The recent BRICS summit in Kazan marked a pivotal moment in international geopolitics, gathering the world’s leading emerging economies-Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa-in an effort to redefine global power dynamics. The choice of Russia as the host was no coincidence, representing a bold stance against Western-led narratives that have long shaped the global order. The summit, with its symbolic and strategic messaging, underscores the growing divide between Western powers and a non-Western bloc striving for a more multipolar world. For Russia, hosting BRICS in Kazan during its heightened isolation due to sanctions is seen as both a diplomatic success and a loud rebuke of Western policymakers, who often dismiss BRICS as an “incoherent grab bag.”
As anticipated, the BRICS declaration issued at the summit took a firm stand against Western sanctions, labeling them as “unilateral trade-restrictive measures” that are “detrimental to sustainable development goals” and fundamentally at odds with the UN Charter, WTO regulations, and international law. This statement reflects a collective frustration with Western policies perceived as self-serving and inconsistent with the interests of the wider international community. The assembly went on to criticize Western financial and security structures as outdated, incapable of accommodating the voices and interests of the broader international community.
A major diplomatic win for Moscow was the language in the BRICS Declaration that addressed concerns over the “glorification of Nazism” and “neo-Nazism,” indirectly echoing Russia’s narrative around the conflict in Ukraine. Furthermore, BRICS openly expressed “grave concern” over violence in the Middle East, denouncing Israeli strikes on humanitarian facilities and referencing ICJ proceedings on international law violations. This position demonstrates a new assertiveness by BRICS, which has grown from a loosely connected economic group into a bloc willing to challenge the longstanding Western hegemony and the G7’s dominant narrative.
The Kazan summit was historic for another reason: it was the first to invite seven new states, expanding the BRICS platform and signaling its ambition to represent a more inclusive voice for the Global South. However, the diversity of the new members-some aligned with Western security arrangements and others sanctioned by the West-highlights the inherent challenges in creating cohesion within the BRICS framework. While a shared desire for a more balanced global order unites these states, their foreign policy stances vary widely.
This diversity, however, doesn’t dilute BRICS’s message. Instead, it demonstrates a shared frustration with Western institutions perceived as exclusionary and a commitment to creating alternative structures for cooperation and representation. A key example from the summit was the renewed “call for reform” of Bretton Woods institutions, pushing for increased representation for economically developing countries. The Kazan summit illustrated that these aspirations are not only focused on countering Western influence but are also geared toward crafting a new global architecture that better reflects multipolar realities.
While there is a consensus within BRICS about the “post-unipolar order,” different visions persist within the grouping. Russia and India advocate for a multipolar world, while China’s academic community leans toward a future shaped by bipolar dynamics. Despite these differences, BRICS appears united in its commitment to offering an alternative to Western institutions and emphasizing equality in global economic relations. The Kazan Declaration underscored this, naming the G20 as a forum where both developed and emerging economies could engage on “equal and mutually beneficial footing.”
Nevertheless, BRICS is well aware that the West, while arguably in decline, remains influential. The United States maintains its global military reach, controls major global trade routes, and, for now, retains the US dollar’s status as the global reserve currency. This enduring influence has compelled many countries to hedge their positions, navigating carefully between established Western powers and the emerging BRICS bloc.
A recurring theme at the Kazan summit was the critique of Western hypocrisy when it comes to global governance. While Western democracies celebrate smooth transitions of power, they have been less accommodating when it comes to granting emerging economies a greater role within institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. This resistance, BRICS leaders argue, only reinforces a hierarchical global system in which Western nations exercise disproportionate control, stifling the democratic values they claim to promote.
BRICS leaders warn of a dangerous outcome if the West continues to dismiss their calls for change. Political scientist Graham T. Allison’s “Thucydides Trap” theorizes that when a rising power threatens an established power’s dominance, conflict becomes more likely. History has borne this out: of 16 cases in the past 500 years, 12 have led to conflict. The stakes are high, and BRICS leaders caution that refusing to accommodate emerging powers within the current system could lead to a new period of intense geopolitical rivalry.
Rather than dismissing BRICS as a mere coalition of discontented states, Western powers could stand to benefit from engaging with this grouping and exploring common ground. At the Kazan summit, BRICS voiced an openness to dialogue, advocating for cooperative relations between institutions like the G7, the New Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Pursuing areas of shared interest rather than dwelling on ideological divides could avert the onset of a “Cold War 2.0.”
Ironically, the BRICS Declaration appeals to principles reminiscent of the Peace of Westphalia, championing sovereignty and non-interference. While Europe established this framework in the 17th century, BRICS now argues that its Western proponents have undermined it through interventions and unilateral measures. In contrast, BRICS members have reaffirmed their commitment to sovereignty, as seen in their call for Palestinian UN membership, a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, and condemnation of the US military presence in Syria.
In an increasingly fractured global landscape, the recently achieved de-escalation between India and China on their border offers a rare example of how mutual respect can serve as the foundation for resolving even the most complex disputes. This spirit of cooperation extended into the space domain, with BRICS endorsing the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) initiative. As Indian Prime Minister Modi has frequently reiterated, “today’s era is not an era of war.” As technology and AI transform the landscape of global power, BRICS leaders are advocating for a forward-looking approach focused on peace and innovation rather than rehashing past conflicts.
The BRICS summit in Kazan was a defining moment for the bloc, highlighting both its strengths and challenges as it pursues a world order that respects sovereignty, promotes inclusivity, and challenges longstanding power dynamics. As the US and its allies observe this shift, they would be wise to engage constructively with BRICS, addressing the legitimate aspirations of emerging economies and fostering a global system grounded in cooperation rather than rivalry. By recognizing these shared interests, global powers have a unique opportunity to build a more peaceful and equitable future.
Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel
The post BRICS summit in Kazan reshapes global geopolitical landscape appeared first on BLiTZ.
