In 2026, BRICS+ faces internal divisions, competing interests, and doubts over advancing multipolarity under India’s presidency or remaining an aspirational forum.
Lt Gen A B Shivane (R) | For News Analytics
5 mins read.
The BRICS concept, originally coined by Goldman Sachs in 2001 as an economic projection, evolved into a diplomatic grouping in 2009 with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (added in 2010). It represented emerging economies expected to reshape global growth. Over time, however, BRICS has expanded beyond its original design.
The 2023 Johannesburg Summit marked a turning point, inviting Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, while Indonesia joined later. The 2024 Kazan Summit introduced a “partner country” layer, expanding engagement further. Today, BRICS+ represents over 45% of the global population and more than 35% of global GDP (PPP)—a scale comparable to the G7.
Yet, expansion has brought complexity. What was once a compact grouping is now a diverse coalition with varying political systems, economic priorities, and strategic alignments. Rather than strengthening cohesion, growth has exposed internal contradictions. China alone accounts for nearly three-quarters of the bloc’s output, altering internal balances. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain parallel ties with Western security frameworks, while Iran’s isolation and Ethiopia’s internal instability add further divergence. BRICS+ has expanded in size, but not in coherence.
LIMITED LEVERAGE
Economically, BRICS+ remains formidable. In 2025, the bloc recorded an average growth rate of 4.2%, outperforming the global average of 2.9% and the G7’s 1.8%. Intra-bloc trade has risen to approximately $1.2 trillion, supported by discounted energy flows and supply chain adjustments driven by sanctions and geopolitical shifts.
Institutionally, the New Development Bank (NDB) has financed over $35 billion across 90 projects, focusing on infrastructure, digital connectivity, and sustainability. Local currency lending has increased, and green financing is expanding. The Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) offers a $100 billion financial safety net.
However, these mechanisms remain limited in scale. The NDB’s annual lending of roughly $4 billion is modest compared to the World Bank’s significantly larger capacity. Similarly, despite discussions on de-dollarisation, the US dollar still dominates global finance, accounting for about 58% of international reserves. BRICS currencies remain marginal globally.
While bilateral currency transactions and alternative payment systems like China’s CIPS and Russia’s SPFS are growing, they remain fragmented and insufficient to reshape global financial architecture. BRICS+ possesses economic weight but lacks the institutional depth to convert it into sustained strategic influence.
STRUCTURAL GAPS WITH WESTERN SYSTEMS
A comparison with Western institutions highlights this imbalance. While BRICS+ matches or exceeds the G7 in aggregate GDP (PPP), it lacks integration. There is no unified market comparable to the European Union, and intra-bloc trade remains fragmented. Financial institutions are smaller, and investor confidence is constrained by geopolitical risk.
Currency influence remains particularly weak. Despite efforts to promote local currencies, global financial systems continue to rely heavily on the dollar. This gap underscores a central reality: BRICS+ challenges Western dominance rhetorically more than structurally.
DIVERGENT AGENDAS
Internal divisions remain the bloc’s greatest constraint. The India–China rivalry continues to shape strategic mistrust, particularly along the Line of Actual Control. Russia’s position, shaped by sanctions and geopolitical isolation, differs from Brazil’s cooperative multipolar outlook and South Africa’s regional priorities.
New members add further complexity. Iran’s anti-West posture contrasts with the pragmatic balancing of Gulf states. Indonesia hedges through ASEAN, while Ethiopia’s domestic challenges limit its engagement.
Consensus-based decision-making further complicates coordination. The 2025 Rio Declaration, for example, avoided strong positions on major conflicts such as Ukraine and Gaza, reflecting the difficulty of achieving unanimity.
China and Russia also retain structural advantages, including permanent seats on the UN Security Council, shaping internal dynamics. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) overlaps with BRICS-linked projects, reinforcing its influence. India, in contrast, pursues multi-alignment through partnerships like the Quad, reflecting divergent strategic pathways. These differences prevent BRICS+ from acting as a unified geopolitical actor.
INDIA’S PRESIDENCY
India’s 2026 presidency comes at a critical moment. Its theme—focused on resilience, innovation, and cooperation—reflects an effort to reposition BRICS+ as a constructive platform rather than an anti-West bloc.
New Delhi has the opportunity to prioritise:
- Supply chain diversification
- Technology cooperation
- Digital infrastructure and AI governance
- Strengthening Global South partnerships
India can also leverage its domestic market and innovation ecosystem to deepen engagement with emerging partners such as Vietnam and Nigeria. Expanding NDB capitalisation and increasing intra-bloc trade will be key indicators of progress.
However, India must navigate China’s dominant position, Russia’s geopolitical constraints, and the varying priorities of other members. Success will depend on balancing ambition with pragmatism.
STRATEGIC OUTLOOK
BRICS+ holds significant potential. Its demographic scale, resource base, and economic growth position it as a meaningful force in global affairs. However, its future depends on whether it can evolve from a loose coalition into a coordinated platform.
Two pathways are visible. One envisions gradual institutionalisation through functional cooperation in areas such as climate finance, technology, and development lending. The other sees continued fragmentation, where national interests override collective action.
At present, the latter risk remains dominant. Without trust, institutional discipline, and clearer coordination, BRICS+ risks becoming a symbol of multipolar aspiration rather than a driver of systemic change.
For BRICS+ to remain relevant, it must prioritise coherence over expansion and credibility over rhetoric. India’s leadership may provide direction, but the bloc’s future ultimately depends on its ability to reconcile diversity with shared purpose.
