Brazil and India – representing the bloc’s two largest democracies – have sought to maintain the BRICS as a platform for overt anti-Western confrontation. The Rio summit thus became an inflection point in the evolution of BRICS – highlighting both its expanding ambition and its persistent ambiguities.
What is BRICS today?
BRICS is a coalition of five major emerging economies - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - originally formed to foster mutual economic development, cooperation, and a more decentralised global order. The BRICS countries together account for over 40% of the world’s population, nearly a quarter of global GDP, and a significant share of global trade and investment.
As I’ve argued recently after returning from Brazil and drawing on my research on international blocs, BRICS has matured significantly since it first emerged from an economist’s acronym. Jim O’Neill’s original BRIC (later BRICS with the addition of South Africa) was intended as a shorthand to say that global economic governance would need to include other emerging economies. Today, however, BRICS is evolving into a political formation, one that convenes heads of state, publishes joint communiqués, and promotes an alternative narrative of global governance.
It is still far from becoming a bloc like NATO or the EU. There is no binding treaty, no integrated decision-making structure, and little in the way of enforcement mechanisms. But among political and diplomatic elites in member states, there is an increasing sense of shared identity – of belonging to something that reflects the voice and interests of the Global South, and that promotes a world order not dominated by the US or the West. The group’s ability to coordinate on some symbolic and diplomatic issues, furthermore, despite internal differences, gives it growing relevance in the multipolar order.
Is BRICS anti-Western?
This remains one of the most debated questions in discussions about BRICS. The group’s diversity is both a strength and a challenge. The summit in Rio has confirmed that the group as a whole is not anti-Western, even if it seeks to promote a less West-led international order. Nonetheless, there are differences within the group. As Professor Richard Sakwa has noted, China and Russia have assumed the role of counter-hegemonic actors within the grouping, often seeking to challenge US dominance and the Western-led post-war international order. In contrast, countries like Brazil and India represent the most reformist soul of the group, especially as New Delhi has aligned more (although, not as much as countries like Japan and Australia) to the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy since 2020.
At Rio, the group opted for the middle ground. There was no anti-Western posturing, no fiery rhetoric about de-dollarisation, and no major diplomatic provocations. Instead, the summit focused on reforming multilateral institutions, advancing the green transition, and deepening South–South cooperation – although, attacks on Gaza and Iran, together with Trump’s tariffs, were condemned.
This balancing act reflects a deeper strategic choice. Most, if not all, BRICS+ members – to different degrees – see value in being part of global governance, even as they critique it. They seek a seat at the table, not necessarily the overturning of the table itself. That said, the underlying tensions remain unresolved – and could resurface in future summits, especially if geopolitical frictions intensify.
What does BRICS+ expansion mean?
One of the defining developments of recent years has been the enlargement of the grouping into BRICS+. With the inclusion of new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, the bloc has grown more diverse and more globally representative. In the short term, this expansion strengthens BRICS’ legitimacy and increases its diplomatic reach. It sends a message that the Global South is coalescing around a new platform for international cooperation.
However, in the medium to long term, the expansion raises serious questions about coherence and identity. BRICS risks becoming another G20-style forum: broad, inclusive, but incoherent and ineffective. Although it seems unfair to argue that the group is “sliding towards irrelevance”, it is clear that reaching a consensus on controversial international issues, for instance, will become more difficult.
This dilemma calls for serious reflection on membership criteria. What binds BRICS members together? Is it economic size, regional influence, political alignment – or something else? Without clearer principles for expansion, the group could lose the coherence that made it distinctive in the first place. Some founding members were sceptical by the direction the expansion has taken, fearing it may dilute the group’s strategic clarity.
A moment of strategic ambiguity
While the leaders reaffirmed their commitment to cooperation and multipolarity, the summit revealed that the BRICS’ internal diplomacy remains partly transactional. The absence of a statement on de-dollarisation was emblematic of this ambiguity. Previously, Russia and China had been vocal about creating alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial system. In Rio, with both absent, the issue was quietly dropped. Neither India nor Brazil showed interest in antagonising the US, and in general several BRICS+ members depend on their bilateral trade with the US.
What emerged instead was a more cautious, development-oriented summit. Lula and Modi, the summit’s de facto co-leaders, steered the agenda toward global governance reform, climate cooperation, and inclusive multilateralism. Their leadership emphasised dialogue over disruption – a subtle but important recalibration of the group’s tone.
For now, BRICS+ remains a forum of strategic ambiguity: increasingly visible on the global stage, but still uncertain about the concrete steps that it may take. Whether it can mature into a coherent actor or remain a loose coalition of convenience will depend not only on who joins next – but on what kind of political project its core members are ultimately willing to build.