World News

22055 readers

146 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

China must face ‘higher cost’ for backing Russia in Ukraine, says next EU foreign policy chief (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by 0x815@feddit.org to c/news@beehaw.org

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4724783

China should face “a higher cost” for supporting Russia in the war against Ukraine, the EU’s incoming foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has said.

The former Estonian prime minister was speaking to MEPs during a three-hour hearing before she takes office, when she listed Ukraine’s victory as a priority – stronger words than vaguer formulas of support voiced by some EU politicians.

“Victory of Ukraine is a priority for us all; the situation on the battlefield is very difficult,” Kallas told MEPs in her opening remarks. “That is why we must keep on working every day, today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes, and with as much military, financial and humanitarian aid as needed.”

[...]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mechanize@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago

I was reading @superkret@feddit.org and @MaggiWuerze@feddit.org exchange and I found it an interesting - albeit moot - topic. So I went and spent the last hour to download some data and filter it: I will post some numbers with no commentary. I will add my opinions after them in a spoiler.

imf.org GDP, current prices, Billion of U.S. dollars

2023 GDP Nominal
NATO 52392,344
BRICS 27330,345

2024 GDP Nominal (estimates)
NATO 55148,819
BRICS 28442,630

imf.org GDP, current prices, Purchasing power parity; billions of international dollars

2023 GDP PPP
NATO 63996,245
BRICS 66010,889

2024 GDP PPP (estimates)
NATO 66812,821
BRICS 70911,69

imf.org GDP based on PPP, share of world

2023 GDP PPPSH
NATO 34,731
BRICS 35,824

2024 GDP PPPSH (estimates)
NATO 34,339
BRICS 36,446

BRICS

Brazil, People's Republic of China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russian Federation, South Africa, United Arab Emirates

NATO

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Republic of Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States

MHO

This comparison makes no sense for a multitude of reasons, starting from the difference in effective cohesion, motivation and raison d'être of the two organizations.

Even if there were multiple tries, especially by Russia, to push for more integration in the economic and military structure, you can see how it is still incredibly fractured: if you are interested you can check on the current state of the SWIFT alternatives to see how much each of the big players still pull to be the leader.

A more apt loose organization to compare BRICS to would probably be the G7, but even there it really is not the same, considering the member list and how integrated they are in other ways. Still, a better one.

Aside from that the PPP is often touted as a great way to compare completely different economies, and it has its uses to understand how people live in different countries. Its use in a comparison like this one has, IMHO, no space.

If someone comes to me with a one Billion random-currency investment, even if for them it only buys a loaf of bread but for me it means a new factory and 100 full-time employees, if they withdraw it it is a disaster.
Then again GDP is not even the parameter we should be looking into, considering the article: We should check the international trade between China and the European Union, and make consideration about that.

Last, but not least, I used the IMF numbers because they are easy to get in a nice format. They are not the best, but they are not the worst too. More info here, have fun.