Is BRICS a Serious Rival to the West?

BRICS convenes for a summit in Kazan (Wikimedia Commons).

With BRICS expanding its membership to include new countries and encompassing nearly half of the world’s population and over a third of global GDP by purchasing power parity, it no longer seems impossible that the coalition could pose a serious challenge to the Western-led world order. Composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—and now welcoming countries like the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran—BRICS is growing in scope, economic influence, and international appeal. While some view BRICS as a potential counterbalance to the West, others argue that it simply seeks a more equitable role within the current system.

For BRICS, expansion reflects its aspiration to amplify the voices of countries that have traditionally felt sidelined in international governance. By inviting nations like the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran, BRICS signaled its commitment to creating a platform for the Global South to advocate for greater agency and influence in international affairs. This new coalition may indeed increase multipolarity in global decision-making, but whether this will fragment or reinforce the current system remains an open question.

BRICS appears to challenge the foundations of Western hegemony by actively promoting a multipolar world, one that moves away from the Western-led, postwar order that has shaped global governance for decades, according to the Atlantic Council. China and Russia drive this narrative, calling for a world in which Western influence is balanced with the interests of the Global South, reports the Washington Post. The coalition’s calls for the reform of global financial institutions illustrate a desire to broaden decision-making power, enabling nations from outside the West to address their unique challenges and priorities​.

With its push for economic independence, particularly by reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar through a practice known as “de-dollarization,” BRICS could challenge the financial power of Western institutions like the IMF and World Bank, according to the Carnegie Endowment. Member states are already conducting some trade in their local currencies, diminishing the influence of the dollar and hinting at a future where the West’s economic reach could be tempered by alternative financial arrangements​. This, coupled with exploratory talks around a potential shared currency, underscores BRICS’ ambitions to redefine global economic interactions​.

However, critics argue that BRICS lacks the cohesion and shared vision necessary to disrupt the global order in any meaningful way, according to the BTI. The bloc’s diversity is striking: it includes democracies like Brazil, India, and South Africa, alongside authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Such political differences make it difficult for BRICS to form a unified front capable of presenting a serious challenge to Western dominance​. Furthermore, the commitments made by BRICS leaders often highlight a desire not to overthrow but to rebalance the existing system. The recent Kazan Declaration, for instance, reaffirms the group’s commitment to multilateralism and international law under the United Nations, along with support for institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and G20. Rather than signaling a break from the Western order, these declarations reflect a willingness to work within it, suggesting that BRICS is more interested in reform than revolution​.

History also casts doubt on BRICS’ potential to reshape the world order entirely, according to Foreign Policy Magazine. New global systems typically emerge following major wars or crises, not through the efforts of alliances or coalitions alone. Without a common military or cohesive foreign policy, BRICS lacks the unity and power to single-handedly create an alternative world order. Its efforts, therefore, appear more geared toward advocating for reforms within the current system—such as calls for fairer global financial structures, more climate action from developed nations, and a reduction in international legal double standards.

The Western response to BRICS expansion reflects cautious acknowledgment without treating it as a direct geopolitical threat. The White House emphasizes that BRICS is a diverse collection of countries, including key democracies, and downplays its potential as a unified opposition to the West. Instead, the United States focuses on strengthening its own appeal to the Global South, particularly through the G7, by investing in economic development and global partnerships. The EU, while recognizing BRICS as a collective voice of the Global South that challenges traditional Western-dominated institutions, addresses BRICS countries individually, prioritizing strategic trade and political partnerships rather than bloc-wide communication.

Critics of the Western stance argue that this approach underestimates BRICS’ influence, particularly its potential to reshape global financial systems. Per Newsweek, Former U.S. Treasury official Gregory Zerzan contends that BRICS threatens the dollar’s dominance, especially in global oil transactions, which could destabilize the U.S. economy by increasing inflation and debt pressure. Similarly, EU critics believe the bloc’s fragmented response fails to grasp BRICS’ growing appeal to emerging economies that seek alternatives to Western influence. The informal structure of BRICS allows it to wield considerable soft power, posing strategic and economic challenges that could erode the traditional Western-centered global order.