BRICS Leaders Meet in India

The BRICS leaders’ summit in India takes place at a pivotal moment for the international system. The expanded bloc brings together major emerging economies with increasingly diverse political, economic and strategic interests. At the same time, wars, trade disputes, sanctions and growing US-China tensions are placing unprecedented pressure on the group’s ability to maintain a common position.

The meeting in New Delhi highlights the transformation of BRICS from a relatively small economic grouping into a much broader platform representing a significant share of the world’s population and economic activity. Yet the group’s growing importance comes with a fundamental challenge: BRICS members do not always agree on the world’s most important geopolitical questions.

India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia have different foreign-policy priorities. Their governments also maintain very different relationships with Washington, Moscow, Beijing and other major powers.

As a result, the central question surrounding the summit is whether BRICS can turn its growing economic influence into meaningful geopolitical cooperation without becoming a formal anti-Western alliance.

Why the 2026 BRICS Summit Matters

The BRICS summit in New Delhi is taking place as global economic and political relationships are undergoing significant changes.

The agenda includes issues such as:

• Global trade and investment
• Economic cooperation
• Energy security
• Food security
• Technology
• Supply-chain resilience
• Financial cooperation
• Reform of international institutions
• Greater representation for developing countries

The expanded membership has dramatically increased the group’s geographic and economic reach. BRICS now includes major energy producers, manufacturing powers, commodity exporters and some of the world’s largest consumer markets.

This gives the organization considerable collective weight.

However, economic size does not automatically produce political unity. The summit therefore represents an important test of whether BRICS can find common ground despite substantial disagreements among its members.

Wars Put BRICS Unity Under Pressure

One of the greatest challenges facing BRICS is the number of active geopolitical conflicts involving its members or their strategic partners.

The war in Ukraine remains a major dividing issue. Russia is a central BRICS member, while other countries have attempted to maintain relationships with Moscow without fully endorsing Russian policy.

India has been particularly careful in balancing its position. New Delhi maintains longstanding defense, energy and economic relationships with Russia while simultaneously developing stronger strategic and technological ties with the United States, Europe, Japan and other partners.

The Middle East presents an additional challenge.

With Iran now part of BRICS, developments involving Tehran directly affect the organization. Other members, including the United Arab Emirates, maintain extensive relationships with the United States and other Western economies.

These differences make a unified foreign-policy position extremely difficult.

BRICS is not a military alliance. Unlike NATO, its members are not committed to collective defense. Its influence instead comes from economic coordination, diplomatic engagement and cooperation among emerging powers.

India’s Role as BRICS Host

India’s position is particularly important because New Delhi is attempting to maintain strategic relationships with competing centers of global power.

Hosting the summit allows India to strengthen its position as an influential voice of the Global South while emphasizing its preference for strategic autonomy.

India does not want BRICS to become simply an instrument of Chinese or Russian foreign policy.

At the same time, New Delhi does not want BRICS to lose its relevance by becoming excessively cautious.

This creates a delicate diplomatic balancing act.

India can support greater representation for developing countries in international institutions while maintaining close relations with Washington. It can participate in discussions about reducing dependence on the dollar while continuing to operate extensively within the existing global financial system.

This flexibility is central to India’s approach to international affairs.

India-China Relations Add Another Challenge

The relationship between India and China is another major factor shaping the summit.

Both countries are major BRICS members, but they are also strategic competitors in Asia. Their disagreements extend from border security and regional influence to trade, technology and competition for leadership within the developing world.

At the same time, both governments have incentives to prevent bilateral tensions from completely undermining economic and diplomatic cooperation.

This makes BRICS an unusual environment for India and China.

They can compete for influence while simultaneously cooperating within the same multilateral organization.

For India, this means supporting a stronger BRICS without allowing the organization to become dominated by Beijing.

For China, BRICS provides an important platform for promoting a more multipolar international system and strengthening relationships with countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.

US-China Tensions Shape the BRICS Debate

The continuing US-China rivalry is one of the most important external factors affecting BRICS.

China has increasingly promoted a vision of global governance in which developing countries have greater influence and international institutions are less dominated by traditional Western powers.

Russia has similar incentives to support alternatives to Western financial and political systems, particularly because of sanctions associated with the Ukraine war.

But BRICS members do not share identical views.

India, for example, has substantially expanded cooperation with the United States in areas including technology, defense, trade and strategic security.

Other BRICS countries also have major commercial relationships with Western economies.

This means that describing BRICS as a unified anti-American bloc oversimplifies the organization.

A more accurate description is that BRICS provides members with another platform through which they can pursue strategic autonomy and greater bargaining power.

De-Dollarization Is a Major BRICS Priority

One of the most closely watched issues at the summit is the future of the US dollar in international trade and finance.

Some BRICS governments want to increase the use of national currencies for cross-border transactions. The objective is to reduce exposure to exchange-rate risks, sanctions and financial systems dominated by Western institutions.

Russia and Iran have particularly strong incentives to develop alternative payment mechanisms.

However, creating a completely new international monetary system would be considerably more difficult.

The dollar remains deeply integrated into global trade, banking, investment and central-bank reserves. BRICS economies also have different monetary systems, levels of capital-market development and currency regulations.

For these reasons, the most realistic outcome is likely to be gradual diversification rather than the immediate creation of a single BRICS currency.

Greater use of local currencies, expanded development financing and alternative payment arrangements could nevertheless gradually reduce dependence on traditional financial channels.

BRICS and the New Global Economic Order

BRICS increasingly presents itself as a representative platform for the Global South.

Many developing countries argue that the institutions created during the post-World War II period do not adequately reflect the current distribution of global economic power.

BRICS governments have consequently called for greater representation in organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The argument is straightforward: emerging economies account for a much larger share of global economic activity than they did when many of these institutions were established, yet their decision-making influence has not increased at the same pace.

BRICS offers a mechanism for coordinating that criticism.

However, member states differ over how far institutional reform should go and what the resulting international system should look like.

Why BRICS Expansion Is Both a Strength and a Weakness

The expansion of BRICS has significantly increased the organization’s global relevance.

Its members collectively possess substantial:

• Energy resources
• Industrial capacity
• Consumer markets
• Agricultural production
• Natural resources
• Financial capital
• Technological capabilities

This diversity can make BRICS more representative of the developing world.

But it also makes consensus harder.

China and India compete strategically. Russia’s interests are shaped by its confrontation with Western countries. Iran faces its own regional security challenges. Gulf members maintain important relationships with Washington. Brazil and South Africa have regional priorities that do not necessarily align with those of Asian or Eurasian members.

The result is an organization that is unlikely to function like a traditional political alliance.

Instead, BRICS is evolving into a flexible coalition centered on economic cooperation, diplomacy and institutional reform.

Energy Security Becomes Increasingly Important

Energy security is another major concern for BRICS governments.

Several members are among the world’s most important energy producers, while others are major importers.

Wars and disruptions to major transportation routes can therefore affect multiple BRICS economies simultaneously.

Changes in oil and gas prices can influence inflation, transportation costs, industrial production and government budgets.

For countries such as India and China, maintaining reliable access to affordable energy is critical to economic growth.

This gives BRICS an incentive to strengthen cooperation on energy security, supply chains and infrastructure, even when members disagree on broader geopolitical issues.

Trade and Supply Chains Are Central to the Summit

Global trade has become increasingly fragmented by sanctions, tariffs, export controls and geopolitical rivalry.

BRICS countries have a direct interest in creating more resilient supply chains.

Cooperation could include:

• Expanding trade between member countries
• Increasing investment in infrastructure
• Developing alternative transportation corridors
• Improving payment systems
• Strengthening agricultural supply chains
• Expanding technology partnerships
• Increasing trade in national currencies

Such initiatives could provide practical benefits without requiring BRICS members to agree on every international conflict.

This may ultimately prove more important than highly political declarations.

Can BRICS Become an Alternative to the West?

It would be inaccurate to describe BRICS as a complete replacement for the Western-led international system.

The bloc lacks a common currency, common defense policy, unified foreign policy and fully integrated economic institutions.

Its members also continue to trade extensively with the United States, European Union and other Western economies.

What BRICS does provide is greater strategic choice.

Countries can participate in BRICS while maintaining relationships with Washington, Brussels, Moscow, Beijing and other centers of power.

This flexibility may actually be one of the organization’s greatest strengths.

Rather than creating a simple division between “BRICS” and “the West,” the group is contributing to a more fragmented and multipolar global system.

The Biggest Test Is Whether BRICS Can Reach Consensus

The success of the New Delhi summit ultimately depends on the group’s ability to identify areas where its members can cooperate.

Geopolitical disagreements will not disappear.

India and China will continue to compete. Russia’s relationship with Western countries will remain contentious. Iran will remain central to Middle Eastern security debates. Gulf members will continue balancing relationships with multiple powers.

The practical question is therefore whether BRICS can cooperate despite disagreement.

That means concentrating on achievable objectives rather than attempting to establish a single foreign policy for ten countries with fundamentally different strategic interests.

Economic development, infrastructure, trade, energy security and financial cooperation provide more promising areas for consensus.

What the BRICS Summit Means for the Future

The BRICS summit in India demonstrates how dramatically the global balance of power is changing.

Emerging economies increasingly want greater influence over the institutions that shape international finance, trade and diplomacy. They are also seeking greater freedom to conduct economic relationships without being excessively dependent on any single major power.

At the same time, BRICS remains constrained by internal divisions.

Its future influence will depend less on the number of countries it can attract and more on whether existing members can build durable institutions and practical cooperation.

If BRICS succeeds in expanding local-currency trade, strengthening development finance, improving supply-chain resilience and coordinating positions on global governance, it could become one of the most important institutions in an increasingly multipolar world.

If internal geopolitical divisions repeatedly prevent cooperation, its influence could remain primarily symbolic.

BRICS Faces a Defining Moment in India

The BRICS leaders’ meeting in India comes at a moment when wars, economic uncertainty and US-China tensions are testing the limits of international cooperation.

The organization has undeniable economic and demographic weight, but its members have different interests and competing relationships with the world’s major powers.

India’s leadership illustrates the complexity of the moment. New Delhi wants stronger cooperation among developing economies while preserving strategic autonomy and maintaining productive relationships with both Western and non-Western powers.

That approach may ultimately point toward the future of BRICS itself.

Rather than becoming a unified anti-Western alliance, BRICS is more likely to evolve into a powerful but flexible platform for countries seeking greater influence, economic diversification and strategic independence.

The summit in New Delhi therefore represents more than another diplomatic meeting. It is a test of whether a diverse collection of emerging powers can transform their combined economic weight into lasting political and institutional influence.

The answer will help determine how the global balance of power develops in the years ahead.