At their latest summit in Brazil, the BRICS nations once again portrayed themselves as an emerging geopolitical heavyweight. Yet the internal contradictions within this expanding group remain plain to see. And the lure of American power still proves irresistible.
The numbers are impressive. Beyond its ten full members and thirteen associate states, the BRICS bloc is reportedly fielding membership applications from over 30 other nations. In their current configuration, BRICS full members represent 3.9 billion people — 48 percent of the global population—and nearly half of the global GDP. More than 35 percent of international trade is conducted through BRICS countries. There’s no denying the growing influence of the so-called Global South relative to the transatlantic West.
A Fragmented Alliance
But how substantial are BRICS’s internal decisions and strategic ambitions? So far, external pressure has been the main driver of any semblance of unity. Meaningful output — such as the creation of a joint payment infrastructure — has yet to materialize. “BRICS Pay,” launched in 2018, remains stuck in its pilot phase. The deep entrenchment of global trade within the dollar-based financial system appears to be a hurdle too high for quick solutions.
Yes, geopolitical events like Russia’s removal from SWIFT, the freezing of its central bank assets, and the tariff wars under President Donald Trump have all accelerated the BRICS dynamic. But a functioning bloc with a codified rulebook — reminiscent of the post-WWII Bretton Woods system — remains a distant dream.
No Putin, No Xi
On July 6, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, as this year’s host, opened the summit in Rio de Janeiro. Much discussion preceded the event — not about substance, but about the absence of China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The latter stayed away due to an International Criminal Court warrant. As Brazil is a signatory to the ICC, it would have been legally obliged to arrest him. With no legal guarantees from Brazil, Putin chose to appear via video, leaving Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to lead Russia’s delegation in person.
Unsurprisingly, U.S. trade policy dominated the agenda. The group called on global bodies like the IMF and WTO to reassert themselves as neutral arbiters and push back against American dominance. Yet, given China’s own protectionist behavior as BRICS’s economic heavyweight, such criticism rings hollow.
BRICS nations are hardly models of open, rules-based commerce. Consider China’s massive subsidy schemes, which have fueled its outsized export sector at the expense of trading partners — an obvious attempt to externalize internal economic stress.
Blaming America — Again
Criticism of the United States is always a unifying pastime. It delivers soundbites, if not solutions. President Lula slammed the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO and Washington’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. He also condemned NATO’s latest defense spending hike: “It’s easier to allocate five percent of GDP for war than the promised 0.7 percent for development aid,” he quipped. (RELATED: WHO’s Out First?)
Peace and development funds exist, Lula said, but are being wasted on conflict. Russia’s war in Ukraine went unmentioned. Instead, Lula focused on Kashmir and the violence in Gaza, and denounced what he termed a “genocide” in Gaza, along with alleged violations of international law in attacks on Iran. As always, perspective determines outrage.
A Talking Shop in Rio
Beyond familiar rhetoric on climate change, global health, and regional conflicts, the summit produced little of substance. Notably absent was any serious advancement of BRICS’s founding ambition: to create an integrated trade, financial, and monetary system of its own.
Despite bold talk, BRICS has yet to mount a credible challenge to the dollar-based order. Central banks in China and Russia continue to hoard gold in an effort to shore up trust in China’s currency, the yuan. But the facts are stark: the U.S. dollar remains dominant, with 58 percent of global reserves. The yuan holds a mere 2.3 percent; the euro hovers around 20 percent. Neither is close to challenging the greenback. (RELATED: Separating Fact From Hype About BRICS)
American tax reform, Trump-era deregulation, and a stable legal system that protects private property continue to inspire global investor confidence. BRICS must first earn that trust. But with widespread rule-of-law deficits across the bloc, Washington faces no serious competition here.
A Fizzle, Not a Bang
Rio confirmed once more: BRICS remains a loose alliance defined more by what it opposes than what it supports. Unlike the West — which emerged from shared ethical, historical, and philosophical roots — the BRICS nations lack any unifying idea. Their bloc is simply too heterogeneous to generate real internal cohesion. What passes for unity is largely reactive — defined by shared antagonism, not shared vision.
Even the desire to pivot away from a U.S.-dominated trade system hits hard constraints. The gravitational pull of the U.S. market, its liquidity-rich capital ecosystem, and its role in global commodity pricing are simply too great. So long as nations depend on exports or resource imports, Washington’s centrality remains intact.
Still, the bifurcation of global trade is real. The world is slowly, unmistakably splitting into U.S.-aligned and BRICS-oriented spheres. But rather than rupture, this fragmentation compels BRICS to build bridges.
The BRICS summit ended predictably, with no meaningful breakthroughs. The final communiqué read like the output of a government committee — a study in diplomatic platitudes, avoiding commitment, suppressing internal critique, and protecting the status quo of the decision-makers.
Thomas Kolbe is a freelance journalist and media producer with over 25 years of experience. Follow him on X @ThomKolbe.
READ MORE from Thomas Kolbe:
EU Climate Goals: Pure Placebo Politics