As the world watches the latest shifts in global alliances, the 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, stands out.
It’s not just another gathering of diplomats and world leaders—it’s a showcase of the growing frustration with a Western-dominated system that many countries feel no longer serves their interests.
With new members like Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, BRICS now represents nearly half of the world’s population.
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the summit was an opportunity to demonstrate that, despite sanctions and geopolitical tensions, Russia remains connected to key global players.
Meanwhile, for other BRICS members, it’s a chance to explore alternatives to the Western-dominated economic system and strengthen their own positions on the global stage.
The growing membership and ambitions of BRICS reveal a desire for change, even as the path to achieving it remains uncertain.
Why the 2024 BRICS summit matters
Formed in 2009, BRICS originally united Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as a coalition of emerging economies aiming to challenge the influence of Western-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank.
The 2024 summit is the first since BRICS expanded to include five additional countries, with more than 30 nations reportedly expressing interest in joining.
The gathering, held in the city of Kazan, brought together leaders and representatives from 36 countries—a clear signal that Russia remains connected on the global stage despite Western sanctions and economic isolation.
For Russia, hosting the summit was a chance to counter the narrative of isolation following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
President Vladimir Putin used the opportunity to emphasize BRICS’ role in creating a “new world order” that challenges Western hegemony.
He criticized the West’s “perverse methods,” including sanctions and economic coercion, which he claims have exacerbated global conflicts.
In this context, the summit provided a platform for Russia to showcase that it still has key allies, even as it remains cut off from many Western forums like the G20.
While the BRICS bloc accounts for around 35% of global economic output, its ability to act as a cohesive counterbalance remains in question.
The Kazan Declaration, a 134-point document summarizing the summit’s outcomes, addressed many issues but mentioned the Ukraine war only once—calling for adherence to UN principles rather than echoing Russia’s perspective.
This neutrality highlights a key limitation: the group’s internal divisions prevent a unified stance on one of the most significant geopolitical conflicts of our time.
Can BRICS really break free from the dollar?
A central theme of the Kazan summit was the push for financial independence from Western-dominated systems like the US dollar and the SWIFT payment network.
Since being cut off from SWIFT in 2022, Russia has been eager to develop alternatives that could allow it to trade with its partners while bypassing Western sanctions.
But despite the rhetoric, BRICS has not yet offered a clear plan to replace the dollar in global trade.
While China has promoted using local currencies for bilateral trade, and Russia has championed the idea of a BRICS-specific payment system, the path forward remains uncertain.
Experts like Mario Holzner of the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies note that any such systems are likely to operate at a low level and fall short of being game-changers.
The reliance on the dollar remains significant, with 59% of global foreign reserves still held in dollar assets, even though this is down from 70% in 1999.
This raises questions about how realistic BRICS’ ambitions are. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proposed a common BRICS currency last year, but skepticism remains high.
India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has openly doubted the feasibility of such a currency.
Instead, the group seems more focused on using national currencies to reduce exposure to dollar fluctuations—a strategy that may offer short-term gains but lacks the transformative power needed to dethrone the dollar as the global reserve currency.
A diplomatic win or a missed opportunity?
Despite these challenges, the Kazan summit was not without its diplomatic successes.
The presence of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country is a NATO member, highlighted the growing appeal of BRICS beyond its traditional sphere.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attended the summit and held discussions with Putin, despite criticism from Ukraine.
This kind of participation suggests that BRICS is becoming a significant platform for international dialogue, offering countries a way to hedge their bets in an increasingly multipolar world.
Yet, the summit also exposed internal contradictions. While Russia and China seek to push a more overtly anti-Western agenda, members like India, Brazil, and South Africa are less confrontational.
These countries have maintained strong ties with the US and Europe, even as they explore economic cooperation with Russia and China.
For example, India has continued to purchase discounted Russian oil, benefiting from lower prices while avoiding overt alignment with Moscow’s war narrative.
This tension within BRICS complicates efforts to present a unified front.
As Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-British businessman, noted during the summit, many countries see BRICS as a way to gain a voice in global affairs traditionally dominated by post-World War II institutions like the IMF and World Bank.
However, the lack of consensus on key issues, such as the war in Ukraine, underscores the difficulties in forming a coherent strategy.
More bark than bite?
The 2024 BRICS summit might be a diplomatic triumph in terms of participation, but its true impact remains a question of substance over style.
On the surface, the alliance is a reflection of a global shift—countries that once had to align with either Washington or Beijing now see an opportunity to forge their own path.
The allure of BRICS lies in its promise of a world where emerging economies can exert greater influence over global norms and rules.
Yet, beneath the headlines, BRICS’ internal divisions and vague plans reveal a club that is more aspirational than revolutionary.
The summit in Kazan highlighted ambitions but lacked the structural reforms needed to reshape global finance in a meaningful way.
Even the much-discussed alternatives to the dollar remain more talk than action.
While the bloc’s expansion is impressive, it also means managing a broader array of interests, which could slow progress toward real economic integration.
For Russia, the Kazan summit was a chance to show it’s not isolated, but that doesn’t mean the country is winning.
The same sanctions that made BRICS seem more appealing to potential new members also underscore the very limitations that Moscow faces.
The summit’s symbolic success masks a deeper truth: that even as BRICS gains more members, it remains a forum where grievances with the West are shared more than they are addressed with concrete solutions.
The bottom line is that while BRICS is a growing force, it’s not yet a game-changer.
Its expansion speaks to the desire for alternatives, but the tools to build a new world order are still missing.
For now, the bloc is a useful pressure valve for countries wary of Western influence—but not a replacement for it.
The true test for BRICS will be whether it can translate its broad membership and lofty rhetoric into a real alternative that shifts the balance of global power. Until then, it remains a player to watch, but not yet the heavyweight it aims to be.
The post BRICS 2024: can the expanding bloc truly challenge western dominance? appeared first on Invezz
