How do recent diplomatic events — South Africa's exclusion from the G20 at Trump's initiative, the promotion of the "Eurasian Charter," leaders' phone talks, and the expansion of BRICS+ formats — change the strategic picture for BRICS+ countries and their

Catalyst: a public statement by U.S. President Donald Trump about excluding South Africa from invitations to the 2026 G20 summit and suspending American aid to Johannesburg prompted an immediate diplomatic response from South Africa and strengthened the consolidation of rhetoric around alternative cooperation platforms, including BRICS (as reports Vedomosti).

How did South Africa respond to Trump's statements and what does it mean for its relations with the U.S. and BRICS?

Short answer: Johannesburg's official reaction was sharp and pragmatic; it rejects the accusations and emphasizes preserving multi‑vector ties, which reinforces its reliance on BRICS as insurance against unilateral pressure. South Africa publicly condemned the remarks and called Washington's measures unfounded; the foreign ministry's official statement stresses that attempts to discredit the country ignore diplomatic protocols and the complex foreign‑policy logic of partnerships, and that the G20 chair handover ceremony will be held with representatives of equal rank from both countries (as records Vedomosti).

"It is regrettable that, despite numerous efforts by President Cyril Ramaphosa and his administration to restore diplomatic relations with the United States, President Trump continues to apply punitive measures against South Africa based on disinformation and distortions about our country." — official statement of the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs (quote per reports Vedomosti).

Facts to consider: Trump pledged to suspend "all tranches and subsidies"; U.S. aid to South Africa amounted to $441.2 million in 2023, with plans for $564 million in 2024 and $103.3 million in 2025 — these figures are published in situational analyses (according to reports Vedomosti). Consequences: a risk of program reductions with the U.S. and a strengthening of South Africa's economic and diplomatic orientation toward BRICS partners and the Global South.

Why is the promotion of the "Eurasian Charter" and the discussion on Eurasian security in Brussels significant for multipolarity and regional security?

Short answer: it is an attempt to legitimize a new multipolar security architecture and offer an alternative dialogue platform, which raises the political value of participation in Eurasian integrations and creates a long‑term factor of institutionalizing competing security standards. The Belarus‑Russian presentation of the "Eurasian Charter" in Brussels emphasized recognition of multipolarity, Eurasia's role in the new security architecture, and a call for synergy among regional integrations (EAEU, SCO, CSTO, etc.), as covered Rossiyskaya Gazeta and reported BelTA.

This creates an institutional incentive for: * consolidating foreign‑policy and defense positions of countries oriented toward alternative centers of power; * expanding the "security agenda" beyond traditional NATO–EU formats; * increasing BRICS countries' participation in shaping new rules and standards for regional interaction.

To what extent do leaders' coordination (including talks between Putin and Xi) and Minsk's active diplomacy change the balance of influence for BRICS+ economic actors?

Short answer: regular contacts at the highest level and diplomatic tours strengthen strategic interconnectedness within Eurasian‑BRICS networks, increasing political predictability for projects, while also raising the risk of geopolitical market fragmentation and sanction‑related intersections. Putin and Xi confirmed interest in strengthening strategic partnership and cooperation within BRICS (see statement National News Service). At the same time, Belarus's diplomatic activity — Lukashenko's visits to Myanmar and Oman, the signing of 29 agreements and visa relaxations — demonstrates growing direct interstate ties and economic accords outside classic Western channels (details — reports News.by).

Practical effects for business: * an increase in bilateral contracts and projects (agriculture, healthcare, joint manufacturing) — new markets and supply chains; * heightened political risk when operating at the intersection of sanction regimes and competing blocs; * greater importance of state channels and local partners when implementing projects in Global South countries.

What tactical risks and opportunities arise for companies and investors in BRICS+ countries?

Short answer: key short‑term risks are politically motivated imbalances in access to financing and markets (reduced aid, restricted G20 channels) and a more complex regulatory environment; opportunities include accelerated formation of regional platforms for trade, financing, and business partnerships (including thematic formats such as a BRICS women’s business format).

Specific points (sources in parentheses): - Risk of reduced and reallocated external financing for vulnerable economies (cuts to U.S. tranches to South Africa) — see reports Vedomosti. - Growth of institutional initiatives for multipolarity and security (the Eurasian Charter) — a potential normative and political impact on projects in Eurasia (see covered Rossiyskaya Gazeta). - An increase in targeted business platforms and instruments within BRICS: development of a women’s BRICS format, projects for a digital platform, and startup contests open niche investment opportunities in the creative economy and tourism (see reports Izvestia). - New bilateral contracts and industrial cooperation (for example, Belarus‑Myanmar agreements, agreed supplies, and joint projects) — tangible export and engineering opportunities (see reports News.by). - Politico‑ideological rhetoric about the "unacceptability" of Western participation in BRICS (a position of some Russian diplomats) creates risks of further polarization of international rules (see reports Vedomosti).

Recommendations for decision‑makers (what to do in 30/90/180 days) - 30 days: run a stress test of the portfolio for scenarios — reduced Western financing, new barriers to G20 channels, and rapid growth of regional contracts; strengthen monitoring of regulatory notices in key jurisdictions (based on facts about aid suspensions and diplomatic statements — reports Vedomosti). - 90 days: activate local political and commercial partners in target BRICS+ countries; evaluate the possibility of participating in thematic initiatives (women’s business forum, BRICS digital platforms) as channels to access new contracts (see reports Izvestia). - 180 days: diversify sources of project financing and insurance by including regional banks and funds in Eurasia; prepare supply‑chain adaptations for a scenario of increased regional economic coordination (based on activity in Brussels and bilateral agreements — covered Rossiyskaya Gazeta, reports News.by).

Brief decision point: the recent diplomatic wave is not a one‑off impulse but a symptom of an ongoing reorganization of international ties: BRICS+ countries are strengthening institutional and practical cooperation channels while increasing fragmentation of global rules. For business, this means readiness for political shocks and a proactive search for new regional partners and niche platforms (including thematic BRICS formats) where competitive advantage can be gained.