the eastern route first, rather than the Altai route, means Russia’s ambition to become a swing supplier between Europe and Asia was rejected by Beijing’s new leadership.

However, the [deal for] 38 bcm/y for 30 years via the eastern route will lay the foundations for making the Power of Siberia (POS) gas pipeline economically viable.

Importantly, reaching an agreement on prices before the end of 2013 is now much more likely than before. What is not clear is whether this 38 bcm/y is exclusively aimed at China’s market, or if the intention is to extend the pipeline to South Korea via the Yellow Sea.

If China still expects the upstream equity stake from the east Siberian gas development in return for reducing the price gap, then finalising the price deal before the end of 2013 will be difficult. And if China is seeking upstream equity, Russia will also seek downstream distribution market equity. Then the ultimate solution has to be the simultaneous opening of the upstream sector for China and the downstream distribution sector for Russia.

However, the best situation would be for both parties to settle the pricing disagreement based purely on the financing option...

Ahh, we find a purpose for BRICS after all. It helps the Chinese prioritize the most tempting targets.

Having raped the Russians in a recent nat gas deal, after playing hard to get for a decade and a half (does anybody really think the timing of that was advantageous to Putin?), next up Brazil's iron ore.

Iron ore price slumps to new five-year low

The iron ore price tanked overnight on rising concerns about China's property market.

The commodity's benchmark spot price in China plunged 4 per cent overnight to a five-and-half-year low of $US72.10 a tonne.

The price has now almost halved from the beginning of the year when it was worth more than $US130...

[jk]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

It is great to see non-military force succeed.

so the success is providing relatively cheap oil and gas for china at russia's expense, with supply coming overland and thus not vulnerable to american naval power like chinese supply coming from the middle east. so a big win for china from our "punishment" of russia. meanwhile french farmers and baltic exporters are screaming about the loss of russian markets. this also increases europe's energy dependency on north africa and the middle east, while driving a wedge into the previously growing relationship between germany and russia. europe has a problem in both its former and coming scenario. it's not clear to me what, if anything, the u.s. has gained. it seems apparent that russia has indeed lost something, but china is the only clear winner.

[don]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

Celente's Trends . . .

[jk]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

Celente's Trends . . .

you can always count on celente for a little good cheer.

[don]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

Off his meds?

[touchring]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

so the success is providing relatively cheap oil and gas for china at russia's expense, with supply coming overland and thus not vulnerable to american naval power like chinese supply coming from the middle east. so a big win for china from our "punishment" of russia. meanwhile french farmers and baltic exporters are screaming about the loss of russian markets. this also increases europe's energy dependency on north africa and the middle east, while driving a wedge into the previously growing relationship between germany and russia. europe has a problem in both its former and coming scenario. it's not clear to me what, if anything, the u.s. has gained. it seems apparent that russia has indeed lost something, but china is the only clear winner.

It appears that "do nothing" China wins whenever US bankers make a mess of a country and then flee. China gets to develop Iraqi oil and Afghan gas - http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/col...ttacks-2033005

Ukraine is next in the line.

Perhaps the US should make the President a permanent lame duck since doing nothing is the best strategy.

[lektrode]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

Off his meds?

would appear they've upped the dosage...

but he does make a few good points - as only a joizy-ite knows how...

loved his rundown of 'how banksterism has replaced capitalism' - and how it happened

It appears that "do nothing" China wins whenever US bankers make a mess of a country and then flee. China gets to develop Iraqi oil and Afghan gas - http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/col...ttacks-2033005

Ukraine is next in the line.

Perhaps the US should make the President a permanent lame duck since doing nothing is the best strategy.

had that happened in 2008, we might've been better off...

[don]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

Discussions on the APEC, G20 and TPP meets, with key geo-political issues in the Ukraine, Germany, China and Russia investigated.

[don]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

The threat to US is rising China, rising Asia

BY PETER LEE on JULY 1, 2015 in ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, CHINA, SOUTH ASIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA

That uproar you’re hearing over the South China Sea? Is it war klaxons? Or dinner bells?

US Navy is not in the ‘peaceful coexistence’ business in Asia any more

Over at Foreign Policy, J. Randy Forbes,Representative, Virginia, and Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, opined on June 17 : “As of now, the military component to the rebalance amounts to shifting 2,500 Marines to the region while increasing America’s naval presence by three ships per year, to a total of 67 ships by the end of the decade. That response is so modest that, even if it is achievable, it is more a sign of weakness than strength.”

As to what an adequately muscular response would be, on June 23 Mark Thompson, Time magazine’s national security correspondent tweeted: “Navy finally decides how many ships it needs.”

And he reproduced testimony from Rear Admiral Paul Fanta before Forbes’ committee: “If we had a choice, we would walk across the Pacific on the deck of a destroyer, occasionally stubbing our toes stepping down onto a submarine, and up onto an aircraft carrier.”

US, not PLAN, warships, it’s safe to assume. Indisputably, the pivot is the Navy’s chance to shine and justify its massive Asian footprint by doing something bigger and better than facing down Kim Jung Il and chasing tsunami and typhoon relief.

As part of the new pivot regime, the new head of PACCOM, Admiral Harry Harris, has ditched the conciliatory stylings of the previous office-holder, Admiral Locklear, in favor of a more pro-active middle-finger posture to emphasize that the US Navy is not in the “peaceful coexistence” business in Asia any more.

The Marines also have a big pivot role thanks to their island-assaulting-and-conquering experience in the Pacific. Even though the U.S. Marines are compared to the Harlem Globetrotters in terms of their abilities to run rings around their opponents in the amphibious warfare biz, there’s always cause for concern and room for improvement, per Reuters : “With some 80,000 personnel or almost half its strength in Asia, the U.S. Marines are the biggest amphibious force in the region. Most are based on Japan’s Okinawa Island on the edge of the East China Sea. …With around 12,000 marines, China is a formidable potential foe, say military experts.”

How to deal with this “formidable potential foe”? More funding needed, as their commandant, General Joseph Dunford, stated : “Of particular concern is the disaggregation of forces in the U.S. Pacific Command area of operations. Once the ‘preferred laydown’ in the Pacific is fully implemented, the Marines will have a presence on mainland Japan and the island of Okinawa, South Korea, Guam and Australia – all falling under the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force structure.

“On a day-to-day basis, that kind of distribution will provide us more effective theater security cooperation, working with our partners and so forth. But conversely, providing the lift capability so the Marines aren’t stranded on an island will be a challenge, given the shortfall in amphibious ships.

“My priority right now would be, we’ve got over a thousand Marines in Australia; I would like them to have routine access right now to a platform that they can use to conduct engagement in the area,” he continued. “But it isn’t just about one ship and it’s just not about one location; it’s about dealing with a logistics challenge, a training challenge, a war-fighting challenge in the Pacific with a shortfall of platforms.”

Unsurprisingly, Commandant Dunford was sharing his anxieties with the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus.

The Air Force would also like a word, per a Reuters article under the heading ‘China aims to challenge U.S. air dominance: Pentagon’ : “China is mounting a serious effort to challenge U.S. military superiority in air and space, forcing the Pentagon to seek new technologies and systems to stay ahead of its rapidly developing rival, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said on Monday.

“The Pentagon’s chief operating officer, speaking to a group of military and civilian aerospace experts, said China was ‘quickly closing the technological gaps,’ developing radar-evading aircraft, advanced reconnaissance planes, sophisticated missiles and top-notch electronic warfare equipment. Work said the United States has relied on technological superiority for the past 25 years, but now ‘the margin of technological superiority upon which we have become so accustomed … is steadily eroding.'”

If the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is as big a boondoggle as its critics say, and its best use will be as a gravity bomb dropped from a USAF dirigible, maybe our air superiority is really eroding. However, if the PRC stealth fighters are really built on a foundation of stolen F-35 technology, maybe we don’t have that much to worry about.

And the Army, too?

US Army Chief says their #SouthChinaSea presence maintains normalcy amid China’s ‘disruptive’ behaviour.

Actually, General Brooks was talking up mil-mil engagement with the PLA, not another land war in Eurasia, a good thing since the Army’s over-the-top mission-and-budget hogging over the last two decades is apparently a source of some jealousy and resentment in the other uniformed services.

And the chances that the PRC will continue its island-building ways until the South China Sea is paved over so the U.S. Army can drive an armored division across it seem rather remote.

There are, I think, three factors at work here.

First, everybody likes money. Now that the PRC has been officially designated as the big threat, it’s time to muscle up to the “better-safe-than-sorry” limit in Asia, it’s up to the Pentagon to grow the budget pie, and it’s up to every armed service to fight for the biggest possible slice.

Second, threat and budget-inflation imperatives aside, the PRC is big and it’s getting bigger. Right now, the US occupies 22 percent or so of global GDP, and the PRC’s down at 14 percent. Unless the PRC spectacularly and catastrophically falls on its behind, those numbers will flip-flop and the PRC’s economy will account for 20 percent of the world’s GDP in 2050, as opposed to 14 percent for the US.

Keeping up with PRC military expenditures in its own backyard will be expensive for Mr. and Mrs. American taxpayer over the next few decades, so better get used to it.

The third, less obvious factor is that the pivot to Asia is, in my mind, fundamentally flawed because it is built upon the premise of US leadership in Asian security, and ‘US leadership’ looks to be a wasting asset.

It’s not just the PRC. Everybody’s getting bigger, and the US’s relative share is shrinking.

PricewaterhouseCoopers took the IMF’s 2014 GDP numbers and worked the spreadsheet magic using projected growth rates.

In 2050, here’s how they see the GDP horserace playing out, in trillions: China 61; India 42; USA 41; Indonesia 12; Brazil 9; Mexico 8; Japan 7.9; Russia 7.5; Nigeria 7.3 and Germany 6.3. Poodlicious Euro-allies UK, Italy, and France will be out of the top ten in 2050. Australia drops from 19th place to 28th.
Put it another way, the US will have 14 percent of the world’s GDP and Asia, the region we’re purporting to lead, will have 50 percent.

Don’t just look at the US vs. PRC numbers, 41 trillion vs. 61. Look at India+Indonesia+Japan+South Korea+Malaysia+Philippines+Thailand+Vietnam, the ‘pivot partners’ actual or aspirational that neighbor the PRC. Their cumulative GDP today: about the same as the US. In 2050: 77 trillion. More than the PRC. Way more than the United States.

And no, you can’t add those numbers to the US ‘anti-PRC’ coalition total for a big, reassuring number. Not even today.

To be unkind about it, the experience of the Middle East has not shown the US to be a particularly reliable and responsible steward of local well being in a volatile region. Countries with sufficient wealth and opportunities are unsurprisingly working to assure their own security futures instead of relying on the U.S.

All of the pivot partners are already feeling their Asian oats and most of them are pursuing hedging strategies between the US and the PRC as a matter of enlightened self-interest. US says ‘TTP’, most say ‘TTP + RCEP’. They are happy to take arms and military assistance from the US, but they also buy from Russia and France.

The only country that’s close to all-in on the pivot on the US side is the Philippines. And it is deepening its engagement with Japan, not just the United States.
In a Guardian article titled, ‘We have short memories': Japan unites with former foes to resist China’s empire of sand, a bilateral Japanese-Philippine patrol in the South China Sea is described and it is clear — perhaps worryingly clear to US military planners — that the Philippines is not about to put all its eggs in the American basket:

“The Philippine defence secretary, Voltaire Gazmin, said this week that Japan should become further involved with Manila’s military, arguing for a visiting forces agreement which would allow Japanese troops to be stationed in the Philippines, similar to a deal with Washington, which has naval ships in Filipino ports.

“It would be ironic if we cannot do exercises with Japanese forces when Japan is one of the only two countries – the other one being the United States – which are strategic partners of the Philippines,” Gazmin said on Wednesday.

Japan, the linchpin of the US pivot strategy — and a source of orgasmic pleasure to US China hawks when it revised its defense guidelines to permit joint military operations in East Asia with the United States — already plays its own hand in Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar, as well as the Philippines.

Historically inclined readers might note 1) these are all countries that Japan invaded and/or occupied as a matter of national interest in World War II and 2) Japan is run by the spiritual heirs—or in the case of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the direct heirs — of people who ran Japan back then and implemented that policy until the United States defeated them.

People with long memories will also recall that, when the PRC was a small, weak player, the justification for the US presence in Japan was to restrain Japanese militarism for the sake of Asian peace of mind … which is why the PRC kept harping on the Potsdam Declaration, the World War II victor’s justice dispensation, and the implications for the US leadership position in Asia when Shinzo Abe took office for his second term and started nibbling away at the “Peace” Constitution imposed by MacArthur.

Nowadays, US pretensions to act as “honest broker” in Asia as an alternative to Japan have been subordinated to the need to construct a PRC-containment regime. When you anoint Japan as a theater-wide anti-PRC military ally, you’re not getting the same ally you had when Japan’s main job was hosting US bases and poking around in its own territorial waters and airspace.

Nope, America’s Pacific Century (Hillary Clinton’s term) is not going to be pushing around overmatched, grateful, and anxious allies like the UK, Poland, and Germany while trampling on small borderline failed states in the Middle East. It’s going to be contending with half a dozen rising Asian nations, all with experiences of empire and aspirations to at least local hegemony…and on top of them, there’s China.

So the urgent threat to US leadership in Asia isn’t just rising China; it’s rising Asia.

And I think US planners have also looked at the numbers and decided there’s a limited time window for the United States, during which it can use its military superiority, its wealth, the economic, technological, and cultural vitality of its system, and its domination of international financial and security institutions to occupy a central position in Asia…

…and avoid confronting the possibility that the United States will no longer enjoy recognition as the world’s leading military and economic power, a title it has enjoyed during the living memory of almost every living person on the planet, and a role that is an existential folly for any American politician, pundit, or military officer to question.

But to me, hyping the China threat in order to muscle up the Pacific presence, leverage American strengths, and prolong US predominance is something of a Hail Mary. It may postpone the US decline to “one among equals”, but I don’t think it can prevent it. And it’s going to make the process very expensive and, perhaps, very messy and painful.

Peter Lee runs the China Matters blog. He writes on the intersection of U.S. policy with Asian and world affairs.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

There's a new fiction book out now called Ghost Fleet:

http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Fleet-No.../dp/0544142845

It's been pushed as a digital age combination Hunt For Red October/Red Storm Rising.

Escapist fiction, speculative Pacific war scenario based on current and near future capability/possibility.

Authors being heavily touted as the next Tom Clancy.

Fiction isn't reality.

But reality based fiction can inform opinions and perceptions.

Personally, I'd rather see some well considered fictional near future scenarios, preferably less kinetic, if not less scary.

[don]

Setting Sun: East or West?

Rising sun, setting sun: Japan, the US, and the new security laws

BY PETER LEE on SEPTEMBER 20, 2015 in ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, CHINA, JAPAN

The passage of the collective self defense bills– enabling Japanese participation in military activities beyond its home territory under restrictions that appear to be rather elastic—

In case Japan faces “a survival-threatening situation,” in which the United States and other countries that have close ties with the nation come under an armed attack by a third country and that poses a threat to the existence of Japan and the livelihoods of Japanese people, Japan now can use minimum necessary force.

–had a feeling of inevitability to me.

They give more freedom of movement to the Japanese government in its security policy, more leverage in its foreign relations, and more gravy to the corporate sector. These are opportunities that most modern governments, especially a right-wing government like Abe’s, would be eager to exploit.

And I think it’s accurate to describe them as a “normalization” of Japan’s international status, especially if “the norm” is understood to be a downgrade from the Japan’s previous condition, in other words a decline from the idealistic, pacifist aspirations of Japan’s US-imposed constitution to ordinary government-business-and-media driven war-grubbing.

Protesters rally against secuity bill outside Japan parliament building

The Japanese people as a whole appear to be more at home with these aspirations—which they grew up with—than the Abe ambition to restore Japan as a regional security player despite the risk it poses to Japanese lives, treasure, and honor.


Abe had to abandon his plans to revise the constitution to make “collective self defense” legal, and ignore the fact that an overwhelming majority of constitutional lawyers regarded his Plan B—“reinterpretation” of Article 9—as BS. Then he had to turn his back on massive demonstration against the bills to push them through the legislature.

It was ugly. And Japan’s somewhat less special now.

Abe has always wanted his “normalized” “remilitarized” “no more apologies” Japan and he got it…with an assist from the United States.

The United States under President Obama decided to take the plunge and openly commit to a China containment strategy keystoned on Japanese participation.

Even as many Asian nations—not just the PRC—expressed ambivalence over the re-emergence of Japan as a potential regional military force—US strategists have enthusiastically promoted the process, doing their best to dismiss popular opposition, the violence done to the constitution, and to the grotesquely counterproductive effort to force the Futenma base plan down the throats of the Okinawans.

The feeling, I suppose, is that all this shall pass—or can be managed—and we’ll have a capable, willing ally ready to help us execute our China strategy and toeing the US line thanks to the restraints imposed by the constitution and the security legislation.

US Asian-natsec strategists are, I believe, delusional.

I predict we’re not going to get Japan as our “UK in the Pacific” i.e. a slavishly obedient ally that has decided, as a fundamental national principle, to join itself to the hip to the United States in security policy.

We’re going to get something more like our “Israel in the Pacific”, an occasional, contentious, and conditional partner advancing its own agenda, an agenda that may well turn out to be more reckless and confrontational than it would be otherwise thanks to the moral hazard of strong US backing.

A while back I wrote in Asia Times Online:

Japan, the linchpin of the US pivot strategy — and a source of orgasmic pleasure to US China hawks when it revised its defense guidelines to permit joint military operations in East Asia with the United States — already plays its own hand in Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar, as well as the Philippines.

Historically inclined readers might note 1) these are all countries that Japan invaded and/or occupied as a matter of national interest in World War II and 2) Japan is run by the spiritual heirs—or in the case of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the direct heirs — of people who ran Japan back then and implemented that policy until the United States defeated them …

When you anoint Japan as a theater-wide anti-PRC military ally, you’re not getting the same ally you had when Japan’s main job was hosting US bases and poking around in its own territorial waters and airspace.

And the ability of the United States to “manage” Japan and “lead” Asia is on a downward trajectory:

(T)he pivot to Asia is, in my mind, fundamentally flawed because it is built upon the premise of US leadership in Asian security, and ‘US leadership’ looks to be a wasting asset.

It’s not just the PRC. Everybody’s getting bigger, and the US’s relative share is shrinking.

PricewaterhouseCoopers took the IMF’s 2014 GDP numbers and worked the spreadsheet magic using projected growth rates.

In 2050, here’s how they see the GDP horserace playing out, in trillions: China 61; India 42; USA 41; Indonesia 12; Brazil 9; Mexico 8; Japan 7.9; Russia 7.5; Nigeria 7.3 and Germany 6.3. Poodlicious Euro-allies UK, Italy, and France will be out of the top ten in 2050. Australia drops from 19th place to 28th.
Put it another way, the US will have 14 percent of the world’s GDP and Asia, the region we’re purporting to lead, will have 50 percent …

America’s Pacific Century…is not going to be pushing around overmatched, grateful, and anxious allies like the UK, Poland, and Germany while trampling on small borderline failed states in the Middle East. It’s going to be contending with half a dozen rising Asian nations, all with experiences of empire and aspirations to at least local hegemony…and on top of them, there’s China.

I think Asia is robust enough to accommodate and restrain the ambitions of the PRC…and resist US attempts to “lead” it.

Ditto for Japan.

I wouldn’t be surprised if historians look back at the passage of the Japanese security bills and regard them as a milestone in the decline of American influence in Asia…one that was eagerly and shortsightedly celebrated by US strategists at the time.

Maybe we’ll be saying September 19, 2015 didn’t just mark the end of Japanese pacifism. We’ll say that the sun began to set on America’s Pacific Century…before it even had a chance to rise.

Peter Lee runs the China Matters blog. He writes on the intersection of US policy with Asian and world affairs.

[GRG55]

Re: BRIC-A-Brac: China Pivot or Spinning like a Top

The BRICS is entirely a construct by the Wall Street squid that plays well in the MSM to sell advertising.

It was a combination of two resource rich exporting nations (now 3) coupled with two (then) high-growth resource consuming nations...spread over 4 continents with nothing much in common with one another. I find the idea of some sort of durable BRICS association fanciful as it serves no function in developing logical bilateral trade arrangements between pairs of participants, and I've never been able to see what sort of multi-lateral arrangement (trade or otherwise) made any sense among these four (now 5) completely disparate nations. At least the EU has a common history, religion and basis for its languages - and look at the stresses it has endured even before the currency crisis hit. BRICS has none of that. If someone can make a cogent argument for what is the common cohesive glue that will durably bind the BRICS I am all ears.

Does anybody really think that China is going to increase energy ties with Russia in a way that impairs it's energy trade links and relationships with all other suppliers? Does anybody think that India is going to put its own considerable iron ore industry at risk by opening its doors to the more efficient, higher average grade Brazilians? I can list a dozen other examples that come to mind.

I wonder how they set the lunch menus at the BRICS meetings...biltong starter, a second course of feijoada, followed by curried chicken over chow mein and a vodka chaser?

Imagine that...

The Squid strikes again.

Goldman's BRIC Era Ends as Fund Folds After Years of Losses

Updated on November 8, 2015 — 10:17 PM MST

• [*=1]BRIC fund loses 21% in five years, leading to investor exodus
  

The BRIC era is coming to an end at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

The bank’s asset-management unit folded its money-losing BRIC fund, which invests in Brazil, Russia, India and China, and merged it last month with a broader emerging-market fund...

...Fourteen years after former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill coined the acronym that ushered in an unprecedented investment boom, the biggest emerging markets are now sputtering. Russia and Brazil have fallen into recessions. China, long an engine of the world’s growth, is poised for its weakest expansion since 1990...

...The downfall of the BRIC fund, which had lost 88 percent of its assets since a 2010 peak, also underscores how the strategy of bundling disparate countries into a single investment theme is losing its appeal among investors.

“The promise of BRIC’s rapid and sustainable growth has been challenged very much for the last five years or so,” said Jorge Mariscal, the chief investment officer of emerging markets at UBS Wealth Management, which oversees about $1 trillion...

...O’Neill, who stepped down as the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management in 2013 and became commercial secretary to the U.K. Treasury in May, declined to comment...

...“The BRIC acronym didn’t make any sense in the first place because you just randomly group four countries which are completely different,” Hovasse said from Paris...