What Are Experts’ Perspectives for the Future of the Bloc Amid the Rise of the Global Majority?

The 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro marked a pivotal moment in global geopolitics, delivering what observers describe as an “unusually unified and assertive vision” that challenges traditional Western dominance. The summit’s final communiqué exceeded expectations, presenting a detailed roadmap for economic, security, and governance reforms that position BRICS not merely as a loose forum but as “a coalition seeking to redefine global governance.”

A Post-Western World in Formation

BRICS - originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - has undergone substantial expansion, lastly including Indonesia, and established partnerships with countries such as Cuba, Nigeria, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. This enlarged bloc now represents over 42% of the world’s population and approximately 41% of global GDP in purchasing power parity terms, with projections suggesting it could account for more than 50% by 2030.

The Rio declaration featured landmark initiatives, including the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, a Framework on Climate Finance, and the strongest pro-Palestinian language ever in a BRICS document. Most significantly, the summit established the BRICS Multilateral Guarantees (BMG) and made progress toward a Cross-Border Payment System, indicating a serious shift toward financial autonomy and de-dollarization.

As Brazilian BRICS Sherpa Mauricio Lyrio emphasized before the summit, “We are not ‘against’. We are for development, multilateralism, balance, and social justice.” This positioning reflects the BRICS’s attempt to present itself as the “post-Western World” rather than an anti-Western alliance. However, U.S. President Trump’s threat to impose an additional 10% tariff on BRICS-friendly countries - and later a 50% tariff specifically on Brazil - based not on trade policy but on internal Brazilian politics and judicial matters to protect his far-right ally, Jair Bolsonaro, shows that the West sees this distinction quite differently.

Trump’s intervention - coming just after the release of the BRICS summit’s final communiqué at the end of the first day - is, in itself, proof that BRICS matters. But the bigger question remains: does BRICS matter to the world? And if so, what exactly are the expectations placed on this group?

BRICS in a Global Perspective

To explore these questions and build a truly global analysis, I sent a written questionnaire to experts across several continents, offering a unique, multi-perspectival view on the BRICS’ trajectory and future. The research encompassed voices from BRICS member states and partners - Brazil, India, Russia, Iran, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates - as well as critical outside perspectives from the Netherlands, the UK, Italy, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, and Pakistan.

The diversity of respondents reflects the global nature of BRICS’ impact, extending far beyond its membership to influence countries grappling with questions of strategic autonomy, economic diversification, and geopolitical positioning in an increasingly multipolar world. From Claudya Piazera’s sustainability-focused analysis in Brazil to Andrey Kortunov’s institutional assessment from Russia, each perspective illuminates different facets of BRICS’ complex evolution.

The research explored five critical dimensions: national impact expectations, global governance implications, geopolitical positioning strategies, multipolarity versus bipolarity dynamics, and long-term visions for the bloc’s future. These areas capture the fundamental questions facing policymakers worldwide as they navigate BRICS’ growing influence amid Trump’s return to confrontational unilateralism. Today, I focus on the first dimension.

Brazil: Sustainability Leadership Meets Governance Challenges

From Brazil, Claudya Piazera, CEO of Smart8 ESG and a Circular Economy Ambassador, presents Brazil’s BRICS engagement through a sustainability lens. “Brazil stands to gain significantly from BRICS’ infrastructure finance and South-South cooperation - a pathway to more sustainable investment in agroforestry, renewable energy, and circular economy projects,” she explains.

However, Piazera’s analysis highlights the tension between Brazil’s geopolitical ambitions and its push for institutional reform, aiming for greater transparency, environmental accountability, and international credibility. This reflects broader BRICS dynamics: economic opportunity paired with governance challenges. BRICS offers diplomatic autonomy and soft power through cultural, technological, and educational cooperation, yet faces resistance from fiscal conservatives and environmentalists concerned about transparency in partner nations.

India: Strategic Leverage Amid Economic Asymmetries

India’s perspective, articulated by geopolitical analyst Musharraf Khan and strategic studies expert Soumyajit Gupta, reveals complex calculations about BRICS membership benefits. Khan notes that “BRICS offers India a platform for strategic leverage, but the benefits are offset by deep structural constraints.” The most glaring challenge is India’s “ballooning trade deficit with China - over $85 billion in FY2024,” raising fundamental questions about who truly gains from the platform.

Despite these asymmetries, Indian experts see significant opportunities. Gupta identifies India’s “multifaceted strengths,” giving it “several levers to shape BRICS’ trajectory,” including diplomatic footprint enhancement through G20 hosting and Quad engagement, and digital innovation. India’s fintech achievements offer “a blueprint for modernizing BRICS’ payment architecture” while supporting a more incremental approach to de-dollarization than the outright challenge preferred by China and Russia.

The Indian analysis reveals a sophisticated balancing act - using BRICS to amplify its Global South leadership while maintaining strategic autonomy and Western partnerships. As Khan observes, India’s identity as “non-Western, but not anti-West” keeps diplomatic doors open, but only works “if BRICS stays grounded in outcomes, not ideology.”

Russia: Platform for Civilizational Dialogue

Russian perspectives from Andrey Kortunov of the Russia International Affairs Council and Georgy Toloraya from the Russia National Committee on BRICS Research emphasize BRICS’ role as a platform for settling contradictions and developing common Global South positions. Kortunov notes that BRICS can “promote trade and investments among its members” and offers “a unique platform at which various non-Western views on global governance can be articulated and reconciled.”

The Russian analysis acknowledges internal challenges: “Due to its increased heterogeneity, there are differing views within the association, including on the Ukrainian conflict and the situation in Gaza.” However, Russia sees BRICS primarily as an instrument of global world order transformation, forming “mechanisms for conducting foreign trade operations that are independent of the West.”

Iran: Limited Economic Relief Amid Internal Crisis

Iran’s perspective, provided by Amir Maghdoor Mashhood, a political researcher and journalist, reflects the constraints facing a regime under severe pressure. “The current regime in Iran is arguably in the weakest position it has been since its establishment,” with legitimacy at historic lows and economic sanctions at their highest point. Under these circumstances, “the Islamic Republic appears to view BRICS primarily as a potential avenue for limited economic relief.”

However, given Iran’s internal challenges, “it is unlikely that Tehran can play any meaningful or decisive role within a platform like BRICS.” For many Iranians, particularly those hoping for post-Islamic Republic change, BRICS engagement is seen as “irrelevant or even undesirable.”

United Arab Emirates: Strategic Diversification and Regional Influence

Dr. Kristian Alexander from the Rabdan Security & Defense Institute presents the UAE’s BRICS engagement as sophisticated hedging. “For the UAE, participation in BRICS+ represents an opportunity to diversify its global partnerships, reduce dependency on Western-centric institutions, and engage with high-growth economies in the Global South.”

The UAE’s approach exemplifies Gulf state pragmatism. Alexander notes that BRICS membership “offers the UAE a geopolitical hedge, balancing between traditional Western partners and emerging powers,” particularly valuable given “shifting dynamics in the Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Indo-Pacific.” However, “divergent national interests among BRICS members (e.g., India-China tensions) may limit the UAE’s ability to gain consensus on regional or international issues it cares about.”

Vietnam: Strategic Diversification

Vietnam’s approach, as outlined by public policy analyst Tam Pham and the chairman of the think tank VietKnow, reflects careful balancing between major powers. Vietnam’s Prime Minister’s attendance at the Rio summit represents “a strategy to extend and diversify relations with more countries, besides China and the U.S.”

Vietnamese experts highlight three key priorities for Vietnam being a BRICS partner: promoting multilateral cooperation and reforming global institutions; fostering trade liberalization and supply chain linkages; and leveraging artificial intelligence for community development with fair governance standards.

European Perspectives: Balancing Act Amid Economic Pressure

From the Netherlands, political analyst Wouter Timmers offers a European view emphasizing both opportunities and threats. He argues that BRICS and EU cooperation could jointly improve quality-price ratios, potentially displacing American economic dominance: “If the EU wants to trade with BRICS countries in a good, healthy way, it will also have to improve its own market. Less USA, more EU.”

The UK perspective, provided by the managing director of the Global Weekly, reveals similar balancing concerns. England “stands to benefit from diversifying its economic partnerships, particularly with the current administration in the US contributing to general trade instability,” but faces “significant challenges if BRICS strengthens its economic autonomy, potentially marginalising traditional Western financial and trading institutions.”

Italian analyst Leonardo Di Piazza presents a more constrained view, noting that Italy “tried to benefit from BRICS but this hasn’t been allowed,” citing US pressure that led to rejection of Belt and Road Initiative agreements. This reflects broader European struggles with strategic autonomy amid US pressure and internal EU dynamics.

Turkish journalist Celal Çetin describes Turkey’s approach as “trying not to take sides in the competition between the two poles” while maintaining “a balanced, facilitating position,” despite NATO membership.

Africa and the Global South: Between Aspiration and Reality

The BRICS appeal resonates powerfully across Africa and the broader Global South, yet the reality of engagement reveals stark contradictions between ambition and capability. For Algeria, the rejection of its BRICS membership application tells a sobering story about institutional readiness versus political desire.

Karim Fess, an Algerian journalist, frames his country’s interest through hard numbers: “BRICS represents a powerful global bloc, comprising over 42% of the world’s population and 31.5% of global GDP,” offering alternatives to Western financial institutions. Yet Algeria’s “non-membership in the WTO, limited industrial productivity, and reliance on raw material exports” expose the gap between wanting to join the club and meeting its implicit standards for diversified, trade-engaged economies.

Kenya’s approach, meanwhile, reflects a more strategic calculation. Geopolitical expert Jasleen Gill warns that “Kenya could gain, but only if it negotiates with leverage, not longing.” Her assessment cuts to the core dilemma facing African nations: “Are we entering a multipolar world or just navigating competing imperialisms?” As China seeks logistics corridors, Russia eyes defense footholds, and India pursues digital partnerships, Kenya risks becoming “a strategic pawn in a broader game” rather than an empowered partner.

This tension between aspiration and constraint extends further in Africa and beyond. Morocco’s Yassine El Bouchikhi from Al Akhawayn University bluntly states that “the Moroccan regime no longer has the ability or sovereignty to free itself from the influence of the collective West,” despite 94% public opposition to Israeli normalization, Morocco’s foreign policy remains “systematically aligned with Western decisions,” from supporting Juan Guaido in Venezuela to supplying tanks to Ukraine.

Further, Pakistan faces its own catch-22: while BRICS could offer “new economic lifelines,” India’s likely veto power over Pakistani membership illustrates how regional rivalries constrain Global South solidarity. Khalid Mahmood, an agriculture commodities consultant from Islamabad, identifies Pakistan’s core dilemma: “India is a founding BRICS member and has significant clout in the group,” making Pakistani entry nearly impossible due to “ongoing Pakistan-India tensions.”

Strategic studies expert Naik Wazir from the National Defence University in Islamabad echoes this concern, noting that while BRICS membership could provide “funds from the New Development Bank for infrastructure and development, reducing our reliance on the IMF and World Bank,” the reality remains that “India is likely to veto Pakistan’s entry.”

Both analysts acknowledge that Pakistan’s “closest strategic ally,” China’s influence in BRICS, could theoretically help, but the India factor creates an insurmountable obstacle, forcing Pakistan to remain on the periphery of an institution that could address its economic challenges.

These cases illuminate BRICS’ central challenge - balancing inclusive expansion with institutional effectiveness while ensuring that multipolarity translates into genuine agency rather than new forms of dependency for developing nations.

In sum, the expert perspectives reveal a common thread: countries across the Global South see BRICS as an opportunity for strategic diversification rather than ideological alignment. Whether in Kenya, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, or Vietnam, the calculus centers on maximizing options while avoiding new dependencies.

To be continued…

Ricardo Martins ?PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/07/22/after-the-brics-summit-in-rio-what-are-experts-perspectives-for-the-future-of-the-bloc-amid-the-rise-of-the-global-majority-part-1/