BRICS and the Limits of Southern Solidarity

“BRICS is a small group, and it’s fading fast,” U.S. President Donald Trump recently mocked on the campaign trail. But is the bloc truly losing relevance—or simply struggling to redefine its role in an increasingly fractured world?

The 17th BRICS Summit in Rio offered a critical moment for unity and leadership from the Global South. Instead, it delivered cautious posturing and strategic divergence—at a time when the world urgently needs collective action on trade, climate, and conflict.

The absence of key leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, paired with Brazil’s preference for bridge-building over confrontation and reinforced the impression that this summit was more about preserving consensus than projecting leadership.

Plan B Diplomacy: BRICS Talks Unity, Acts Alone

Despite its vision of a fairer multipolar world, BRICS today functions less as a bloc and more as a cluster of diverging national strategies.

All five founding members—India, China, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa—at some point have faced Donald Trump’s tariff regime. Yet the summit avoided naming the U.S. directly and offered only veiled references to protectionism. There was no shared stance, just parallel postures.

India is negotiating bilaterally with Washington. Brazil is conscious of economic vulnerabilities and hence adopted a low-profile approach. China, while competing with the U.S., continues strategic trade ties. Amid Western sanctions, Russia has increasingly positioned BRICS as a stable outlet for its oil and gas, redirecting exports toward member states less constrained by geopolitical pressures.

These differences aren’t ideological but strategic. Brazil has stayed out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and instead chose to act as a neutral facilitator between the West and the Global South. India is preparing to lead BRICS in 2026, but concerns over China’s assertiveness and unresolved border issues continue to weigh on its engagement. The focus on cross-border terrorism and UNSC reform revealed the fault lines within BRICS, where unity is still a work in progress.

Even the expansion of BRICS has introduced new divisions. Ethiopia’s inclusion reportedly unsettled Nigeria and Kenya. Egypt’s deep ties to the West and Gulf add further ideological dissonance.

What this summit revealed was not strategic alignment, but strategic divergence. BRICS continues to speak of unity, but in practice, each country is negotiating its own survival—on its own terms.

A Missed Opportunity

The shifting world order has created rare openings for coalitions like BRICS. With the U.S. retreating from multilateral commitments during Trump’s presidency, BRICS found a moment to project itself as a more cooperative and inclusive alternative. Yet the bloc responded not with unity, but with hesitation.

China continues separate high-level dialogues with the EU. Russia’s ties with Europe remain frozen by war. Brazil, despite adopting a constructive tone, failed to rally support for key initiatives.

One such initiative was Brazil’s proposed “Tropical Forest Forever Facility,” a BRICS-led fund aimed at channeling capital into Global South climate action. While it echoed earlier BRICS coordination on green finance ahead of COP30, China, the world’s largest emitter, made no financial commitment. Gulf invitees like the UAE and Saudi Arabia also remained non-committal. A major opportunity for BRICS to lead on climate justice quietly slipped away.

The same ambiguity extended to economic reform. BRICS has long spoken of moving away from dollar dominance, yet this summit produced no concrete steps. No timeline. No payment mechanism. No clear plan to empower the New Development Bank as a viable alternative to the IMF or World Bank.

Europe’s Opening, BRICS’ Hesitation

Shortly after the summit, Trump’s proposed 10% tariff on nations “aligning with anti-American policies” reflected Washington’s growing discomfort with multipolar groupings. While BRICS members criticized the move, the real question is whether they can turn such moments into momentum.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union is redefining its role. India has expanded its cooperation with Brussels through the EU–India Trade and Technology Council, with a focus on digital governance and clean energy. Brazil, under Lula, is promoting South–North collaboration on biodiversity. Even France has shown openness to partnerships with Global South actors, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

This convergence on climate finance, trade resilience, and global governance reform presents space for BRICS and the EU to engage. But for such alignment to happen, BRICS must overcome its cautious posture and speak with a clearer and more coordinated voice.

BRICS+, Turkey, and the South-South Equation

The entry of Egypt, the UAE, and Indonesia into BRICS+ has enhanced the bloc’s global relevance, while also presenting new challenges in maintaining cohesion.

Turkey, which expressed strong interest and participated in BRICS side events, presents an interesting bridge. Its middle-power diplomacy, Eurasian outreach, and expertise in humanitarian coordination align with BRICS+ ambitions. Yet expansion alone won’t be enough. Without a shared agenda—on trade, climate infrastructure, and conflict prevention—BRICS+ risks becoming a symbolic coalition rather than a strategic one.

Gulf Engagement and the COP28 Test

The UAE’s accession to BRICS+ just ahead of hosting COP28 was significant. Under the Emirati presidency, COP28 echoed BRICS’ long-standing position by prioritizing climate finance for vulnerable nations and advocating South-led approaches. Combined with Brazil’s climate activism and Europe’s growing interest in South–South–North coalitions, this could have laid the groundwork for a transformational climate agenda. Yet once again, BRICS fell short and was unable to translate Gulf cooperation into tangible outcomes or binding financial commitments 

Why BRICS Still Matters

Despite its shortcomings, BRICS remains important. It represents a rare forum where non-Western powers shape their narratives, challenge outdated global institutions, and signal collective discontent with the status quo.

For India and Brazil—democracies with growing diplomatic weight—this is an opportunity to lead. India’s presidency in 2026 offers a chance to push forward concrete initiatives: a green finance mechanism, a BRICS climate facility, and reform of global governance institutions.

As a student from the Global South studying in a country that borders both Europe and the Middle East, I belong to a generation that sees multipolarity not as a theory, but as a lived reality. We are not asking for a return to Cold War binaries. We are asking for fairer rules, genuine cooperation, and a voice in shaping the future.

This BRICS summit may have fallen short—but it reminded us why BRICS still matters.