In August 2023, the leaders of the BRICS nations-Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa-convened in Johannesburg with a grand ambition: to recalibrate the global financial system. A key focus was their joint call to reduce reliance on the US dollar and forge a more multipolar world economy. This goal, long whispered in the corridors of emerging power centers, was once again amplified against a backdrop of global polarization, rising geopolitical tensions, and increasing dissatisfaction with Western-dominated institutions. Yet, beneath the surface of rhetoric and declarations lies a sobering reality: BRICS is still far from possessing the cohesion, infrastructure, and institutional maturity necessary to reshape the global financial order.

At the heart of BRICS’ ambition is a growing recognition that the US dollar’s preeminence creates structural vulnerabilities for countries outside the Western sphere. The 2008 global financial crisis laid bare the systemic risks of a dollar-centric financial architecture, while more recent developments-particularly the sweeping sanctions against Russia in 2022-offered a stark reminder that the global monetary system can be weaponized. The freezing of Russia’s central bank reserves and exclusion from the SWIFT financial messaging system sent shockwaves through other BRICS capitals. It became clear: in a dollar-based world, monetary sovereignty can be overridden by geopolitical decisions made in Washington.

However, while fear may catalyze change, it does not automatically confer capability. To challenge the dollar’s dominance, BRICS must build a parallel system that is not only technically efficient but also institutionally credible. That requires interoperable financial infrastructure, deep capital markets, transparent governance, and most importantly, mutual trust-qualities that the bloc currently lacks in abundance.

Each BRICS nation has begun taking tentative steps toward financial independence. China has expanded its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), positioning it as a potential rival to SWIFT, while aggressively piloting its digital yuan (e-CNY) in parts of Asia and Africa. India has pushed for rupee-based trade settlements with countries like Russia and the UAE. Russia has developed its domestic payment system, Mir, alongside the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), aimed at bypassing Western rails. Brazil and South Africa, meanwhile, have experimented with digital and fintech-led trade facilitation tools.

Despite these efforts, there is no coherent, unified strategy. These systems remain fragmented, often incompatible, and driven more by national interests than collective vision. Without interoperability and institutional harmonization, BRICS cannot hope to build a financial ecosystem that rivals the breadth, liquidity, and reliability of the dollar-based system.

The internal contradictions of BRICS are perhaps its greatest liability. China, the largest and most economically powerful member, occupies an outsized role that makes other members uneasy-especially India, with whom it shares a contentious border and strategic rivalry. Russia, though assertive in rhetoric, is increasingly isolated economically due to sanctions. Brazil and South Africa are mired in domestic political and fiscal challenges, limiting their bandwidth for bold international initiatives.

Moreover, the yuan itself remains nonconvertible, and China’s capital controls raise red flags for investors. India’s capital markets, while deeper than some of its BRICS peers, are still insufficient to anchor a global currency. The absence of fiscal transparency across the bloc undermines investor confidence, while governance opacity within shared institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) raises further doubts about administrative credibility.

In effect, what unites BRICS is not a shared vision for a new monetary future, but a defensive instinct to protect themselves from Western coercion. This is not enough to build a viable alternative. Without genuine coordination and a long-term commitment to institutional integration, BRICS risks becoming a geopolitical slogan rather than a transformative force.

The BRICS experiment echoes the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1960s, which emerged from frustration with superpower domination but struggled to articulate a coherent economic strategy. Similarly, BRICS champions multipolarity but lacks the tools to operationalize it. Declarations of intent are plentiful, but execution is underwhelming.

The two flagship institutions meant to anchor BRICS’ financial ambitions-the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement-have largely failed to live up to their promise. The NDB’s lending volumes remain low, its governance structure lacks transparency, and its operational efficiency lags behind comparable Western institutions like the World Bank. Without reforms, these institutions risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive players in global finance.

Much has been made of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as a potential shortcut to monetary autonomy. While China’s e-CNY is the most advanced among BRICS CBDCs, it is still tightly controlled and untested at global scale. Interoperability with other BRICS currencies remains aspirational. More importantly, few of these nations possess the regulatory frameworks or investor confidence to turn their digital currencies into credible alternatives for international reserves or trade settlement.

CBDCs may reduce transaction costs and improve domestic efficiency, but they do not automatically translate into international trust or systemic resilience. The notion that digital currencies alone can dethrone the dollar reflects a misunderstanding of what makes a currency globally dominant: depth, liquidity, trust, and a supportive legal framework.

Despite the rhetoric, most emerging and middle powers are not rushing to abandon the existing financial order. Rather, they are hedging their bets. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE continue to engage with BRICS while maintaining deep ties to Western financial systems. The Saudi Public Investment Fund, for example, still holds over 40% of its portfolio in US-based assets.

This reflects a broader truth: the global financial future is not a zero-sum game. The world is moving toward a more hybrid, multipolar system, where dollar dominance may decline at the margins but is unlikely to be replaced wholesale by any single bloc or currency.

Even the euro, supported by a high degree of political and economic integration, has struggled to challenge the dollar’s supremacy. The shift from sterling to the dollar in the 20th century took decades and was catalyzed by two world wars. Any similar transition in the 21st century would require not just vision, but institutional maturity, political will, and sustained effort over generations.

For now, BRICS remains a concept in search of coherence. Its critiques of Western hegemony are not without merit, and its desire for a more balanced financial order is understandable. However, aspiration must be matched by capacity. Until BRICS can overcome its internal contradictions, build robust financial institutions, and cultivate genuine investor trust, it will remain more a rhetorical platform than a real contender in reshaping the global monetary system.

That said, the BRICS challenge is not meaningless. It sends a message to Washington and other Western capitals: global leadership must be earned, not assumed. If the US and its allies continue to weaponize finance without reforming the institutions that underpin it, they may eventually create the conditions for their own erosion.

But BRICS, in its current form, is not the force to usher in that change. It is still an unfinished project – long on ambition, short on cohesion. For the foreseeable future, the global financial order will bend, but not break.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel