Leaders from Russia and China, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, did not attend the recent Brics summit in Brazil, which raised questions about the group's significance. This absence is seen as a sign that the expansion of Brics may have weakened its ideological appeal for these founding members. Traditionally, Xi has participated in these summits for over a decade, but this time he sent Premier Li Qiang due to unspecified scheduling conflicts. Meanwhile, Putin faces an international arrest warrant related to allegations of war crimes in Ukraine and chose not to attend to avoid potential embarrassment for Brazil.

Brics was originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa but recently expanded to include countries like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. This growth has led to concerns about the group's unity and purpose as it now includes nations with diverse political systems and economic interests. Some members like Brazil are eager to promote reforms in global governance during the summit.

Brazil's former foreign minister expressed that changes in U.S. foreign policy are pushing towards a more multipolar world where power is distributed more evenly among nations. However, experts believe that Brazil might struggle to lead discussions within Brics due to differing priorities among its members.

The absence of both leaders could allow Brazil to focus on promoting themes of inclusive governance without being overshadowed by criticisms aimed at Western policies. The summit aims to address issues such as green energy cooperation and vaccine distribution while navigating complex relationships within this expanded group.

Original article

This article provides limited value to an average individual. In terms of actionability, the article does not offer concrete steps or guidance that readers can take. It merely reports on the absence of leaders from Russia and China at a Brics summit, without providing any actionable information or advice.

The article's educational depth is also lacking. While it provides some background information on the Brics summit and its expansion, it does not delve deeper into the causes and consequences of this development. The article relies on surface-level facts without offering any meaningful explanations or insights.

In terms of personal relevance, the article's focus on international politics and diplomacy may not directly impact most readers' daily lives. However, it could be relevant for individuals interested in global affairs or those who work in related fields.

The article does not serve a significant public service function. It does not provide access to official statements, safety protocols, emergency contacts, or resources that readers can use.

The practicality of recommendations is also limited, as there are no specific steps or guidance offered in the article.

In terms of long-term impact and sustainability, the article's focus on a single event (the Brics summit) may have limited lasting effects. The content promotes no behaviors or policies with lasting positive effects.

The article has a neutral emotional tone and does not aim to promote positive emotional responses such as resilience, hope, critical thinking, or empowerment.

Finally, while the article appears to be written in a neutral tone without sensational headlines or excessive pop-ups, its primary purpose seems to be to inform rather than engage readers for clicks or advertisements. However, its lack of actionable information and educational depth reduces its overall value to an average individual seeking practical knowledge or guidance.

The input text conveys a range of emotions, from subtle to explicit, that shape the reader's understanding and reaction to the Brics summit. One of the most prominent emotions is concern or worry, which is evident in the opening sentence: "Leaders from Russia and China, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, did not attend the recent Brics summit in Brazil, which raised questions about the group's significance." This sentence creates a sense of uncertainty and doubt about the future of Brics. The use of words like "questions" and "raised" implies a sense of inquiry and investigation, which can evoke feelings of curiosity but also concern.

The text also expresses frustration or disappointment through phrases like "scheduling conflicts" (Xi Jinping's reason for not attending) and "potential embarrassment" (Putin's reason for not attending). These phrases imply that there are underlying issues or problems that are being swept under the rug. The tone is neutral but slightly critical, suggesting that something is amiss.

Another emotion present in the text is excitement or optimism. When discussing Brazil's efforts to promote reforms in global governance during the summit, the text states: "Brazil's former foreign minister expressed that changes in U.S. foreign policy are pushing towards a more multipolar world where power is distributed more evenly among nations." This statement conveys a sense of hope and possibility for positive change. The use of words like "multipolar" and "distributed more evenly" implies a vision for a more equitable world order.

However, this optimism is tempered by skepticism or doubt expressed by experts who believe that Brazil might struggle to lead discussions within Brics due to differing priorities among its members. This sentiment creates tension between hope for reform and recognition of potential obstacles.

The writer uses various tools to create emotional impact throughout the text. For example, comparing one thing to another can be seen when discussing how Brics has expanded to include countries with diverse political systems and economic interests: "This growth has led to concerns about the group's unity and purpose as it now includes nations with diverse political systems and economic interests." By highlighting these differences, the writer creates an image of complexity or potential conflict.

Repeating ideas can also be seen when discussing Xi Jinping's absence: he traditionally attends these summits but sent Premier Li Qiang this time due to unspecified scheduling conflicts; meanwhile Putin chose not to attend due to an international arrest warrant related to allegations of war crimes in Ukraine. This repetition emphasizes Xi Jinping's absence as significant while downplaying any criticism directed at him.

Furthermore, making something sound more extreme than it is can be observed when describing Putin's situation: he faces an international arrest warrant related to allegations of war crimes in Ukraine. While this statement accurately reports on Putin's situation, it frames his circumstances as particularly dire or severe.

By examining these emotional structures closely, readers can gain insight into how writers shape opinions or limit clear thinking through emotional manipulation. Knowing where emotions are used makes it easier for readers to distinguish between facts and feelings. In this case, recognizing concern/worry helps readers understand why they might feel uncertain about Brics' future; recognizing excitement/optimism helps them grasp why some people believe reform efforts could succeed; recognizing skepticism/doubt helps them see why others might question those prospects; recognizing frustration/disappointment highlights underlying issues within Brics; recognizing excitement/optimism tempered by skepticism/doubt shows how complex opinions on reform efforts really are; recognizing comparison tools increases awareness how complexities within groups create challenges; realizing repetition emphasizes significance while downplaying criticism aids understanding what truly matters here – all these help keep readers grounded while reading emotionally charged content

This text is replete with various forms of bias, which are skillfully woven into the narrative to shape the reader's interpretation. One of the most striking examples is the linguistic and semantic bias evident in the phrase "ideological appeal" used to describe Brics' expansion. This choice of words implies that Brics' original members, Russia and China, are losing interest in the group due to its expansion, thereby framing their absence as a negative development. The use of "ideological appeal" also subtly suggests that these countries are driven by ideological considerations, which may not be entirely accurate.

The text also employs framing and narrative bias by presenting Brazil's former foreign minister as a neutral source who expresses a nuanced view on U.S. foreign policy changes. However, this framing overlooks the fact that Brazil's interests may not align with those of other Brics members, particularly Russia and China. The text selectively presents only one side of this complex issue, creating an impression that Brazil's views are representative of Brics as a whole.

Structural and institutional bias is evident in the way the text portrays Brics as an entity with a unified purpose and ideology. The expansion of Brics is presented as a potential threat to its unity and purpose, implying that these countries have different priorities and interests. However, this narrative ignores the fact that Brics was formed by diverse nations with different economic systems and political ideologies from the outset.

The text also exhibits cultural and ideological bias by presenting Western policies as inherently problematic while promoting inclusive governance as a desirable goal for Brics. This binary framing creates an impression that Western policies are inherently exclusive or oppressive, without providing any evidence or context to support this claim.

Sex-based bias is absent from this text; however, it does contain some subtle class-based bias when discussing economic interests within Brics member nations. For instance, when describing potential reforms in global governance during the summit, it mentions Brazil's eagerness to promote such reforms without specifying what these reforms entail or how they might benefit different socioeconomic groups within Brazil.

Temporal bias is present when discussing historical events related to U.S. foreign policy changes; however, it does not exhibit presentism or erasure of historical context regarding these events.

Selection and omission bias can be seen in how certain viewpoints or sources are selectively included or excluded from discussion about U.S.-Brics relations; specifically when mentioning concerns about unity among member states following recent expansions but failing to provide concrete evidence for such concerns being voiced by all member states equally.

Racial ethnic biases do not appear explicitly within this passage but could potentially arise through omission if specific nationalities were left out while discussing broader themes related international relations between major world powers like those found within BRICS groupings today!