In the flurry of recent headlines, much has been made of the so-called “rise of BRICS” a geopolitical and economic coalition led by China and Russia that claims to challenge Western hegemony. The idea is simple, by combining vast resources, population, and shared resentment toward U.S. dominance, BRICS will supposedly reshape the global order and usher in a new multipolar era.
But beneath the bombast lies a sobering reality, no global power can endure without a superior engineering and bureaucratic base. And in this, BRICS is centuries behind. What many geopolitical analysts fail to grasp is the deeper rationale behind Donald Trump’s laconic dismissal of Russia, China, and the BRICS nations as credible threats to U.S. hegemony. They often mistake his off the cuff style for ignorance or bluster. But in reality, Trump’s confidence stems from an instinctive grasp of something that seasoned analysts sometimes overlook, the structural and systemic superiority of the United States and its Western allies.
Trump may not speak in the language of international relations theory or institutional modeling, but he has an unshakable faith in the enduring strength of America’s industrial base, technological edge, cultural dominance, and most crucially its institutional muscle memory. He understands, perhaps more viscerally than intellectually, that nations like Russia and China lack the flexible, resilient bureaucratic machinery, the innovation ecosystems, and the deeply embedded rule of law frameworks that underpin real superpower status. For all their bluster, BRICS nations are held together by necessity, not cohesion; by ambition, not capacity. Trump’s dismissiveness, then, is not naive it’s grounded in a conviction that the West, for all its flaws, is still the only civilization that knows how to scale power through systems.
Let us recall a lesson from American history. The U.S. Civil War was not just a battle of ideology or manpower it was a clash of systems. The South, rich in resources and raw labor, ultimately lost to the North, whose industrial depth, logistical coordination, and infrastructural superiority proved decisive. It wasn’t cotton that won wars it was steel, railroads, and heavy manufacturing. Today’s geopolitical landscape mirrors this dynamic. BRICS may control mines, markets, and media narratives but it does not control the machines.
Take China, often hailed as the industrial engine of the East. It now possesses three aircraft carriers but none are nuclear powered, and their most advanced carrier (Fujian) remains in sea trials. More critically, China struggles with a foundational flaw, inferior metallurgy. as We know from experience in New Zealand just how quickly industrial superiority can erode and what happens when we outsource it. Hillside Railway Workshops in Dunedin once housed the largest foundry in Australasia and was considered the premier heavy engineering hub in New Zealand and Australia. In the 1940s, it employed over a thousand skilled workers and forged the nation’s rail future with domestic expertise and pride. Yet today, Hillside has been reduced to a shadow of its former self recently revived not to manufacture world class rail stock, but simply to repair inferior steel imports from China. This is not progress, it’s a cautionary tale. When a nation loses its industrial backbone, it becomes dependent economically, strategically, and technologically. The Chinese aircraft, naval vessels, and heavy machinery suffer from subpar alloys, leading to higher maintenance needs, corrosion, and performance issues. While China can build fast, it cannot yet build better.
Contrast that with the West particularly the United States, Britain, Germany, and Japan. These nations still lead the world in materials science, aerospace engineering, semiconductors, and precision manufacturing. They possess not just factories, but the institutional memory to run them with resilience and efficiency.
At the heart of this advantage lies an overlooked pillar of Western dominance, bureaucracy. Far from being a dirty word, bureaucracy when rooted in law, accountability, and long term planning is what turns great ideas into lasting institutions. The Western world, particularly the Anglo Germanic tradition, has perfected the art of organising and sustaining complex systems. From NASA to Airbus, from Germany’s rail networks to Japan’s transport infrastructure, these countries continue to show what systemic discipline can achieve.
This tradition goes back not just centuries but millennia. The administrative spine of Western civilization traces its lineage to the Roman Empire, whose legal and logistical genius laid the groundwork for everything from property rights to public works. The West has refined that legacy through Enlightenment thought, industrial capitalism, and democratic accountability. That’s not just heritage it’s horsepower.
Meanwhile, BRICS nations especially Russia, Brazil, and South Africa struggle to maintain even regional stability, let alone offer a coherent alternative model. Their institutions are brittle, their innovation ecosystems underdeveloped, and their internal divisions deep. Even China, the strongest among them, faces the structural limits of a rigid, top down system that stifles transparency and self correction qualities essential to long term technological leadership.
In short: BRICS cannot replace the West it can only resist it. It can chip away at U.S. influence, build alternative payment systems, and form strategic partnerships. But without matching the engineering muscle, institutional competence, and bureaucratic sophistication of the Western world, it cannot assume the role of global architect.
And as history reminds us from Rome to the Manhattan Project, from Apollo 11 to the microchip those who build the machines shape the future.
Peter MacDonald is a Christian writer and geopolitical commentator, began in print at Dunedin’s Evening Star in 1977. Writes on Western hegemony and media control.
I think your optimism of our, (the Wests), manufacturing capabilities under the current neoliberal economic conditions to be somewhat misplaced.
Those that finance the machines, shape the world. Money rules with the privately owned Central Banking system being the physical manifestation of this rule. All BRICS countries have central banks so they are clearly not looking to set up anything meaningful. BRICS really only exists as a way to help alleviate Western led impositions that invariably befall BRICS nations, or to put this in simple lingo – when you don’t do as you are told by the world’s unelected leader – the USA – then you will be punished! Bigger point being, even the USA is under the heel of the Central Banking cartel. Money rules.
It was called the dark ages when Rome last ruled the world so I am not enthusiastic about the thought of them returning. You also fail to mention that Aida and China in particular are quick learners, while they do copy they also try to do things better if possible.
There is also a view in Christianity that this Earth has a finite life which would affect the future.
Europe needs to wake up and realise that Uncle Sam is not their friend. They should join BRICS, and then the financial centre of BRICS could be located in one of the European countries: Germany, say, or Belgium, or even Britain, these being countries that have the sophistication that the current BRICS countries allegedly lack. The Euro could then become the currency of international transactions while the counties currently using the Euro reverted to their pre-Euro currencies.
This article is wishful thinking. This Australian think tank says China now leads the US on 57 out of 64 critical technologies
https://www.voanews.com/a/china-takes-lead-in-critical-technology-research-after-switching-places-with-us/7779603.html
“no global power can endure without a superior engineering and bureaucratic base. And in this, BRICS is centuries behind.”
‘Centuries’ behind? That’s really wishful thinking. Just visit Shenzhen or Chongqing for an idea of what the cities of the future will look like. As for a bureaucratic base China has the oldest one by a country mile.
“resilient bureaucratic machinery, the innovation ecosystems” The Chinese government actually fosters these ecosystems by not letting any single company monopolise and dominate the landscape in any particular industry (think EVs)
The problem with the Western system is while competition is a good thing, it is to the advantage of any individual competitor not to have competition, to suppress everyone else. Without a strong referee to ensure all competitors can contribute you have the US system where a few key players end up dominating not only their respective industries but government itself.
The west needs to get rid of the landlords and usurers, who produce nothing and are merely parasites feasting on the productive economy, by adding to production costs, and thereby pushing up prices. I think china benefits by having its banking sector owned by the government. I don’t know how land is owned in china: whether it’s all owned by the state, or whether there is private ownership.
I fail to understand why the Labour party cannot see this. Until they do they will never get anywhere. Social Credit seemed to understand this, but they, as far as I know, appear to have disappeared from the political scene, having been the victims of a concerted smear campaign – involving accusations of “funny money” etc. – probably orchestrated by financial and property interests.