In New Delhi this week, the leaders of nine nations gathered under the BRICS banner — a coalition born from the ambition of rising economies to rebalance a Western-dominated world order. Yet the summit convenes at a moment when the bloc's expansion, meant to amplify its voice, has instead multiplied its contradictions. Wars, border disputes, and rival ambitions among members old and new have turned what was once a manageable forum into a test of whether shared skepticism of the existing order is enough to hold a coalition together.
BRICS Summit Tests Unity as Wars, Rivalries Strain Expanded Bloc
BRICS is learning if it can manage its contradictions
Mark
So what exactly is BRICS trying to do at this summit? Is there a concrete agenda, or is it mostly about showing up?
Mimi
There's definitely an agenda—they want to talk about de-dollarization, about creating alternatives to Western financial systems, about coordinating on global issues. But the problem is that the members don't agree on what those issues are or how to address them.
Luke
Wait—de-dollarization is a real goal they're pursuing, or is that more aspirational talk?
Mimi
It's real in the sense that it's been discussed seriously, especially by Russia and China. But whether it actually happens depends on whether all nine members can agree to move in the same direction, which they haven't so far.
Mark
And the wars—how much do those actually affect what happens in the room?
Mimi
They affect everything. Russia's isolation over Ukraine means India and Brazil are uncomfortable with anything that looks like they're taking Russia's side. That constrains what the bloc can say or do together.
Luke
So when you say the bloc is "strained," you mean the members are actively working against each other, or just that they can't find common ground?
Mimi
More the latter. They're not sabotaging each other, but they're also not willing to compromise on things that matter to them. Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same room is the clearest example—they have real conflicts, and BRICS doesn't have a mechanism to resolve those.
Mark
Is there any chance this summit actually produces something meaningful, or is it mostly theater?
Mimi
It will produce statements and agreements. Whether those mean anything is the real question. The communiqué will probably be carefully worded to avoid offending anyone, which means it might not actually commit to anything.
Luke
Do we know how many members are actually pushing for real coordination versus just showing up to be part of the club?
Mimi
That's the thing—we don't have clear signals on that. The public statements are all diplomatic. The real negotiations happen behind closed doors, and those aren't visible to us.
The Pulse
- A bloc that once moved with relative speed now strains under the weight of nine capitals, each arriving in New Delhi with its own demands and grievances.
- Russia's war in Ukraine has split BRICS members into quiet camps — some sympathetic, some neutral, some opposed — making any unified statement a diplomatic minefield.
- The addition of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same expansion round imported decades of regional rivalry directly into the organization's inner circle.
- China and India, the two economic anchors of the group, continue to eye each other across a disputed border, undermining the trust that coordination requires.
- Negotiators are working to produce a joint communiqué, but the pressure to accommodate every member risks draining any final statement of meaningful content.
- The summit's outcome will reveal whether BRICS can translate collective dissatisfaction with the current global order into coherent, actionable alternatives — or whether it is becoming a forum that meets, speaks, and changes little.
In New Delhi this week, the leaders of nine nations gathered under the BRICS banner — a coalition born from the ambition of rising economies to rebalance a Western-dominated world order. Yet the summit convenes at a moment when the bloc's expansion, meant to amplify its voice, has instead multiplied its contradictions. Wars, border disputes, and rival ambitions among members old and new have turned what was once a manageable forum into a test of whether shared skepticism of the existing order is enough to hold a coalition together.
The BRICS leaders who arrived in New Delhi this week found themselves presiding over an organization almost unrecognizable from its origins. What began as a compact among four rising economies has expanded to nine members, adding Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Iran in a single round of enlargement designed to amplify the bloc's global weight. The effect has been closer to the opposite.
The summit's timing is particularly fraught. Russia's war in Ukraine has quietly divided the membership into factions — those who offer tacit support, those who maintain studied neutrality, and those who harbor private opposition. China and India, the group's two largest economies, continue to manage a simmering border dispute. Brazil has grown openly skeptical about whether BRICS can deliver structural change or whether it has become little more than a venue for shared grievance. And the Gulf newcomers brought with them rivalries — most pointedly between Riyadh and Tehran — that no summit agenda can dissolve.
The expansion was premised on strength in numbers. In practice, it has made consensus harder to reach. When the bloc was smaller, disagreements could be managed quietly. Now, every joint statement must survive nine sets of objections, and the result is language so carefully hedged it commits to almost nothing. Members new and old arrived expecting BRICS to function as a genuine counterweight to Western institutions; what they encountered was an organization still searching for its own definition.
The real questions hanging over New Delhi are not ceremonial. Can the bloc find common ground on Ukraine, or will it retreat into diplomatic vagueness? Can it advance the de-dollarization agenda that drew many members in the first place, or will competing financial interests stall that work indefinitely? The communiqué that emerges will be read closely for signals. But the deeper answer may already be legible in the room itself — in the careful distances between delegations, in the statements that gesture toward unity while committing to none. BRICS is discovering, in real time, that a larger table does not necessarily make for stronger agreement.
The leaders of BRICS arrived in New Delhi this week to a bloc that looks nothing like the one that convened five years ago. What began as an acronym for four rising economies—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—has swollen to nine members after last year's expansion brought in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Iran. The growth was meant to amplify the group's voice in a world dominated by Western institutions. Instead, it has introduced fault lines that threaten to fracture the organization from within.
The timing of this summit could hardly be worse. Russia remains isolated by its war in Ukraine, a conflict that has divided BRICS members into camps of tacit support, studied neutrality, and quiet opposition. China and India, the bloc's two largest economies, continue to manage a border dispute that periodically flares into military tension. Brazil has grown skeptical of the group's direction, questioning whether BRICS can deliver on its promise to reshape global financial architecture or whether it has become a forum for airing grievances without reaching consensus. The newer members brought their own rivalries: Saudi Arabia and Iran, added in the same breath, carry decades of regional competition that no summit agenda can resolve in a day.
The expanded membership was supposed to strengthen BRICS by bringing in major players from the Global South and the Middle East. Instead, it has made coordination harder. When the bloc was smaller, decisions moved faster. Disagreements could be managed through bilateral channels or quiet side conversations. Now, with nine capitals represented, every statement must be negotiated, every joint communiqué watered down to the point where it says almost nothing at all. The newer members arrived with their own expectations and demands, expecting BRICS to function as a counterweight to Western influence in their regions. What they found was an organization struggling to define its own purpose.
The wars hanging over this summit are not abstract. Ukraine remains a live conflict, with no resolution in sight. The Middle East has seen renewed tensions, drawing in several BRICS members in different ways. These are not problems BRICS created, but they are problems BRICS cannot ignore—and cannot solve together. When Russia calls for solidarity, India and Brazil hesitate. When China pushes for stronger language on Taiwan, other members worry about provoking the West. When the Gulf states want BRICS to take sides in their disputes, they find little appetite for that kind of commitment.
The summit's real test is not whether BRICS will announce grand initiatives—it will, because that is what summits do. The question is whether those announcements will mean anything. Can the bloc agree on a common position on Ukraine, or will it paper over the disagreement with vague language about dialogue and diplomacy? Can it move forward on the de-dollarization agenda that attracted many members in the first place, or will financial caution and competing interests slow that work to a crawl? Can it present itself as a genuine alternative to Western-led institutions, or will it increasingly look like a gathering of countries that happen to share a skepticism of the current order but little else?
What emerges from New Delhi will signal whether BRICS has found a way to manage its internal contradictions or whether the expansion that was meant to strengthen it has instead exposed its fundamental weakness: that the countries within it have too many competing interests and too few shared goals to function as a true bloc. The summit communiqué will be parsed for clues about the organization's future. But the real answer may already be visible in the room itself—in the careful distance between delegations, in the statements that say nothing, in the agreements that commit to nothing. BRICS is learning, in real time, that bringing more countries to the table does not automatically make the table stronger.
Notable Quotes
The expansion was meant to amplify the group's voice in a world dominated by Western institutions, but instead introduced fault lines that threaten to fracture the organization— Reporting from the summit context
Want the full story?
Read the original at Associated Press ↗
World & Diplomacy