BRICS+ : A Bloc in Motion

The BRICS alliance—originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has evolved from a symbolic economic acronym into a potentially transformative geopolitical bloc. In an era marked by shifting global power structures, intensifying multipolarity, and increasing scepticism toward Western-dominated institutions, BRICS represents both a challenge to the current world order and a platform for alternative models of cooperation.

Coined by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in 2001, the “BRIC” acronym began as a market concept highlighting the rising economic clout of emerging powers. By 2009, the four countries had formalised their cooperation through annual summits, with South Africa joining in 2010 to form BRICS. Despite differing political systems, development trajectories, and regional interests, these nations shared a common desire: to reform global governance structures perceived as disproportionately favouring the West, particularly the US and its allies.

Over time, BRICS has expanded its agenda from economic coordination to include political dialogue, development finance, technological cooperation, and global governance reform. The creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) are milestones that reflect its ambition to offer credible alternatives to the IMF and the World Bank.

Strategic Relevance Today

1. A Counterweight to Western Dominance

At its core, BRICS is a strategic attempt to rebalance global influence. The bloc often calls for reforms in key institutions such as the UN Security Council, IMF, and World Bank, arguing that they no longer reflect current global realities. As the US and EU use extraterritorial sanctions and economic leverage as tools of diplomacy, BRICS nations—particularly China and Russia—seek to build parallel systems that reduce dependency on the dollar-centric financial system. I wrote extensively about this in my book - Bad Money.

2. Economic and Demographic Gravity

Collectively, BRICS represents over 40% of the global population and more than 25% of global GDP (and growing, especially if PPP metrics are used). China’s massive economy and Russia’s resource wealth combine with India’s tech and services sectors, Brazil’s agribusiness, and South Africa’s strategic African ties to form a formidable bloc. Moreover, BRICS is expanding: in 2024, new members such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, the UAE, and Ethiopia were invited to join, signalling the beginning of a more influential “BRICS+” configuration.

This enlargement increases BRICS’ energy influence (especially with Saudi Arabia and the UAE), geographical reach, and strategic diversity. However, it also raises questions about cohesion, given diverging interests.

3. De-dollarisation and Financial Sovereignty

BRICS has intensified efforts to de-dollarise trade and develop alternatives to SWIFT and the dollar-based financial system. With the US increasingly weaponising the dollar via sanctions, BRICS countries are experimenting with using local currencies and multilateral swap agreements in trade, digital payment platforms, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). While no immediate replacement for the dollar exists, this push reflects deeper desires for monetary sovereignty and economic resilience. The exploitation of FinTech to further geopolitical and geo-economic outcomes is a key theme explored in my book as well as in articles published on my website.

Challenges to Unity and Influence

Despite its ambitions, BRICS faces significant internal contradictions:

• China-India Rivalry: Border tensions and geopolitical competition between Asia’s giants undermine unity. India’s participation in the Quad (with the US, Japan, and Australia) further complicates alignment.

• Governance Diversity: The bloc includes democracies, autocracies, and hybrid regimes. Decision-making is often slow and consensus-based, limiting agility.

• Economic Asymmetry: China’s overwhelming economic dominance may cause friction, especially with smaller BRICS economies that fear being overshadowed.

• Lack of Institutional Depth: While the New Development Bank (NDB) is a notable achievement, BRICS lacks a formal secretariat, enforcement mechanisms, or integrated policy frameworks.

Geopolitical Implications

BRICS is part of a broader realignment in global politics, where the "Global South" is asserting greater agency. Its success is not just measured in GDP figures but in its ability to challenge the unipolar post-Cold War order. As the West grapples with internal polarisation, military overstretch, and economic challenges, BRICS offers a vision—however fragmented—of a world where development models and governance systems are no longer dictated by Washington or Brussels.

By cultivating South-South cooperation, investing in infrastructure financing, and amplifying non-Western narratives in diplomacy and trade, BRICS may not yet rival the G7 in power—but it increasingly rivals it in relevance.

BRICS is not a monolith nor a fully coherent alliance, but its importance lies in its symbolism and trajectory. It represents the ambitions of a rising world that demands a seat at the table—and increasingly, builds its own table when one is not offered. The future of BRICS depends on whether it can transcend internal divisions, institutionalise its cooperation, and articulate a compelling, inclusive vision for global development.

Where to Next?

In a world where power is increasingly diffused, the BRICS alliance could emerge not as an alternative superpower bloc, but as the architect of a pluralistic world order—one where influence is shared, and sovereignty respected.

Why Does this Matter Today?

As leaders gather in Rio de Janeiro for the 17th annual BRICS Summit this week, expectations are high that the bloc will decry US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs while presenting the bloc as a champion for multilateralism. In reciprocity, the US President has threatened to levy 10% tariffs on "any country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS.”

There are clearly deepening divisions which are fuelling greater polarisation and ultimately threatening any long-term prospect of maintaining the present world order. Where do you think this is heading?

Please share your comments and thoughts.