BRICS Seeks to Reshape Global Power Balance as NATO Faces Growing Uncertainty

The BRICS summit in 2026 is set to draw global attention as member countries seek to strengthen.

Their collective influence at a time of geopolitical tensions, trade disruptions and growing uncertainty over the existing international order.

What began as a grouping of emerging economies has evolved significantly over the past two decades. BRICS now presents itself as an important platform for the Global South, pushing for greater representation in global institutions and a more multipolar world.

From RIC to BRICS

The origins of the grouping can be traced to an idea proposed by former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov during his 1998 visit to India. Primakov suggested closer cooperation among Russia, India and China, eventually leading to the Russia-India-China (RIC) format.

Foreign ministers of the three countries began meeting regularly from 2002, while their leaders held a trilateral meeting in St Petersburg in 2006.

Brazil subsequently joined the grouping, turning RIC into BRIC. The first BRIC summit was held in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on June 16, 2009, bringing together the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

The grouping emerged against the backdrop of the global financial crisis and growing discussions around reforming the international economic system. Its members sought to give emerging economies a stronger collective voice in global decision-making.

South Africa joined in 2010, turning BRIC into BRICS. Since then, the grouping has expanded further, with Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia joining as members.

BRICS Is Not a Military Alliance

Unlike NATO, BRICS was never designed as a military alliance. It does not have a collective-defence commitment, a permanent military structure or a binding treaty comparable to a traditional alliance.

Instead, its agenda has largely centred on economic cooperation, development financing, trade, investment and reform of international institutions.

Its expansion has nevertheless increased its geopolitical significance. As questions grow over the future shape of Western-led institutions and alliances, BRICS has continued to expand rather than fragment.

A Bigger Voice for the Global South

One of BRICS’ most significant achievements has been its evolution from an emerging-economy grouping into a broader platform for the Global South.

The expanded grouping has 11 members and 10 partner countries, while several other nations have expressed interest in closer association.

Together, BRICS countries account for nearly half of the world’s population and around 40% of global economic output when measured by purchasing power parity.

But the importance of BRICS goes beyond these numbers. Its members argue that institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, International Monetary Fund and World Bank reflect a global balance of power that no longer matches today’s economic and political realities.

BRICS has therefore become a vehicle for demanding greater representation for emerging and developing economies.

Importantly, however, members do not share a uniform position on confrontation with the West. Their common ground is largely centred on the need for a more representative and multipolar international system.

New Development Bank: BRICS’ Major Institutional Success

A major milestone came in 2014, when BRICS members agreed to establish the New Development Bank (NDB). The institution became operational in 2015 with a mandate to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging and developing economies.

The NDB remains one of the most tangible outcomes of BRICS cooperation and has financed projects in member countries, including India.

The bank has also explored financing in currencies other than the US dollar. This is part of a wider BRICS discussion about increasing the use of local currencies for trade and cross-border payments.

BRICS has stopped short of advocating an immediate replacement for the dollar or the creation of a common currency. That approach reflects the practical difficulties involved in building a unified monetary system among economies with very different financial structures.

Reducing dependence on a single currency and financial centre, if it happens, is likely to be a gradual process rather than an abrupt shift.

• The Contradictions Within BRICS
• Despite its growing influence, BRICS faces significant internal challenges.

India and China continue to have unresolved border and strategic disputes. Russia’s confrontation with the West has created different geopolitical calculations among members. Iran’s relationships with some Gulf states remain complicated, while trade imbalances and differences in economic strength create additional challenges.

China’s economy is considerably larger than that of most other BRICS members, raising concerns about whether the grouping could eventually become overly China-centric.

BRICS also lacks several features associated with formal political or economic unions. It has no common treaty, shared budget or permanent secretariat comparable to the European Union.

Its members also have vastly different political and economic systems. Some are major energy exporters, others are manufacturing powers, while several rely heavily on large domestic consumer markets. Their foreign-policy priorities are similarly diverse.

The Real Test Lies Ahead

These contradictions make it difficult to view BRICS as a unified political or economic bloc. Its members are unlikely to agree on every major international issue.

Yet that may not be the group’s primary objective.

For countries such as India and several other members, BRICS offers a platform to push for greater representation without formally aligning with any single geopolitical camp.

The group’s future will ultimately depend on whether it can turn its growing membership and economic weight into practical cooperation while managing its internal differences.

BRICS may not replace the existing global institutions or create a unified alternative to the Western-led system. But its continued expansion reflects a broader shift in global politics: emerging powers increasingly want a greater say in shaping the rules of the international order.