BRICS Reshapes Trade Ties in Response to U.S. Tariffs, Pushing for a Multipolar Order

Economic

Summary:

Facing escalating tariffs from Washington, BRICS members are restructuring economic relations, deepening intra-bloc cooperation, and seeking greater strategic autonomy, signaling a shift toward a fairer multipolar trade system....

Strategic realignment under tariff pressure

The Trump administration’s tariff hikes 50% on Brazilian exports, 25% on Indian goods, and threats of further measures have accelerated BRICS’ efforts to reshape global trade patterns. Analysts note a clear causal link: punitive tariffs meant to weaken BRICS economies are instead pushing members to diversify partnerships and reinforce their collective autonomy. For instance, China swiftly replaced U.S. soybean imports with Brazilian supplies, underscoring how trade realignment can mitigate U.S. leverage while redirecting benefits to fellow BRICS states.

Russia and India are advancing a comprehensive strategic partnership, with Moscow remaining New Delhi’s top supplier of oil, refined products, and coal. Plans are underway to expand liquefied natural gas exports and to integrate India into new trade corridors such as the Northern Sea Route and the International North-South Transport Corridor. Industrial collaboration, including a joint high-speed rail project under India’s “Make in India” initiative, illustrates how tariff-driven disruption correlates with accelerated bilateral cooperation. The results are tangible: bilateral trade has multiplied sevenfold in five years, elevating India into Russia’s top three trading partners.

Internal cohesion within BRICS

Despite past tensions, members are showing renewed solidarity. China and India, after years of strained border relations, are reviving direct flights, trade initiatives, and joint border management mechanisms following Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit to New Delhi. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Modi’s calls with Presidents Putin and Lula da Silva reaffirm coordinated responses to U.S. tariffs. These interactions demonstrate causation between external economic pressure and internal bloc cohesion, as BRICS states increasingly view strategic unity as essential for resilience.

With new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and the UAE, BRICS is evolving into a broader platform for the Global South. Former Chilean ambassador Jorge Heine calls this expansion “the most important geopolitical shift of 2022–2024,” reflecting the bloc’s rising influence. While critics argue BRICS risks irrelevance, the Rio Declaration reaffirmed members’ fundamental cohesion and shared objectives. Importantly, while Washington warns against de-dollarization, BRICS emphasizes the pragmatic use of national currencies and commodity barter, positioning itself not as a replacement for the U.S. dollar but as a complementary system to reduce dependency.

Strategic implications for global trade order

Rather than isolating BRICS, Washington’s tariff strategy risks consolidating the bloc’s determination to build multipolar trade frameworks. The correlation is evident: U.S. attempts at economic coercion are strengthening the appeal of alternative arrangements. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s comment that “Europe must shed the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems” resonates across the Global South, encapsulating BRICS’ narrative of equitable globalization.

BRICS’ restructuring of trade ties under U.S. tariff pressure highlights a deeper trend: the emergence of an economic coalition determined to reduce reliance on Western-led systems. Instead of fragmenting under external stress, the bloc is leveraging adversity to accelerate its push for a multipolar and more balanced global order.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Emergency support for affected exporters

On August 22, Brazil’s National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) unveiled a new 10 billion real ($1.85 billion) credit package. The move directly responds to Washington’s decision earlier this month to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports, covering nearly 700 product categories and affecting about 44% of Brazil’s 2024 exports. The causal link is immediate: tariffs reduce Brazilian firms’ competitiveness in the U.S. market, triggering sudden revenue declines and threatening export viability.

This credit line supplements the government’s broader “Brazilian Sovereignty” program, which allocates 40 billion real ($7.4 billion) in financing. Of this, 30 billion real ($5.55 billion) comes from the Export Guarantee Fund (FGE), while 10 billion real originates from BNDES itself. The funds are designed to provide working capital, support investments in innovation, finance new machinery, and help companies expand into alternative markets beyond the U.S.

Conditions and mechanisms of support

The program sets specific eligibility rules. Firms that experienced an abrupt loss of export capacity and a revenue drop of at least 5% will gain priority access. Additionally, 22.5 billion real ($4.17 billion) will be channeled into loan guarantees for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. Companies must commit to maintaining their average workforce before and after receiving credit, with a four-month grace period on repayments. This condition links financial aid to employment protection, ensuring social as well as economic stabilization.

BNDES President Aloizio Mercadante likened the economic shock from the U.S. “super tariff” to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and recent environmental disasters in Rio Grande do Sul. However, he stressed that the difference lies in the nationwide scope of the impact, with export revenues severely hit across multiple sectors. Brazil’s Ministry of Finance confirmed that the tariffs pose a systemic risk by targeting a wide range of goods central to Brazil’s export portfolio.

Strategic implications

The credit initiative reflects Brazil’s strategy of cushioning exporters while simultaneously encouraging market diversification. By financing innovation and expansion into new regions, Brasília aims to reduce its dependency on the U.S. market over time. At the same time, by tying access to employment guarantees, the government underscores a dual objective: protecting domestic jobs while sustaining foreign trade revenues.

Brazil’s swift deployment of emergency credit demonstrates both the severity of the U.S. tariff shock and the country’s determination to shield its export sector. While the program can alleviate immediate liquidity strains, long-term resilience will depend on whether Brazil can reorient its trade flows and secure greater autonomy from U.S. market volatility.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Strengthening energy security through the DPA consortium

On August 22, the DOE announced the creation of a nuclear energy consortium under the Defense Production Act, marking a major step in President Donald Trump’s executive order to restore America’s nuclear foundation. The consortium, known as the DPA Consortium, will pursue voluntary agreements with U.S. companies to address vulnerabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining and milling to enrichment, fabrication, recycling, and reprocessing. By consolidating industry expertise and federal authority, Washington aims to ensure uninterrupted, reliable supply for domestic reactors.

Mike Goff, Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, emphasized that the U.S. has “significant gaps” in its nuclear fuel infrastructure, leaving it heavily dependent on enriched uranium imports. The causal relationship is straightforward: foreign reliance directly exposes the U.S. to geopolitical risks, while domestic supply chain investments mitigate those vulnerabilities. By invoking DPA powers, the DOE can mobilize industry participation and accelerate planning for a secure and independent nuclear fuel system.

Aligning with national energy strategy

The initiative comes amid broader White House efforts to re-establish U.S. “energy dominance.” After decades of stagnation in nuclear power growth, the Trump administration views nuclear expansion as essential for meeting rising electricity demand while reducing carbon intensity. Consistent federal support, combined with record levels of private-sector investment in advanced nuclear technologies, has reignited interest in the sector. Four new executive orders have been issued to streamline licensing and expand nuclear supply capacity.

The U.S. remains the world’s largest nuclear power producer, accounting for roughly 30% of global output. Its 94 operating reactors supply 19% of domestic electricity, producing 779 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2023, according to the World Nuclear Association. However, with national electricity demand projected to climb, Washington has set a target of quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2050. This goal underscores the correlation between rising energy consumption and the urgency of diversifying secure, low-carbon baseload power sources.

Strategic implications

The formation of the DPA Consortium signals a pivot toward industrial coordination rather than piecemeal policy. It creates a platform for government and private firms to align short- and long-term objectives in securing nuclear supply chains. Beyond energy reliability, this initiative strengthens U.S. geopolitical leverage by reducing exposure to foreign uranium suppliers particularly Russia, which has long been a key global player in enrichment services.

The DPA nuclear consortium reflects a dual strategy: insulating the U.S. from global fuel supply shocks while revitalizing its nuclear energy industry as a foundation for long-term energy independence. If effectively implemented, it could redefine the role of nuclear power in America’s energy mix and cement its position as a cornerstone of national security and economic growth.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A record-setting innovation

China has unveiled a floating wind turbine with a 152-meter-high tower and blades sweeping an area equivalent to eight football fields. This design maximizes wind capture and significantly improves generation efficiency. Unlike fixed offshore turbines anchored to the seabed, the floating model is stabilized by cables and mounted on semi-submersible platforms. This allows it to operate in deeper waters previously inaccessible to conventional technology.

Upcoming offshore trials will be decisive in verifying the turbine’s resilience. Engineers say the system can withstand waves over 24 meters high and tropical storm-force winds. If proven reliable, this resilience establishes a causal pathway: by enduring harsher environments, floating turbines open vast new zones for deployment, unlocking 80% of global offshore wind potential located in deep seas.

Economic and environmental benefits

Widespread adoption of floating turbines could reduce the number of units required per wind farm, lowering both costs and environmental footprint. Because these systems do not require heavy seabed foundations, they minimize disturbance to marine ecosystems and shorten construction timelines. The correlation here is evident: less reliance on seabed infrastructure aligns with faster installation and reduced ecological impact, strengthening the economic case for floating designs.

Floating wind turbines are particularly attractive for countries with limited land availability or deep coastal waters, such as Japan and Norway. For these nations, the technology provides a viable pathway to diversify renewable energy portfolios and enhance energy security. China’s early success signals its ambition to play a leading role in shaping the offshore wind industry’s future.

Long-term implications for energy transition

In the broader context of global decarbonization, floating wind power represents a strategic leap. By enabling clean electricity generation in regions previously off-limits, the technology could accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. With China demonstrating record-breaking output, floating wind turbines may become a cornerstone of the next phase of renewable energy development driving cost reduction, scaling up capacity, and supporting sustainable growth.

China’s floating wind breakthrough is more than a technological feat: it represents a potential shift in the geography, economics, and speed of the global energy transition. If commercialized widely, it could reshape offshore energy landscapes and help meet rising demand for clean power in the decades ahead.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Stocks

Record-breaking rally

The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 846.24 points, or 1.89%, to close at an all-time high of 45,631.74. The S&P 500 rose 1.52% to 6,466.91, nearing its own record by just three points, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 1.88% to settle at 21,496.53. The gains marked a strong rebound from earlier in the week, when major indexes had been weighed down by losses in mega-cap tech shares.

Technology giants were the key drivers of the rally. Nvidia gained 1.7%, Meta Platforms rose more than 2%, and Alphabet and Amazon each climbed over 3%. Tesla surged nearly 6%, reflecting renewed investor appetite for growth stocks once prospects of rate cuts strengthened. The causal link here is direct: lower borrowing costs make future cash flows of high-growth tech companies more attractive, thereby boosting valuations and investor demand.

Powell’s cautious dovish tone

At the Federal Reserve’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Powell adopted a more accommodative tone, acknowledging that “fundamental outlook and shifting balance of risks may warrant an adjustment in our policy stance.” He cited broad policy shifts in taxation, trade, and immigration as factors influencing the Fed’s assessment. This statement fueled market expectations of a 0.25 percentage point rate cut at the September 16–17 meeting, with CME’s FedWatch tool showing odds rising to 83% from 75% earlier in the week.

The rally contrasted sharply with the subdued tone of earlier sessions, when concerns over tech valuations dragged indexes lower. The late-week surge allowed the Dow to finish the week up 1.5% and the S&P 500 up 0.3%, while the Nasdaq still ended the week down 0.6%. The correlation is clear: investor sentiment shifted decisively once Powell’s remarks altered expectations of Fed policy, turning risk aversion into risk appetite.

The record-setting rally highlights how sensitive markets remain to signals from the Federal Reserve. Powell’s cautious acknowledgment of shifting risks gave investors confidence that monetary easing could begin as early as September, setting the stage for renewed momentum in equities particularly in interest rate-sensitive sectors like technology.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Russia’s position on summit talks

In an interview with NBC News, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that President Putin is willing to meet Zelensky “only when there is a presidential-level agenda,” stressing that at present such an agenda “is not ready at all.” This stance highlights a causal link: Moscow’s reluctance to advance talks reflects its view that Ukraine’s refusal to discuss NATO membership and territorial issues blocks progress. By framing Kyiv as the obstacle, Lavrov shifted responsibility for the stalled diplomacy away from Russia.

The statement comes just days after Trump met Putin in Alaska and later held talks with Zelensky and European leaders in Washington. Trump had hoped to broker a Putin-Zelensky summit within two weeks, but Lavrov’s comments cast doubt on the timeline. Although Putin reportedly told Trump he was “ready to meet” Zelensky, the Kremlin has issued no public confirmation. The correlation between Trump’s mediation and Moscow’s tactical responses shows how Russia uses flexibility in rhetoric to manage diplomatic pressure while continuing military operations.

Escalating conflict on the ground

Even as talk of diplomacy surfaced, Russia launched one of its largest aerial assaults since the war began in February 2022, striking targets across Ukraine, including a U.S.-linked electronics facility. This demonstrates a direct causal contradiction: rather than creating conditions for negotiations, intensified attacks reinforce skepticism about Moscow’s sincerity toward peace efforts.

President Zelensky has declared readiness to meet Putin “without preconditions,” but remains firm on rejecting compromises involving NATO membership or territorial concessions. European capitals are divided over potential venues, with Geneva emerging as a leading candidate, while Budapest faces opposition from both Kyiv and Poland. The disagreements over location correlate with deeper geopolitical fault lines: while Washington and Moscow float options, Europe’s frontline states resist venues seen as too Russia-friendly.

Strategic implications

Lavrov’s remarks represent a major setback for Trump’s peace initiative, exposing the gap between U.S. diplomatic ambition and Russian strategic calculus. For Moscow, prolonging military pressure while avoiding substantive concessions is a way to maintain leverage. For Kyiv, the cost of entering talks without guarantees risks legitimizing territorial losses. The interplay between these positions suggests that absent a dramatic shift in battlefield or political conditions, the prospect of a near-term summit remains remote.

Russia’s firm rejection of immediate summit plans illustrates that diplomacy remains secondary to battlefield dynamics. While Trump’s push highlights Washington’s desire to reframe the peace process, Lavrov’s comments confirm that Moscow sees little incentive to negotiate under current terms, leaving the conflict’s resolution uncertain.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Latest news on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Scale of the crisis

According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), 514,000 people in Gaza about a quarter of its population are experiencing famine conditions after nearly two years of unrelenting conflict. The IPC forecasts that by the end of September, the number could climb to 614,000. This marks the first time IPC has classified famine outside Africa, previously applying the designation only to Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. The criteria are stark: at least 20% of the population facing extreme food shortages, one in three children acutely malnourished, and two out of every 10,000 people dying daily from starvation or related disease.

The UN and aid agencies attribute the famine to Israel’s systematic obstruction of humanitarian deliveries. In contrast, the Israeli government rejects the findings, arguing that the IPC’s data is incomplete and sourced from Hamas. Israel’s foreign ministry insisted “there is no famine in Gaza,” directly disputing the UN’s classification. The clash of narratives reflects not only political positioning but also competing claims about data reliability and responsibility for deteriorating conditions.

Human impact and global outcry

Images of skeletal children and starving families in Khan Younis and other parts of Gaza have circulated widely, underscoring the scale of suffering. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the famine “a man-made disaster, a moral indictment, and a failure of humanity itself.” He demanded an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and unfettered humanitarian access. Governments including the UK, Canada, Australia, and multiple European nations echoed these calls, stressing that Israel must allow sustained aid flows to avert mass death. The correlation here is clear: blocked humanitarian corridors directly reduce food access, while the causal chain links these restrictions to the rising mortality and malnutrition rates.

The famine declaration comes amid escalating rhetoric: Israel’s defense minister recently threatened to destroy Gaza’s largest city, intensifying fears of further devastation. At the same time, international pressure is mounting for Israel to change course, with multiple states framing the crisis as a tipping point for global humanitarian norms. The broader geopolitical context including the Russia-Ukraine conflict and U.S.-China rivalry shapes the urgency of this crisis, as Gaza becomes a litmus test for international responses to mass starvation in conflict zones.

The UN’s designation of famine in Gaza is both a humanitarian alarm and a political reckoning. While the immediate drivers are blockades and conflict, the broader implications reach into international law, global governance, and the moral obligations of the world community. Without rapid humanitarian access and a shift in policy, the crisis risks becoming one of the darkest chapters in recent Middle Eastern history.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites