Follow us on social

Where expansion could hit a BRICS wall

Where expansion could hit a BRICS wall

The bigger this 'alternative' coalition becomes, the more apparent its members' divergent interests

Analysis | Global Crises

Turkey’s formal application last week for membership in BRICS marks a major step forward for a bloc that expanded its membership at the outset of the year to embrace Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The 15-year-old coalition, whose initial members consisted of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, added South Africa in 2010 and has offered full membership to Saudi Arabia as well.

Once seen as a “paper tiger,” BRICS is increasingly viewed as a major force, attracting middle powers that are eager to boost their economies through expertise in the kinds of advanced sectors, such as high technology, renewable energy, and information technology at which China, a global leader in cutting-edge industries, has excelled.

While the primary goal of BRICS is to prioritize shared economic benefits, it is important to also recognize its inherent limitations. From the outset, the bloc seemed somewhat misaligned and modest in terms of its objectives and combined resources. Ironically, with its expansion, it now appears even more heterogeneous. To some extent, it seems to echo Ophelia’s famous line in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “We know what we are, but know not what we may be.”

An analysis of BRICS' founding and new members highlights their divergent interests. China and Russia strongly oppose the U.S.-led global order but lack a cohesive set of values behind this stance, while India pursues a multi-alignment strategy, engaging with both the U.S. and the other major powers. Brazil and South Africa, though less confrontational, have also adopted flexible foreign policies, engaging actively in global affairs, particularly in regions like the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Brazil maintains robust economic relations with the U.S. and the EU while also nurturing ties with China and other BRICS members. South Africa balances its foreign policy between its Western partners and its growing relationships with emerging economies.

Among the new members, Iran aligns with China and Russia's anti-Western position, although its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has made no secret of his desire to improve ties with Europe, in particular. The UAE, a long-term and significant contributor to the U.S. economy with over 30 years of substantial investments, is using its BRICS membership primarily to broaden partnerships with countries, notably China.

Egypt, struggling with economic challenges, recently secured an $8 billion bailout from the western-dominated International Monetary Fund, while Ethiopia, facing financial strain and internal crises of its own, also turned to the IMF for a $3.4 billion loan.

These disparities among BRICS members reveal a group more defined by its differences than by any shared values or interests. Rather than a unified bloc, BRICS stands out for its diverse internal challenges and the complexities they bring.

In addition to its diverse membership, BRICS also grapples with fundamental limitations intrinsic to its structure. As the group grows, the challenge of collective action—effectively coordinating among its disparate members—has become increasingly apparent.

This issue magnifies the differences among the nations involved. The debate over enlargement is a prime example — while China advocates for swift expansion to amplify its influence, countries like India and Brazil express caution, fearing that a larger group may dilute their own strategic interests. Similarly, engagement with the West reveals deep rifts; Russia, isolated due to sanctions, seeks to deepen anti-Western alliances, whereas India, Brazil, and South Africa maintain complex but crucial ties with Western powers.

These tensions are compounded by the enduring rivalry between China and India, where border disputes and competing regional ambitions further complicate collective action.

At present, BRICS struggles with burden-sharing and lacks the leadership needed to assert itself as a formidable bloc. While China, with the largest economy by far, might be seen as a potential leader, India, whose military has clashed with Beijing’s over contested territory, is unlikely to defer to a BRICS dominated by its northern neighbor. At the same time, China's role within the G77+China caucus in the Bretton Woods institutions and in the Global South indicates its preference for a structure where it retains predominant influence and sells its global image rather than fostering a truly democratic and pluralistic organization.

Still, BRICS membership offers significant advantages despite the multiple challenges. The bloc provides a platform for member countries to collaborate on trade, economic growth, infrastructure development, and financial cooperation, and reduce their dependence on Western-dominated institutions, including the Washington-based IMF and World Bank. The New Development Bank (NDB), though still evolving since BRICS launched it in 2015, serves as an alternative source of funding for developing countries. Furthermore, economic partnerships within BRICS facilitate access to diverse markets, enhancing trade and investment opportunities across emerging economies.

There is still a long road ahead. The NDB was designed to complement, not compete with, institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Focused primarily on infrastructure projects, the NDB's goal to lend in local currencies is hindered by the continuing dominance of the dollar. Escaping this reliance requires long-term strategies, as not all member countries, unlike China’s yuan, possess stable currencies.

The borrowing trends of new members will be a crucial indicator of how BRICS’ financial architecture evolves. For instance, Egypt, which recently received an $8 billion bailout from the IMF, aims to secure a $1 billion loan from the NDB by year’s end. This suggests that a significant departure from dollar reliance and existing financial institutions remains a distant prospect.

Given the obstacles, the notion of a dominant BRICS coalition countering Western influence remains largely aspirational. The true appeal for prospective members lies in the opportunity to amplify their collective voice in global governance, fostering multipolarity and mitigating Western dominance.

Therefore, what the West must understand about the expanding BRICS bloc is that it must address the very motivations that are driving these members into this camp and reevaluate its engagement with the Global South. Viewing BRICS merely as a symbol of multipolarity overlooks its role in highlighting the deficiencies and challenges of the existing international framework.


South Africa's Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor (L), China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi (C) and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pose for a group photo during a meeting of the BRICS Plus Ministerial Council in the city of Nizhny Novgorod, Russia June 11, 2024. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

Analysis | Global Crises
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.