The 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro closed amid global upheaval and domestic distractions, with the bloc striving to reaffirm its relevance in a rapidly fracturing geopolitical environment. With its membership now expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Iran, and Indonesia, BRICS represents nearly half the global population and a significant share of global GDP.
Yet, questions remain about whether the group can transition from a symbolic alliance to a coherent geopolitical force.
The summit unfolded in the shadow of intensifying global conflicts: U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Israel’s war in Gaza, and the India-Pakistan military flare-up in May. These crises dominated the agenda but also unified the bloc.
In its Rio Declaration, BRICS condemned the Gaza violence and raised concerns over nuclear safety following the Iran attacks. India scored a diplomatic victory by securing language condemning the Pahalgam terror attack and cross-border terrorism—rare consensus within the bloc.
Despite these efforts at unity, the summit also exposed internal contradictions.
Key leaders were absent: China’s Xi Jinping, for the first time since taking office, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who attended virtually due to his ICC arrest warrant. Several new members also sent representatives rather than heads of state. These gaps diluted the summit’s impact and fueled doubts about BRICS’ capacity to lead reform of global governance.
“This year’s summit appears to have dimmed the group’s prospects,” said geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova, citing the effects of expansion without addressing internal inconsistencies.
Garima Mohan of the German Marshall Fund echoed this concern, adding: “It seems unlikely that the grouping will be able to speak in one voice or provide a credible critique of the current system of global governance.”
External pressures also weighed heavily. U.S. President Donald Trump once again issued tariff threats, stating, “any country aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of BRICS will be charged an additional 10 per cent tariff.” For member states like India—currently negotiating a trade deal with Washington—this was a stark reminder of the geopolitical balancing act they must perform.
Nonetheless, BRICS leaders emphasized a low-key, pragmatic approach. The summit advanced cooperation in areas like energy security, climate change, global health, and AI, even if commitments remained broad and cautious.
“BRICS countries are playing the long game,” said Samir Puri of Chatham House. “There’s little gain in provoking a loud clash with a conflictual US president.”
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was more forthright, declaring that BRICS “proves the world doesn’t need an emperor.” Still, beyond the rhetoric, the bloc’s aspirations for a multipolar world remain constrained by strategic rivalries and economic interdependence with the West.
As India prepares to assume the BRICS presidency in 2026, the bloc stands at a crossroads. Transforming shared frustrations into collective strategy will be essential. For now, BRICS remains an influential platform—but whether it can lead systemic change or merely react to it remains to be seen.
