The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s caused a fundamental change to the long-standing system of international relations that was based on the confrontation between two centres of power. Although back in the Soviet era some researchers noted a trend toward a multi-polar world as the leading states in each region grew in power，the Soviet Union’s sudden departure from the scene left something of a vacuum. Although many states，even outside the Western world，disliked the Soviet Union and even criticized it，its absence left many states，especially larger ones，wary of a certain threat. That threat stemmed，first，from the instability in the international situation resulting from the end of a bipolar system that had guaranteed a certain order，and second，from the possibility that the one remaining center of power-now freed from any external checks and balances，might encroach on the interests of others.Thus，when the United States celebrated its victory in the Cold War and Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history，” China，India，Brazil and many other countries of Asia，Africa and South America viewed that development with some uneasiness. Had the U.S. shown restraint，subsequent events might have unfolded somewhat differently，but under Bill Clinton，and to a greater extent George W. Bush，Washington set out to secure that victory and achieve world dominance for the United States. Europe either could not or would not pursue an independent course and，as always，kept in line with Washington’s policy.Under such circumstances，the disgruntled states have begun building bridges between each other. That cooperation was not initially directed against the West because all of the participants in that process are largely tied to the Western system and value their collaboration with it. However，they looked for ways to coordinate their positions on those aspects of the new Western-dominated world that did not suit them. That desire led to the creation or strengthening of institutions and groups in which Western states did not participate：ASEAN and various formats of associated cooperative endeavors，SCO，CELAC and，of course，BRICS.Of these groups，BRICS-not formally an organization-has attracted the most interest. There are several reasons for this. First，the group brings together the largest and most influential non-Western countries. Second，it is not a regional but a global group that claims to represent the entire “South，” or more broadly，the entire non-Western world. Third，BRICS actively puts forward its own initiatives as an alternative to Western projects for organizing the global economic and political order.Interestingly，the real BRICS（originally BRIC）although borrowed the name invented by a Goldman Sachs’ economist Jim O’Neil，in fact has developed in a very different manner. The basis for cooperation was not economic similarities but geopolitics. This can clearly be seen from the process of the group’s creation. The BRICS which was joined by major non-Western states that represented various continents where they were natural leaders took its current form by stages. Its source can be seen in the two decades of Sino-Russian rapprochement based on the unity of geopolitical interests. Without it BRICS could hardly come into being. Later the RIC（Russia-China-India）cooperation model emerged meaning that India has joined the process. RIC turned into BRIC by including Brazil（formally RIC still exists but it became passive after the emergence of BRIC）. And the final step was turning BRIC into BRICS after the group was joined by South Africa.BRICS gains geopolitical significance by offering its own views on the processes at work in the world. One of the main topics BRICS addresses is the need to reform the global economy. The BRICS member states strongly propose increasing the representation of non-Western countries in international financial institutions，but they meet with fierce resistance from the traditional masters of global finance. It was the disappointment that BRICS experienced in its attempt to reform the World Bank and IMF and put them on more equitable footing that led the group to create its own development bank and pool of currency reserves. And while these institutions might not offer a comprehensive alternative to existing international financial institutions，they should help correct their pro-Western bias and provide non-Western states with an alternative when choosing the source for their financial development and in the event of a serious economic crisis.So the reform of the global financial system is the most important of the group’s four strategic interests. There are also goals of strengthening the central role of the U.N. Security Council in the international system，making maximum use of the complementary nature of the member states’ economies in order to accelerative economic development and modernizing the social sphere and economic life of those countries. As we can see，only some of those goals are purely economic in nature.Recent international events，especially the Ukrainian crisis，US policy in the South China，the inclusion of Montenegro into NATO，show that，despite Trump’s coming to power，the West will continue-and with greater persistence than ever-to build a unipolar world model，pulling an ever greater number of satellites into its foreign policy orbit and demanding conformance in both their foreign and domestic policies，saddling them with what the West calls “international” and even “universal” standards. Many states in the non-Western world view this approach as a new wave of colonialism that substitutes the ideological slogan of “democracy” for “more advanced culture，” but that retains the same methods and goals. Of course，such circumstances will only increase the desire of the non-Western world to increase its mutual coordination.BRICS unite very different countries and their disagreements with the West have different historical and political basis. But what they have in common is not the subject of disagreements but their very existence and a strong will to resist any form of diktat. It is important for BRICS that this time the united “North” chose to criticize one of its members. This will strengthen BRICS solidarity.The BRICS countries present a new approach to international relations. It is called differently in individual countries but the idea is very similar. It manifests itself in such concepts as multipolar，or polycentric，world in Russia and China，the Chinese idea of “和而不同”（creating harmony while maintaining diversity），Indian concepts of “cooperative pluralism” and “unity in diversity”，Brazilian foreign policy concepts of “autonomy through distance”，“autonomy through participation” and “autonomy through diversification”. They all express a similar world view：the world should not be dominated by one power or one set of ideas，but by many countries and civilizations which cooperate with each other and treat each other with respect.The freezing of the activities of G8 by the West as one of the sanctions against Russia accelerated the creation of the two poles within G20. While earlier Russia being a member of both G20 and G8 could soften disagreements，now there are two clear poles within G20：purely Western G7 and BRICS which will represent all other parts of the world.The Ukrainian crisis will only further consolidate BRICS. It has shown that the group is moving in the right direction and should strengthen its efforts to coordinate its actions in order to provide a real alternative to Western efforts to impose a unipolar world structure. That activity by BRICS will go a long way toward creating a truly multi-polar world structure.For its part，Russia has an even greater interest in cooperation within the BRICS framework. This is not only because Moscow is seeking support in its confrontation with the West，but also for the deeper reason that the complete breakdown of mutual trust with the West，the West’s sanctions and its attempt to use economic leverage to apply political pressure as well as Russia’s actions in response have given greater impetus to the process of Russia’s turning towards the non-Western world that had already begun before the current crisis. Given that the sanctions are unlikely to be repealed in the foreseeable future，Asian and South American states will gradually replace Europe as the exporters of many goods，especially food and agricultural products. Russia’s hydrocarbon exports are gradually moving in the direction of China and the Asia Pacific Region. Russian political elite are beginning to understand that they cannot achieve the strategic goal of developing Siberia and the Far East without cooperating with their neighbors in Asia. On the whole，Europe and the United States are beginning to be viewed as unreliable partners who are ready to sacrifice economic ties for the sake of political pressure at any moment. Thus，not only ideology，but also objective circumstances and economic interests compel Russia to shift its attention to other regions. What’s more，developing deeper cooperation with political and economic leaders in those regions，such as the BRICS member states，will become the key focus of Russian foreign policy.