The BRICS summit, which kicked off on October 22 in Kazan Russia, has been labelled a Russian project, but its reality is more complex. While Russia leverages the BRICS bloc to project itself as a global power and counter Western sanctions, the organisation is struggling with internal contradictions and inefficiencies.
Established as an alternative to Western-led coalitions, BRICS now includes nine countries, with more expressing interest in joining. Initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, it has expanded to include Egypt, Iran, the UAE, and Ethiopia.
Russian propaganda touts BRICS’s GDP as surpassing that of the EU and G7. However, this claim collapses under scrutiny—China and India, despite their size, are not strong trade partners within BRICS, relying instead on exports to the West. The internal trade dynamics reveal a heavy dependence on Western economies, undermining the narrative of BRICS as a viable alternative.
Various initiatives, such as the New Development Bank and BRICS Pay, have faltered. The New Development Bank quickly moved to limit transactions with Russia, while plans for a bond fund in local currencies have yet to materialise. Notably, Russia’s push to establish a common currency has met with failure, highlighting the organisation’s limited capabilities.
Tensions between member states, especially India and China, further complicate the BRICS landscape. Historical rivalries overshadow any sense of unity, with unresolved territorial disputes exacerbating collaboration challenges. The presence of Iran and the UAE adds to the complexity, as regional issues persist.
For Russia, the primary benefit of BRICS lies in its ideological positioning against the West, rather than any real economic advantage. The organisation’s structure and its members’ economic dependencies reveal a stark contradiction in its purported goals.
As the summit unfolds, the façade of BRICS as a united front against Western powers seems increasingly tenuous, with the organization’s true nature exposed through economic realities and internal discord.
