At the BRICS summit in South Africa in the summer of 2023, the group’s five member states made a bold decision: they invited five new countries to join. The move was greeted with considerable skepticism. While some observers questioned the selection process, membership criteria remained unclear. Others warned that doubling the size of an already diverse association would make consensus more difficult.
The broader criticism was simple. Instead of deepening cooperation among the original five members, BRICS has opted for expansion. At the time, the wisdom of prioritizing scale over organizational development was not apparent.
One of the new invitees is Iran. That same year, Tehran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) after lifting some international sanctions. A development that later turned out to be temporary.
US and Israeli attacks on Iran now put both BRICS and SCO in an uncomfortable position. If an organization fails to respond to aggression against one of its members, it risks appearing irrelevant. Yet this strong show of solidarity has its own risks. Some countries are eager to openly confront Washington. Especially when some BRICS members such as India and the United Arab Emirates maintain a close partnership with the United States.
In the end, the SCO expressed a cautious and largely symbolic statement “deep concern” And a call for peace. BRICS took advantage of its deliberately informal structure and opted for silence.
Some critics have taken this as evidence that BRICS is ineffective or obsolete. But such conclusions reflect unrealistic expectations of what the group will ever become.
Disappointment surrounding BRICS stems from an exaggerated view of its capabilities. In fact, a strategic choice was made in 2023. Instead of turning the BRICS into a formal international organization, its members decided to expand into what could be described as geopolitics. “A place without a west.” Not a bloc against the West, but an arena where cooperation can take place independently.
Even in its original five-member form, it was difficult to transform BRICS into a fully institutionalized body. Participating countries have different economic structures, geopolitical priorities and strategic partnerships. Attempting to impose rigid institutional structures on such a diverse group would paralyze it.
An alternative, building a flexible network outside the Western-centric system, remains a future project. For now, the US retains enormous leverage through its dominance of the global financial system. That power gives Washington significant tools to undermine initiatives that threaten its position.
Yet it is premature to write off the BRICS.
Donald Trump’s administration has chosen to deploy pressure with unusual directness in an effort to reverse the decline of American and Western influence. This approach relies less on diplomatic consensus than on blunt displays of force.
War with Iran represents an even clearer departure from past sanctions. It symbolizes a willingness to rely on force that is largely justified by its own existence. Such tactics may achieve short-term results because few states are eager to directly challenge overwhelming power. But this strategy can be more difficult to maintain in the long run.
A profound conceptual shift is already underway.
In an era of liberal globalization, the Western-led rules system was widely accepted because it offered tangible benefits to many participants. The developed world remained the primary beneficiary, while others gained access to markets, capital and technology. The theoretical argument underlying this system was simple: Western leadership ultimately benefited everyone, even if the distribution of benefits was uneven.
Today that narrative has largely collapsed. Even rhetorically, it has been replaced by something more straightforward.
Trump’s behavior resembles the caricature of the capitalist villain familiar from Soviet propaganda: take what you can and dare anyone to resist. Yet even the US cannot dominate global politics indefinitely through pressure.
As a result, the need for alternatives, mechanisms to reduce dependence on American power, is becoming increasingly apparent to many countries. Before long, this idea needed persuasion. Today, events are making the case for themselves.
BRICS is unlikely to become a formal anti-American coalition. It is not intended to act as a military or ideological counterweight to the US. But the countries involved represent a substantial share of the global economy and population. Together, they have the potential to shape the contours of the future world order.
Washington seems to understand this naturally. Trump’s repeated outbursts against BRICS reflect precisely that recognition.
For now, the group remains an incomplete and loosely organized platform. But preserving it — and allowing it to evolve — is one of the most important lessons for the future.
This article was first published by Magazine Profile and translated and edited by the RT team.
