The sixteenth summit of the BRICS group carries a unique symbolism based on several considerations, particularly highlighted by the choice of Kazan, located about 500 miles east of Moscow. This choice aims to showcase the clear resilience of the Russian economy and the failure of Western sanctions to impact it. Kazan is Russia’s third capital and one of the wealthiest cities in the country, boasting good infrastructure and expanding investment projects. Additionally, the host city reflects Russia’s close relationship with the Islamic world, being the capital of Tatarstan, a Muslim republic at the crossroads of Europe and Asia.
Moreover, this historic summit, which seeks to reshape alliances and create a multipolar world, comes at a precise time amidst the Russia–Ukraine war on one hand and the Israeli conflict in Gaza and Lebanon on the other. In the context of an uncertain future for the region and a clear shift in regional and global power balances, it poses a genuine test for the ten members of the organization regarding their responsibility to establish peace in this turbulent environment.
Perhaps the most significant consideration is that this is the first summit held after the decision to expand the group to include five new members: Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia. This expansion gives “BRICS Plus” the most significant political, strategic, and economic diversity in its history, raising questions about the future of the group’s collective decisions amid deep divisions among its members. This is particularly evident with the diminished representation of Saudi Arabia at the summit, where the Saudi king’s presence was substituted by the foreign minister, signifying a noticeable hesitation on Saudi Arabia’s part in engaging with other group members.
Additionally, the attendance of leaders and delegations from around 36 countries in Kazan to discuss their grievances amidst the dysfunction of global institutions established since World War II sends a direct message to the West: Despite efforts to isolate it, Russia is capable of building strong strategic partnerships that enable it to strengthen the Global South. All these considerations raise a pivotal question: Will the emerging political developments undermine the group’s economic objectives, or will BRICS’ economic ambitions redefine the political map of the region?
Exceptional Challenges
The BRICS forum aspired to avoid being seen as a competitor to the G7 or its derivatives, such as the G20, in which BRICS members are included. Nevertheless, geopolitical realities imposed a change in this stance. In February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing, issuing a joint statement signaling the beginning of a hostile relationship between these two key BRICS members and the U.S.-led international order, along with its G7 and NATO partners. This joint statement was driven by the dual crises involving Ukraine and Taiwan, which Russia and China interpreted as being propelled by U.S. policies.
Both Russia and China recognize the role of BRICS in enhancing expanded cooperation across three main areas: politics and security, economics and finance, and human exchanges. However, BRICS has been limited in terms of its potential achievements and scale, whether on a global level or in terms of organizational capacity. To place the group in a position that allows it to change the rules of the game on the global stage requires a long-term effort without a short-term timeline. Thus, BRICS has focused on challenging Western domination by advocating for the reform of global governance, establishing parallel mini-institutions to compete with existing institutions, countering the dollar’s role, and striving to reduce U.S. control over the global economy. However, the group has achieved more success in terms of symbolism than substance; it has been less successful in its aspirations to create a global reserve currency that would reduce global reliance on the U.S. dollar and potentially replace it.
During last year’s summit, members committed to exploring the feasibility of creating a common currency. Still, these de-dollarization efforts face a challenging path due to the entrenched role of the dollar in cross-border transactions, currency exchanges, commodity markets, debt ratings, and a lack of financial infrastructure to facilitate non-dollar transactions among BRICS central banks, along with ongoing restrictions on the convertibility of the Chinese currency. Consequently, the member countries have focused on the necessary mechanisms to facilitate trade and investment in local currencies and diversify their currency reserves.
Another challenge lies in the potential transformation of “BRICS Plus” into competing blocs within the framework of intensified geopolitical conflict between East and West and growing mutual alienation between North and South. According to this perspective, Beijing and Moscow are determined to leverage the dissatisfaction of some countries with the U.S. and its allies to strengthen a counterweight to the West, a process likely to disrupt global cooperation within multilateral organizations.
Diverging BRICS Plus Members
With the addition of new members to BRICS, the group of emerging powers will become more representative globally. However, it will also face further internal divisions. Regardless of the common frustrations that the group may express regarding inequality in the contemporary global system, political, strategic, and economic discrepancies within the BRICS coalition and geopolitical rivalries among its members may weaken its cohesion and limit its diplomatic influence. The most significant of these discrepancies include:
- The Strained Relationship between Egypt and Iran: After a long period of tension and hostility between the two countries, discussions about a thaw in relations have emerged since 2023, driven by important geopolitical factors such as the war in Ukraine and the increasing influence of Moscow and Beijing in the Middle East. However, the current conflict in the region may cause Cairo to reassess its rapprochement strategy with Tehran.
- The Historical Rivalry between Egypt and Ethiopia: This rivalry stems from disputes over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and attempts by Addis Ababa to control Cairo’s share of Nile waters, which Egypt views as a national security issue, employing both diplomatic and military means to halt Ethiopian actions in the Nile Basin and its efforts to gain a foothold in the Red Sea following its agreement with the breakaway region of Somaliland.
- The Geopolitical Competition between India and China: Both countries are involved in a regional confrontation, striving to achieve a strategic advantage in the Indian Ocean and contesting leadership in the Global South. India is also a member of the Quad, a strategic partnership with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, aimed—albeit not overtly—at countering Chinese dominance in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
- The Dual Ally: The UAE maintains alliances with both East and West. Despite growing economic and security ties between Abu Dhabi and Moscow, it still seeks to strengthen its partnership with the U.S. across various economic, military, and security aspects.
- The Fluctuating Relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran: Saudi Arabia and Iran represent geopolitical and ideological rivals that remain fierce adversaries despite China’s efforts to promote rapprochement between them. Developments in the Israeli conflict in Gaza and Lebanon, along with Iran and its allies’ roles, have postponed any recent political accommodations between the two sides indefinitely.
A Summit Amid Two Wars
The sixteenth BRICS summit, the largest gathering of world leaders in Russia in decades, occurs amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and Israel’s war against Gaza and Lebanon. In this context, the final statement from the Kazan summit emphasized the urgent need for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza, the unconditional release of hostages, the facilitation of humanitarian aid, and the cessation of all hostilities. The leaders condemned civilian casualties, repeated attacks on United Nations personnel, and the substantial damage inflicted on infrastructure as a result of Israeli actions in Lebanon, reiterating the necessity of an immediate halt to hostilities by Israel.
The statement also called, after extended discussions lasting over four hours, for adherence to United Nations Security Council resolutions from 2023 and 2024, praising the efforts of Egypt and Qatar, along with other regional initiatives aimed at halting fighting and expediting the delivery of humanitarian aid while stressing the need for Israeli forces to withdraw from Gaza. Notably, the Kazan declaration condemned the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus last April as a serious violation of international law.
However, Ukraine was mentioned only once in the 43-page Kazan declaration. Chinese President Xi Jinping—Putin’s main ally—emphasized the importance of preventing further escalation in Ukraine and the need for the parties involved to commit to preventing the conflict from spilling over and to refrain from escalating hostilities, aiming to ease the situation as soon as possible. Among BRICS members, calls to end the war in Ukraine were cautious and tepid, with only Brazil directly criticizing Moscow’s invasion of Kyiv, describing it as unacceptable. This indicates that there are likely reservations on the Russian side regarding the discussion of the ongoing war in Ukraine during this year’s BRICS summit.
Conclusion
On the surface, “BRICS Plus” represents a significant economic bloc, encompassing half of the world’s population and accounting for 40% of global trade and crude oil production; this gives it the capacity to use this influence not only to demand a fairer international system but also to work towards realizing these aspirations. However, developing a cohesive and positive agenda for reforming the global system and enhancing international cooperation becomes more challenging as the coalition adds more countries with differing political institutions, economic models, cultural systems, and national interests.
While there may be strength in increasing the number of coalition members, there are evident weaknesses as well; the potential acceptance of a diverse array of countries will inevitably complicate the processes of consensus-building and decision-making, leading to the reproduction of imbalances and redundancy of many functions enjoyed by multilateral groupings such as the Non-Aligned Movement or the Group of 77. This risk is compounded by the failure of the original BRICS members to articulate their strategy towards expansion. In the absence of a detailed and positive agenda for global institutional reform to guide collective action, the “BRICS Plus” group risks further weakening its already tenuous cohesion, thereby limiting its aspirations to represent the Global South, and undermining its influence in the desired global system.
