Written by Matt Wickham, analyst UCMC/HWAG
The 2024 BRICS Games, hosted by Russia, drew minimal international attention and suffered a humiliatingly low turnout, with some events featuring only a single competitor and subpar performances. This event served as a wake-up call for the Russian government, prompting the Kremlin to rethink its strategy to create “alternative events” capable of challenging, if not destroying, the current sporting status quo.
Despite months of Kremlin-generated hype around the revival of the USSR’s “Friendship Games”—Russia’s response to its sporting exclusion—the games have been cancelled. For months, the Kremlin attempted to portray the sporting world as tired of Western rule, its unjust unipolar hegemony, biased judging, and the Olympics’ so-called shameful values. It positioned itself as the saviour of the sporting world, but it turns out that the sporting world doesn’t need saving after all.
Contrary to what the Kremlin and its propaganda has been seeking to lead you to believe, its 2024 political pull on international politics is a mere drop in the ocean compared to that of 1980. This is a bitter reality for the Kremlin, hence the cancellation of the games and propaganda’s “radio silent” on this topic.
So where has this decision come from? Let’s take a look…
The Failure of Russian-Organized BRICS Games: a Realization of the Kremlin’s Abilities
When taking a look at the results and participants of the BRICS Games, it’s hard to ignore the Kremlin’s trademark manipulation of statistics, inflating the number of participating countries and athletes, some of whom didn’t even compete. Take Nambia, for example, registered as having 3 athletes on the BRICS Games website, yet no athlete from Nambia was registered in any discipline. False information and skewing of the participants aside, this was used as a confirmation of success, that Russia is “not” as isolated as the West “makes out,” says state propagandist Armen Gasparyan.
“It is difficult to put Russia and loneliness in the same sentence. Moreover, such events once again demonstrate that we are not alone; we are constructive dialogue; we are interaction and friendship!”
Despite the organization’s expansion from 5 member states to 9 in 2024, the Kremlin’s claim of success in athlete turnout is primarily due to the substantial participation from Russia and Belarus, which together fielded 1,051 athletes. This constitutes 37% of the reported total of 2,851 athletes (a figure that we already know is inflated, yet some Russian sources state 4,751). The Kremlin has proudly showcased Russia’s collection of over 509 medals, portraying it as evidence of supremacy and an indication of what Russia “would” have achieved at the Olympics. Although even these figures are challenging to trust, the official BRICS 2024 games website claims that Japan, Hungary, and Italy received medals, which is untrue. This narrative is designed to question the legitimacy of the upcoming 2024 Olympic results and one which we can be sure to continue throughout the games as a means of discreditation.
However, these hyped up figures ignore the fact that Russia not only sent the largest contingent of athletes but also its most elite, while many other nations deciding to withhold them, likely saving them for the Olympics. Powerhouse nations like China and Brazil refrained from sending athletes, such as Rebeca Andrade (gymnastics), Ana Marcela Cunha (swimming), Alison dos Santos (athletics), Quan Hongchan (diving), and Zhang Boheng (gymnastics). If these countries had sent these athletes, the sweeping medal hall Russia claims it so valiantly achieved would have looked very different.
It’s a Numbers Game
A closer examination of the numbers shows that the Kremlin’s effort to present this event as the “answer” to the “shameful” Olympics fell short. Firstly, the games welcomed athletes from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, unrecognized states by the United Nations and the IOC. Moreover, Only 112 Brazilian athletes participated, compared to the 273 expected to compete in the 2024 Olympics. Similarly, China sent just 112 athletes, compared to the 405 going to the Olympics. This disparity highlights that the Kremlin’s attempts to amplify participation figures reflect its own large-scale deployment rather than a genuine global sporting engagement.
Despite the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine and criticize both the 2024 Olympic Games and its institution (the IOC and its president, Thomas Bach, as racist, biased, and corrupt), the Games remain the pinnacle of global athletic competition. Thus, just one explanation as to why the Kremlin abruptly cancelled the “Friendship Games”: the underwhelming turnout and performance of the BRICS Games have forced it to rethink its strategy. As it stands today, the Kremlin is in no position to repeat the success of its 1984 games.
The Kremlin is, in fact, Isolated
With Russia’s increasing international isolation and diminished influence, the Kremlin has faced significant challenges in persuading even its so-called partners to abandon the Olympics and join the revival of the Friendship Games, despite even offering monetary incentives (4.6 billion Russian rubles – the equivalent of $52 million).
Throughout 2024, Russian propaganda channels have persistently criticized the West for “political repression” and accused the IOC of “threatening athletes with exclusion from future games.”
Propagandist Sergei Markov lamented, “The reason, is political repression, IOC and nearly all the international sporting unions threaten athletes with a ban from the Olympics and world championships. The West has shown its strength,” and this narrative is shared by practically all state propagandists. Even Kremlin spokesperson Peskov called the IOC’s desire to prevent the holding of competitions like the Friendship Games in the Russian Federation “usurpation of the right to sports”.
Clearly, the IOC has not issued threats to exclude athletes from future international competitions if they participate in the 2024 Paris Olympics; threats are something the Kremlin does well, Western democracy not so much. However, the reality is that athletes have been told to choose a side, a stance that is reasonable given the context. IOC President Thomas Bach has emphasized that Russia is attempting to undermine the Olympics and disrupt the international sporting landscape to which athletes dedicate their lives.
Olympic Values – Stronger than Ever?
Today, the International Olympic Committee has received widespread criticism for allowing Russian athletes to compete as neutrals, with many viewing it as a victory for Russia and a failure of international order and the sporting community. However, the situation is more nuanced, and that exact narrative “the international sporting community is broken” is exactly what the Kremlin is pursuing.
In reality, Russia will only send 15 of the 55 athletes approved by the IOC to compete as neutrals. This is a huge contrast to the 335 athletes Russia sent to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and reflects the substantial efforts by the IOC and Ukraine to hold Russia accountable for its violations of international law. The establishment of analytical hubs by Ukraine, dedicated to monitoring the rhetoric and actions of Russian athletes to ensure compliance with IOC rules, has played a crucial role in this. And the reduced number of Russian competitors underscores significant progress in upholding the integrity of Olympic values.
Allowing Russia to succeed in creating politically motivated alternative games as a replacement (just as the Soviet Union attempted in 1984) could jeopardize the integrity of the entire Olympic institution. The IOC’s and international sporting communities quick and tough response to this realisation has been instrumental in stopping Russia achieve this act of “soft power” political play. For now, the Olympics remain unchallenged and the Kremlin’s attempt to re-configure the global sporting order has failed. Perhaps the long-held world sporting institutions are not as easy to divide and destroy as the Kremlin once hoped.