The recent BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, has sent a clear signal to the West: the global order is shifting. With the participation of 23 leaders from countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the summit was framed by Russian officials as a repudiation of Western sanctions, particularly those imposed on Moscow since its invasion of Ukraine. Andrei Kostin, CEO of VTB, Russia’s second-largest lender, told Reuters that the summit was a direct challenge to the United States, stating that it represented “a slap in the face” to Washington’s policies.
This sentiment reflects growing international discontent with the U.S.-dominated global financial system, but BRICS—an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—faces considerable hurdles in turning this rhetoric into long-term influence.
A New Economic Order?
The BRICS countries have long advocated for a move away from the U.S. dollar-dominated global financial system, with particular focus on promoting the use of local currencies in trade. The Kazan summit furthered these ambitions, as the member nations discussed reforming international financial structures, setting the stage for greater economic cooperation. Key initiatives like the creation of a cross-border payment system and a push for local currency settlements have the potential to reduce BRICS’ dependence on Western-led institutions.
Russia, facing severe sanctions, has been particularly vocal about its desire to build a more self-sufficient economic bloc. Kostin emphasized that, despite Western attempts to isolate Russia, there are numerous countries—ranging from China and India to Turkey—that are willing to partner with Moscow. This narrative aligns with broader geopolitical shifts in which BRICS appears to be positioning itself as a counterbalance to the West, as evidenced by the inclusion of countries like Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in the latest expansion.
The momentum of BRICS’ rise is undeniable. As the organization grows, it is increasingly likely to surpass the economic aggregate of the G7, signaling the diminishing influence of traditional Western powers. Still, the organization faces internal divisions that could undermine its ability to shape a unified geopolitical vision.
The US Response: Threatening Tariffs and Dollar Dominance
While BRICS has positioned itself as an alternative to U.S. hegemony, Washington is not sitting idly by. President-elect Donald Trump’s recent statements underscored the U.S.’s hardline stance against any move by BRICS to undermine the U.S. dollar. Trump has threatened a 100% tariff on BRICS countries should they attempt to adopt a currency alternative to the dollar. This reflects a deep concern in Washington over BRICS’ growing influence and its potential to disrupt the global financial system.
Trump’s rhetoric highlights a fundamental conflict between the West and BRICS. The United States has long relied on the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency to maintain its economic dominance. A successful challenge to this system would weaken U.S. economic leverage, creating further tensions in global trade.
Diverging Agendas Within BRICS
Despite its growing clout, BRICS faces significant internal challenges. Notably, the summit failed to deliver on expectations of further expansion. Countries such as Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan declined invitations to join the group, citing concerns about aligning too closely with Russia’s vision. Additionally, while BRICS now has 34 applicant countries seeking closer relations, the organization has been slow to invite new members, reflecting deeper disagreements about the group’s direction.
These divisions were also evident in the bilateral meetings that took place on the margins of the summit. Notably, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held their first in-person meeting in five years, signaling a thaw in relations between the two historically rival nations. This shift could have a profound impact on BRICS’ future, as India is often seen as a moderating force within the group, balancing the more aggressive policies advocated by Russia and China.
Russia’s Strategic Push for Influence
The Kazan summit showcased Russia’s ambition to reshape the global order, as President Vladimir Putin sought to position BRICS as a counterpoint to the West. Putin’s one-on-one meetings with leaders such as Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Modi, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa underscored Russia’s strategic desire to bolster BRICS as a unifying force against U.S. and European policies.
Yet, not all BRICS members are aligned with Russia’s vision. While China shares Russia’s anti-Western stance, India and Brazil are more cautious, prioritizing economic engagement with the West and seeking to maintain a balance between East and West. This divergence in priorities is one of the main reasons behind BRICS’ inability to develop a cohesive agenda. In particular, Brazil and India’s close ties with Western powers mean that they are unlikely to fully back Russia’s more confrontational approach.
A Real Challenge or a Paper Tiger?
The BRICS coalition has the potential to become a significant player on the global stage, especially as its members continue to expand and deepen economic ties. However, internal divisions remain a significant obstacle to realizing this vision. The group’s lack of a unified foreign policy or cohesive economic strategy makes it difficult for BRICS to present a coherent challenge to the Western-dominated global system.
Further complicating matters is the growing influence of China within BRICS. As China’s economy continues to outpace those of other member nations, it is becoming the de facto leader of the bloc. This has raised concerns among some BRICS members, particularly India and Brazil, about China’s increasing dominance. The group’s future will likely depend on how China navigates this growing influence and whether it can forge consensus among the diverse members of the coalition.
In the short term, BRICS will likely continue to expand its economic footprint, with initiatives aimed at reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar and Western institutions. However, the group’s internal rifts will likely limit its ability to emerge as a fully unified geopolitical force. In the meantime, the West will have ample opportunities to counter BRICS’ rise by strengthening its relationships with key players like India and Brazil.
Conclusion
The BRICS summit in Kazan represented a significant moment in the evolving global geopolitical landscape. While it sent a strong message to the West, signaling that BRICS is determined to reshape the international order, the organization’s internal divisions remain a major hurdle. As the group expands, it will face increasing pressure to forge a unified agenda that balances the interests of its diverse members. For now, the West has some breathing room, but BRICS’ growing economic and political influence cannot be ignored. The organization may not yet pose an existential threat to the U.S.-led international system, but its trajectory suggests that it is a force that will be difficult to dismiss in the coming years.
