The BRICS discussions of the annual meeting agenda reflect the pressures facing emerging economies. In a world unsettled by geopolitical conflicts, lingering health crises, and high inflation, the rhetoric around BRICS often appears blunt and symbolic rather than a concrete plan. Yet the visuals tell a different story: leaders from Brazil, India, China, and South Africa share screens and conference rooms, signaling a readiness to test new avenues for cooperation beyond traditional Western-led finance and governance structures.
None of the BRICS partners backed sweeping economic sanctions against Russia, and only one member signed a UN declaration condemning the invasion of Ukraine. Brazil briefly positioned itself with a stance of measured neutrality, suggesting a willingness to balance competing interests. From Moscow’s viewpoint, the divide between 17 percent of the world population and Western-led isolation could be framed as a strategic realignment rather than a retreat. A recent pre-summit video message hinted at a renewed customer base and market reach, with an emphasis on trade that transcends Europe. BRICS positions itself as a hub for partnerships with trusted international players and a gateway to emerging markets that account for a substantial share of the global population and GDP.
Chinese leadership
The summit serves as a platform for China to project leadership on a global stage just ahead of key gatherings by the G-7 and NATO. President Xi Jinping, who hosted a virtual segment of the meeting, underscored worries about what he characterizes as Western power projection and alliance-building. He framed the Ukraine conflict as a warning about the dangers of coercive security strategies and the pursuit of dominance at the expense of others. This line of argument challenges bloc diplomacy and American military posture, signaling that Beijing wishes to broaden its influence even as it contends with regional frictions.
China’s approach also aims to frame BRICS as a pragmatic counterbalance to Western hegemony. While Xi stresses the importance of independent development pathways, his rhetoric invites scrutiny of how the bloc might coordinate economic policy without being drawn into polarized blocs. India, often seen as the pragmatic voice within BRICS, is cautious about deepening ties that could provoke friction with its borders or its strategic partners. The question remains whether the resulting alignment can sustain long-term cohesion among members who operate under diverse political systems and strategic priorities.
India’s role within BRICS is shaped by its recent moves to expand regional and global influence. The country participates actively in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and maintains a robust stance on security matters with external partners. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed caution about commitments that could complicate domestic or international priorities. Meanwhile, the South African leadership has highlighted shared challenges such as poverty and limited vaccine access, framing regional development as a core BRICS objective. Brazil, for its part, emphasizes economic integration and the need to diversify the bloc’s trade relationships beyond traditional partners.
The BRICS conversation reveals a broader dilemma: the group formed in 2009 as a response to postwar economic imbalances is still wrestling with how to translate aspirational goals into practical influence. The Western financial architecture, shaped by long-standing institutions, continues to reflect a particular set of values and rules. BRICS seeks a more inclusive framework, but differing political systems, competing strategic aims, and historical tensions among members complicate consensus. India and China, as the two most populous nations, bear the weight of their border disputes and the pressure to present a unified front. Their mutual insecurities can impede the emergence of a stronger alternative to existing power structures. China’s push to broaden BRICS membership aims to amplify its regional sway, while India remains wary of letting new members tilt the balance toward Beijing.
As the conversation evolves, the question remains whether BRICS can sustain cohesion and translate its members’ goals into tangible outcomes for developing nations. The bloc’s path forward will likely hinge on practical cooperation in trade and investment, infrastructure development, and targeted financial programs that support growth without triggering protectionist backlash. Until then, BRICS continues to position itself as a counterweight to established blocs, a forum for developing economies to press for fairer terms, and a possible catalyst for a more multipolar world that Canada and the United States watch closely with interest. The analysis suggests that the group will need concrete cross-border initiatives, transparent governance, and a shared narrative that transcends rivalries to achieve durable, real-world benefits for its people. [citation: BRICS summit briefing, 2025]