The BRICS Summit, held in the Russian city of Kazan last month, has generated substantial debate, positioning Russian President Vladimir Putin in a favorable spotlight despite his ongoing isolation by Western nations. This year’s summit marked an expansion milestone for the BRICS alliance, which began in 2006 with Brazil, Russia, India, and China and later included South Africa. Now, with new members like Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, and the UAE joining, BRICS represents nearly half the world’s population and a substantial percentage of its economy. Yet, its choice of host city and the geopolitical implications of Putin’s leadership cast a shadow over the alliance’s stated goals of economic cooperation and multipolarity.

The origins of BRICS lie in a vision to challenge the dominance of the US and its Western allies, aiming for a more balanced and equitable global economy. In principle, BRICS was created to represent emerging economies that sought autonomy from the Western-centric world order, which has long been dominated by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the G7. This group has evolved over the years, and its focus on diminishing Western influence remains a core principle, even as new economic and political dynamics shape its direction.

However, the decision to host this year’s summit in Russia, a country embroiled in international controversy due to its invasion of Ukraine, has raised ethical questions. Putin has been the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. By convening in Russia, BRICS risks undermining its image as a force for fairness and economic justice. The move has not only been controversial but has also led some to question whether BRICS is abandoning its stated purpose of promoting peace and equity for a broader, non-aligned world order.

The geopolitical context cannot be ignored: since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Western nations have imposed over 16,500 sanctions on Russia, freezing assets and cutting access to global financial systems. The ongoing war, coupled with Russia’s privileged status as a permanent United Nations Security Council member, has allowed it to veto sanctions within the UN framework. For many observers, this creates a stark contrast between BRICS’ mission of balanced global governance and its recent actions.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attended the Kazan summit, a move that has drawn criticism as a “gross misjudgment.” Guterres, who has previously condemned Russia’s invasion as a violation of the UN Charter, risked eroding the credibility of the UN by attending. Although he called for a “just peace” in Ukraine during the summit, the optics of his visit suggested a symbolic endorsement of Russia’s leadership within BRICS. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky even declined a subsequent meeting with Guterres, signaling his disapproval of the UN’s perceived leniency toward Russia.

The Kazan summit overshadowed BRICS’ discussions on practical economic issues, including the pursuit of a payment system independent of the US dollar. This agenda reflects a genuine frustration among member nations about their reliance on the dollar-dominated financial system, which often exposes emerging economies to currency fluctuations and financial instability linked to US policy. Although Putin hinted at a future “BRICS currency,” no single currency for the group currently exists. However, discussions surrounding an alternative payment system signify BRICS’ desire to reduce dependency on Western financial systems and enhance its members’ economic resilience.

This ambition is complicated by the diverse economic and political structures within BRICS, from China’s tightly controlled economy to India’s democratic, mixed economy. Adding nations like Iran and the UAE adds complexity, given Iran’s long-standing sanctions and strained relations with the West. To succeed in establishing a viable alternative payment system, BRICS would need to balance the economic objectives of its members while avoiding the perception that it seeks to defy the West solely for political gain. The long-term success of such an initiative will likely depend on BRICS’ ability to avoid becoming a tool for individual leaders, particularly Putin, to advance their geopolitical goals.

The BRICS expansion to include nations such as Egypt and Ethiopia highlights a growing desire among emerging economies to assert their influence on the global stage. Collectively, the expanded BRICS now represents 3.5 billion people, or approximately 45 percent of the global population. The members’ combined GDP stands at around $28.5 trillion, which, while significant, still only represents about 28 percent of the global economy. For these nations, BRICS offers a pathway to more control over their economic futures, outside the Western-dominated financial and political frameworks.

Nevertheless, this economic potential will only be realized if BRICS can maintain focus on its mission of economic collaboration rather than political defiance. The group’s expansion, while symbolically powerful, requires practical cooperation to achieve tangible gains for member economies. As BRICS+ nations look to reduce reliance on the dollar, they will need to establish stable trade and investment agreements that offer resilience without alienating Western trading partners, who still represent major markets for their goods and services.

For the US and its allies, the summit is a signal of shifting alliances and a warning against complacency. If Western countries continue to see emerging economies merely as markets for their exports or sources of raw materials, they risk alienating a substantial portion of the world’s population. The US and its allies could benefit from taking a more cooperative approach that respects these nations as partners with legitimate economic aspirations. Engaging BRICS countries constructively could help counterbalance the appeal of alternative alliances and prevent further fragmentation of the global economy.

The Kazan summit underscores the challenges BRICS faces as it evolves into BRICS+. As it prepares for its next summit in Brazil in 2025, the group must carefully manage its optics and objectives. To retain credibility and fulfill its stated mission, BRICS must ensure that its agenda is not overshadowed by the geopolitical ambitions of individual members. Hosting future summits in neutral locations could help reinforce the group’s commitment to non-alignment and focus discussions on economic progress rather than political posturing.

Ultimately, the Kazan summit was a mixed outcome for BRICS. On one hand, it showcased the alliance’s expanding influence and potential to shape a multipolar world. On the other hand, it handed Putin a symbolic victory that could undermine BRICS’ credibility in the eyes of both the international community and its own members. If BRICS is to succeed in fostering a more balanced global order, it must avoid the pitfalls of politicization and remain steadfast in its commitment to economic cooperation over confrontation.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel