The 21st century is witnessing a profound shift in the balance of global power. The unipolar world order that dominated international politics following the Cold War is steadily giving way to a multipolar landscape. At the heart of this transition is BRICS—an acronym that originally represented Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and later expanded to include South Africa. Formed out of a shared dissatisfaction with Western-dominated global institutions and a desire to foster cooperation among emerging economies, BRICS has grown from a mere acronym into a dynamic geopolitical alliance. In recent years, its significance has grown even more, especially with the inclusion of new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates in 2024. Today, BRICS represents not just an economic bloc but a symbol of the aspirations of the Global South. With roughly 45% of the world’s population and more than 40% of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity), the group is poised to play an increasingly influential role in global governance, development finance, and the reshaping of international norms.
The term "BRIC" was first coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, a British economist at Goldman Sachs, who predicted that the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China would experience sustained high growth and eventually come to rival the G7 economies. Initially, this grouping was only a conceptual tool for understanding shifting macroeconomic trends. However, the idea quickly caught the imagination of policymakers within these countries, particularly as the 2008 global financial crisis exposed vulnerabilities in Western financial systems. The first BRIC summit was held in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In 2010, South Africa was invited to join the group, bringing African representation and transforming BRIC into BRICS. This expansion also marked a transition from a purely economic focus to a broader political and strategic alliance. The inclusion of countries from four continents—South America, Eurasia, Asia, and Africa—gave BRICS a distinct identity as a cross-continental coalition of non-Western powers seeking to reshape global governance.
One of BRICS’ core motivations is the reform of international institutions. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank continue to reflect a post-World War II power structure, with permanent UNSC membership and weighted IMF voting rights skewed heavily toward the United States and its allies. BRICS countries, despite their growing global economic share, remain underrepresented in these forums. China and Russia are the only BRICS members with permanent UNSC seats, while India, Brazil, and South Africa have repeatedly advocated for inclusion. Reforming these institutions to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities is a consistent BRICS agenda item, with numerous summit declarations calling for democratization of global governance, fairer representation, and decision-making processes that reflect multipolarity and inclusiveness.
To back these political ambitions with tangible tools, BRICS has established its own institutions. Chief among them is the New Development Bank (NDB), launched in 2014 and headquartered in Shanghai. The NDB was created to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other developing countries. Unlike the IMF or World Bank, which are often criticized for imposing strict conditionalities on loans, the NDB emphasizes respect for national sovereignty and local development priorities. Since its founding, the NDB has approved billions of dollars in loans for projects ranging from transportation networks to renewable energy infrastructure. It also welcomes non-BRICS countries as members, further increasing its potential global influence. Alongside the NDB, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) serves as a financial safety net designed to offer liquidity support to members facing short-term balance of payment problems. Though the CRA has not yet been extensively utilized, it symbolizes the bloc’s intention to create alternative mechanisms for economic stability, independent of Western-dominated financial systems.
Another key BRICS priority is promoting economic cooperation and resilience among member states. Trade between BRICS nations has grown over the past decade, though it still represents a modest share of each country’s total trade volume. China is the dominant trading partner, both within the group and globally. Efforts are underway to deepen economic integration by encouraging trade in local currencies and reducing reliance on the US dollar. This “de-dollarization” strategy gained momentum following Western sanctions on Russia in 2022 and increasing tensions between China and the United States. In response, BRICS countries have developed initiatives such as BRICS Pay, a digital payment platform designed to facilitate cross-border transactions without using SWIFT or dollar settlements. This reflects the broader ambition of financial sovereignty—one that allows BRICS nations to trade and invest without being exposed to the geopolitical leverage of the US-led financial system.
The 2024 expansion of BRICS marked a turning point in the bloc’s evolution. At the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, the group officially invited six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Although Argentina later declined due to domestic political changes, the inclusion of the other five significantly broadened BRICS' geopolitical scope. The admission of Iran and Saudi Arabia, for instance, brings two Middle Eastern rivals into the fold, offering opportunities for diplomatic engagement and regional cooperation under a multilateral framework. The UAE and Saudi Arabia also bring immense financial resources and energy wealth, while Egypt and Ethiopia add strategic depth in Africa. The expanded bloc—sometimes referred to as BRICS+—now spans an even wider array of cultures, political systems, economic models, and regional contexts. While this diversity increases BRICS' legitimacy as a representative of the Global South, it also presents new challenges for consensus-building and institutional coherence.
The inclusion of these new members also strengthens BRICS’ position in global energy markets. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Brazil are major players in oil and gas, and their cooperation could influence global energy pricing and policy. BRICS has already proposed creating a joint energy platform to coordinate strategy and share technology in renewables and hydrocarbons. However, climate policy within BRICS remains a contentious issue. While India and China have made major investments in renewable energy and are key players in the green transition, others like Russia and Saudi Arabia continue to rely heavily on fossil fuel exports. South Africa, meanwhile, still depends on coal for much of its energy. These divergent priorities complicate efforts to present a unified BRICS climate strategy. Nonetheless, the 2025 summit in Rio de Janeiro marked progress by launching a BRICS Climate Fund aimed at supporting sustainable projects across member states, particularly in Africa and South Asia.
Technology and innovation are also rising on the BRICS agenda. As global digital competition intensifies, BRICS countries are increasingly focused on technological sovereignty. China and India lead the group in AI, cybersecurity, and telecommunications, with Russia making strides in defense and aerospace technologies. The group has called for more collaboration in developing 5G infrastructure, quantum computing, blockchain, and digital governance standards. In 2025, BRICS launched its AI Ethics Initiative, advocating for the creation of globally inclusive rules for the safe, transparent, and accountable use of artificial intelligence. This proposal challenges the dominance of Western-led AI frameworks and reflects BRICS’s ambition to shape emerging technologies in a way that aligns with its own values—particularly those of digital sovereignty and non-interference.
However, the path forward for BRICS is not without obstacles. The bloc’s internal contradictions are significant. Members differ widely in political systems, economic interests, foreign policy alignments, and security priorities. India’s growing strategic partnership with the United States through initiatives like the Quad (with the US, Japan, and Australia) contrasts sharply with China’s and Russia’s confrontational stances toward Western powers. India and China continue to have unresolved border disputes, and their rivalry over influence in Asia remains a source of tension. Likewise, Russia’s war in Ukraine and its isolation from the West have created complications for consensus within BRICS, as countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa have sought to remain neutral or avoid alignment. Despite these divergences, BRICS continues to operate on the principle of “strategic autonomy,” allowing each member to pursue its own foreign policy while cooperating on shared goals.
Institutionally, BRICS lacks the coherence of blocs like the European Union or even ASEAN. It does not have a permanent secretariat, charter, or legal framework to enforce decisions. This limits its ability to respond rapidly to global crises or coordinate policy at a high level. Some members, including India and Brazil, have called for greater institutionalization to strengthen BRICS's global impact. Proposals include establishing a permanent BRICS Secretariat, developing a unified economic strategy, and creating standardized protocols for expanding membership. However, others prefer a looser format, fearing that formalization could reduce flexibility or result in political domination by the group’s most powerful members, particularly China.
Still, the appeal of BRICS continues to grow. More than 40 countries have expressed interest in joining or building closer partnerships with the group, including Indonesia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. This surge of interest underscores the demand for an alternative global platform—one that respects sovereignty, promotes mutual development, and challenges the historical dominance of Western powers. The concept of BRICS+ offers a pathway for flexible expansion, allowing different levels of membership or partnership that reflect varying interests and capacities. Going forward, this model could help BRICS balance inclusivity with cohesion, avoiding the pitfalls of rapid overexpansion while deepening its global footprint.
Looking ahead, the future of BRICS depends on its ability to translate its collective potential into concrete influence. To do this, it must address its internal divisions, enhance institutional effectiveness, and deliver tangible benefits. Still, the appeal of BRICS continues to grow. More than 40 countries have expressed interest in joining or building closer partnerships with the group, including Indonesia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. This surge of interest underscores the demand for an alternative global platform—one that respects sovereignty, promotes mutual development, and challenges the historical dominance of Western powers. The concept of BRICS+ offers a pathway for flexible expansion, allowing different levels of membership or partnership that reflect varying interests and capacities. Going forward, this model could help BRICS balance inclusivity with cohesion, avoiding the pitfalls of rapid overexpansion while deepening its global footprint.
Looking ahead, the future of BRICS depends on its ability to translate its collective potential into concrete influence. To do this, it must address its internal divisions, enhance institutional effectiveness, and deliver tangible benefits to its citizens. The establishment of a formalized BRICS Charter could help codify shared principles and objectives, while a permanent secretariat would provide administrative continuity and improve coordination. Greater alignment on economic policies—particularly in areas such as trade facilitation, infrastructure investment, and digital integration—would enhance intra-BRICS commerce and create a more resilient economic bloc capable of withstanding external shocks. These steps would also empower BRICS to take a more coherent stance on global challenges such as climate change, cyber security, global health crises, and peacekeeping.
One of the most promising avenues for BRICS is fostering sustainable development and economic diversification across its member states and beyond. Many BRICS countries, despite rapid economic growth, face persistent challenges such as income inequality, infrastructure deficits, and environmental degradation. Brazil struggles with deforestation and urban poverty; India grapples with rural development and health disparities; South Africa faces deep-rooted unemployment and social inequality; Russia’s economy remains heavily dependent on hydrocarbons; and China confronts the task of transitioning to a consumption-driven, green economy. Through cooperation on technology transfer, renewable energy projects, and knowledge sharing, BRICS can help its members achieve more balanced and inclusive growth. The BRICS Climate Fund, initiated at the 2025 Rio summit, is a notable example aimed at financing green projects in less-developed regions, especially in Africa and South Asia, where climate vulnerability is high.
BRICS’ role in global health has also gained prominence, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. The bloc has called for equitable vaccine distribution, support for healthcare infrastructure in developing countries, and reform of the World Health Organization to better represent Global South concerns. India and China, both major vaccine producers, have utilized BRICS platforms to promote health diplomacy by supplying vaccines to lower-income nations. The pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains, prompting BRICS countries to explore greater collaboration in pharmaceutical manufacturing, biotechnology research, and health information systems. Such cooperation not only builds resilience but also enhances the group’s soft power as a leader of inclusive global governance.
In addition to economics and governance, BRICS is increasingly a forum for cultural exchange and people-to-people ties. Recognizing that geopolitical influence is not only about power politics but also about shared values and identity, BRICS members have promoted initiatives such as the BRICS Film Festival, youth exchange programs, academic forums, and sporting events like the BRICS Games. These efforts help foster mutual understanding and challenge Western cultural hegemony, contributing to a multipolar world where diverse narratives coexist. However, cultural differences and political sensitivities can also strain relations, requiring careful diplomacy and sustained dialogue to maintain cohesion.
The strategic implications of BRICS are equally significant. The group’s emphasis on multipolarity challenges the post-Cold War dominance of the United States and NATO in shaping international security norms. Russia’s ongoing military assertiveness in Eastern Europe and China’s growing maritime influence in the South China Sea exemplify new centers of power that BRICS countries bring to the global table. At the same time, countries like India and South Africa promote a more cautious, non-aligned approach, emphasizing dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution. The tension between these different strategic perspectives requires delicate balancing within BRICS, yet it also reflects the reality of a complex, interconnected world where no single power can impose its will unilaterally.
From a geopolitical standpoint, BRICS’ expanding membership further complicates the international landscape. With the addition of Middle Eastern and African states, the bloc now has a stronger foothold in regions traditionally dominated by Western influence. Egypt and Ethiopia, for example, hold significant sway in African affairs and the Arab world, while Iran and Saudi Arabia represent key players in Middle Eastern geopolitics. This broadening diversity allows BRICS to project power across multiple theaters simultaneously, from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean and from the Arctic to the Sahel. It also opens possibilities for conflict mediation, as BRICS countries can leverage their relationships to encourage dialogue in troubled regions. However, these very geopolitical rivalries among new members also risk internal discord, especially in the Middle East, where sectarian and political tensions persist.
Economically, the expanded BRICS bloc is positioned to influence global trade flows and investment patterns significantly. Together, the members hold vast reserves of natural resources—including oil, gas, minerals, and agricultural products—critical to global supply chains. They also represent enormous consumer markets and manufacturing bases. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which spans dozens of countries with investments in infrastructure and connectivity, overlaps with many BRICS members, providing a framework for deeper economic integration. The International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), linking India, Russia, Iran, and Central Asia, is another example of projects aiming to reduce transit times and costs for trade among BRICS and neighboring countries. While these initiatives face logistical, political, and security challenges, they offer an alternative to Western-centric trade routes and financing mechanisms.
In the digital realm, BRICS is working toward building independent technological ecosystems to reduce vulnerability to sanctions and supply chain disruptions. The bloc promotes collaboration in emerging technologies, such as 5G networks, artificial intelligence, satellite navigation, and cybersecurity. Efforts to develop a BRICS digital currency or a blockchain-based settlement system are underway, which could facilitate smoother financial transactions and reduce dependence on the US dollar. Such developments, while still in early stages, have the potential to disrupt existing financial architectures and give BRICS countries greater autonomy in economic policymaking. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the strategic importance of digital infrastructure, and BRICS recognizes that control over technology is now inseparable from geopolitical influence.
Despite these promising developments, BRICS faces important challenges to its legitimacy and effectiveness. Critics argue that the bloc remains a loose grouping of diverse countries without a common ideology or binding commitments. Unlike the European Union, which has a robust legal framework, shared institutions, and decades of integration, BRICS’s consensus-based approach can hinder swift decision-making and policy coordination. The absence of a shared foreign policy means members can sometimes pursue contradictory objectives, as seen in differing responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, human rights issues, press freedom, and democratic governance vary widely among members, occasionally casting doubt on BRICS’s claim to be a values-driven organization representing Global South interests.
Another challenge is economic disparity within BRICS itself. China’s economy dwarfs the others in terms of GDP, technological advancement, and global influence. This asymmetry can create power imbalances and suspicion among smaller members wary of Chinese dominance. India, while rapidly growing, remains significantly poorer than China on a per capita basis. Brazil and South Africa face domestic political and economic crises, while Russia’s economy suffers from international sanctions and structural vulnerabilities. Managing these disparities requires BRICS to emphasize mutual benefit and respect for sovereignty, but the tension between cooperation and competition remains a defining feature of the group.
The geopolitical rivalry between India and China is perhaps the most delicate issue within BRICS. Their ongoing border disputes and regional competition could threaten bloc unity, yet both countries have shown willingness to compartmentalize these disputes to focus on shared interests at the global level. Their cooperation in forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) suggests that pragmatism often trumps rivalry. Still, any deterioration in bilateral relations could have ripple effects on the entire BRICS agenda.
Looking to the future, BRICS’s continued expansion and institutional maturation will be key indicators of its trajectory. The bloc’s potential to serve as a platform for reforming global governance, fostering sustainable development, and promoting multipolarity is undeniable. However, its success depends on the willingness of members to reconcile differences, invest in shared institutions, and deliver visible benefits to their populations. The challenge is to maintain flexibility and diversity while building the coherence necessary to shape a new global order.
In conclusion, BRICS represents one of the most important geopolitical phenomena of the 21st century—a coalition born from shared ambitions to create a fairer, more representative international system. It embodies the aspirations of emerging and developing countries to have a greater voice in shaping global economic and political norms. While the bloc faces significant internal and external challenges, its expanding membership, growing institutional capacities, and commitment to multilateralism position it as a central player in the evolving architecture of global governance. Whether BRICS can evolve into a cohesive and effective force remains to be seen, but its impact on the global stage is already profound, heralding a shift toward a more multipolar, inclusive world.