When leaders of the BRICS gather in India and New Delhi, the meeting is never just about ceremony. It is a political stress test. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, plus rising tension between China and the United States, are pushing the bloc to prove that it can still speak with one voice while its members pull in different strategic directions.
Why the BRICS summit in India matters now
The grouping began as an idea about the rise of major emerging economies, and it has since evolved into a broader forum for political coordination, finance, and global influence. With Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa at the table, BRICS is now judged less by speeches than by whether it can translate size into practical power. That means trade flows, investment access, diplomatic positioning, and a sharper role in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations.
For Narendra Modi‘s government, hosting the summit is also a reminder that India wants BRICS to remain a platform for strategic autonomy, not a vehicle for someone else’s geopolitical script. That balancing act is delicate, especially when the bloc includes a country under sanctions pressure, a country in direct rivalry with Washington, and members with very different regional priorities.
The wars that make consensus harder
Ukraine and the credibility problem
The war in Ukraine has exposed the deepest fault line inside BRICS. Russia wants diplomatic breathing space and international legitimacy. India and Brazil typically favor language that keeps channels open while avoiding direct alignment with Western condemnation. That approach helps preserve the bloc, but it also raises a difficult question: can BRICS act as a serious global forum if its members cannot agree on the defining security crisis in Europe?
Energy markets, food prices, and shipping routes all feel the shock of the conflict, which means the war is not a distant issue for emerging economies. It affects inflation, debt servicing, and development budgets. In other words, the BRICS conversation about peace is also a conversation about domestic economics.
The Middle East and the politics of instability
Conflict in the Middle East adds another layer of complexity. The region influences oil prices, transit routes, investor confidence, and security alignments that touch nearly every BRICS member. A bloc that wants to champion stability cannot ignore the fact that its members have different ties to Gulf states, Iran, Israel, and wider regional powers. The challenge is not simply to issue a statement; it is to avoid a statement so vague that it says little about the real stakes.
Trade and investment are the practical glue
If geopolitics is the storm, economics is the rope that still holds BRICS together. The most durable BRICS achievements have often been institutional rather than rhetorical, especially the creation of the New Development Bank, which was designed to expand development finance outside the traditional Western-dominated system. The bank is no silver bullet, but it gives the bloc a concrete tool that can support infrastructure and sustainable development projects.
That is why trade and investment remain the summit’s most practical agenda items. Leaders can disagree over wars, sanctions, and alignment, yet still explore payment systems, supply-chain resilience, and financing models that reduce dependence on any single market. This is where BRICS often looks less like a grand ideology and more like a cautious coalition of convenience.
There is, however, a limit to how far economic cooperation can go without political trust. Local-currency settlement, investment coordination, and development lending all become harder when members worry that one partner may dominate the agenda. The tension is structural: BRICS wants to be inclusive enough to grow, but coherent enough to matter.
Why US-China tensions shape the room
Rising friction between China and the United States changes the atmosphere even when Washington is not at the table. Any summit discussion about trade, technology, or financial reform is immediately colored by the wider contest between the world’s two largest economies. For India, this creates a tricky opening: it can use BRICS to amplify its voice while also protecting its own room to maneuver in a crowded strategic landscape.
That is why many analysts compare BRICS not only with the G20 but also with other balancing forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The comparison matters because it highlights the same underlying question: can large, diverse powers cooperate without first agreeing on a shared worldview?
For the host country, the answer has to be yes if BRICS is to survive as more than a talking shop. But that also means accepting that the bloc’s strength may come from managed disagreement rather than perfect unity.
What to watch after the summit
The most important signals will not be the polished communiqués alone. Watch for whether the leaders produce a sharper position on the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, whether they expand practical economic cooperation, and whether they present BRICS as a reform-minded force or a geopolitical counterweight. Those choices will reveal whether the group is leaning toward institution-building or symbolic resistance.
Another key question is whether the bloc can stay flexible enough to include competing interests without becoming too vague to influence anything. That uncertainty is what makes this moment so important: the wars and rivalries around BRICS are not distractions from the summit; they are the very forces deciding what BRICS will become.
FAQ: BRICS, the summit, and the wider geopolitical test
What is BRICS trying to achieve?
BRICS aims to give major emerging economies a stronger voice in global economic and political affairs, while building cooperation in finance, trade, and development.
Why is BRICS unity so difficult right now?
Because its members face different security pressures, different ties to the West, and different views on conflicts such as the war in Ukraine. Those differences make agreement harder, even when the shared interest is obvious.
Can BRICS become a real alternative to Western-led institutions?
It can expand influence, but only if it turns broad ambition into durable coordination. Without that, it remains important, but fragmented.
The deeper question is not whether BRICS can issue a statement that pleases everyone. It is whether a bloc built on diversity can develop enough discipline to shape the next phase of global politics. If the answer is yes, the summit in India may be remembered as a turning point. If not, it will be another reminder that in a fractured world, size alone does not create unity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is India hosting the BRICS summit seen as a test of its own foreign policy, not just a diplomatic event?
Because India is trying to show that BRICS can remain a platform for strategic autonomy rather than becoming aligned with any one power bloc. Hosting the summit lets New Delhi balance relations with Russia, China, and Western partners while avoiding the appearance of taking sides in the wars and rivalries shaping the agenda.
If BRICS members disagree on major conflicts, what is the practical value of the summit?
Its value lies less in joint declarations and more in keeping dialogue open on trade, finance, and global institutions. Even when members cannot agree on wars or sanctions, they can still coordinate on payment systems, development lending, and supply-chain resilience, which are the areas where BRICS can still deliver measurable results.
Why does the war in Ukraine create such a deep problem for BRICS unity?
Ukraine exposes different strategic interests inside the bloc. Russia wants legitimacy and diplomatic room, while India and Brazil tend to avoid direct alignment with Western condemnation. That makes consensus difficult and raises doubts about whether BRICS can act as a serious global forum when faced with a major security crisis in Europe.
How do conflicts in the Middle East affect BRICS members beyond the region itself?
They influence oil prices, shipping routes, inflation, and investor confidence, all of which matter to emerging economies. The region also connects BRICS members to different partners such as Gulf states, Iran, and Israel, so even a general statement on stability can become politically sensitive and hard to agree on.
What role does the New Development Bank play in making BRICS more than a political talking shop?
The New Development Bank gives BRICS a concrete financial tool that supports infrastructure and sustainable development projects outside traditional Western institutions. It does not solve the bloc’s political divisions, but it shows that BRICS can produce practical institutions, not just speeches and summit symbolism.
Why do US-China tensions matter so much for a group that is supposed to focus on emerging economies?
Because rivalry between Washington and Beijing shapes trade, investment, sanctions, and global supply chains, all of which affect every BRICS member. The bloc has to navigate that pressure without becoming an arena for great-power competition, which is difficult when one member is China and others depend heavily on different sides.