By Nina Bachkatov
Despite being previously dismissed as a low-key exercise, the 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan attracted significant international attention. This year’s gathering took place amid a tense geopolitical backdrop: Israel’s actions in Iran, North Korean soldiers arriving in Russia’s Far East en route to the Ukrainian front, and uncertainty surrounding UN Secretary-General Guterres’ response to his invitation.
The BRICS coalition was launched in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, later adding South Africa in 2010. Ethiopia, Iran, Egypt, and the UAE joined at last year’s summit, while Belarus gained partner status this year. In total, 32 countries were represented, two-thirds by their heads of state, including NATO member Turkey, represented by President Erdogan. Brazil’s president was absent due to health concerns.
At the group’s inception, Western perspectives cast the BRIC alliance (before South Africa joined) as a platform for China to assert influence over a weakened Russia, reversing Moscow’s sway in the former USSR. European observers initially welcomed China’s investments in regions like the Balkans, assuming Chinese influence preferable to Russian. However, when Beijing’s Silk Road initiative began targeting European ports and infrastructure, European perceptions shifted. Today, the BRICS is viewed by many as a bloc of regimes challenging the Western-led international order. Yet, despite internal divisions, BRICS members and allies represented nearly half the world’s population and a third of its economic activity.
A Multipolar Vision
The summit’s theme, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security,” underscored a message to those advocating a unipolar world led by the West. This theme aligns with Russia’s longstanding foreign policy doctrine of multipolarity, now endorsed by BRICS countries and many in the so-called Global South. The group emphasises that the UN and other international bodies should reflect a broader, post-WWII world order. While even Western nations now acknowledge a de facto multipolar world, they remain cautious about yielding power. Yet recent regional conflicts, with fears of a possible third world war, are driving a return to a more polarised global structure. In this context, Secretary-General Guterres’ invitation posed a dilemma: balancing acknowledgment of a leader under international scrutiny with recognition of a bloc representing half of humanity.
The BRICS as an Economic Bloc
The origins of the BRICS lie in a response to the 2008 financial crisis, which exposed the limits of the Western-inspired management and revelated the vulnerabilities of economies uninvolved in the crisis but severely affected by its impact. The initial BRIC goals were primarily economic—facilitating trade, infrastructure development, and investment among partners. New members have joined mainly for similar reasons, pushing the West to recognise them as equal partners, not merely markets for Western goods or access to cheap resources and manpower. Although Russia has faced sanctions from the West, BRICS members, wary of secondary sanctions, have increasingly promoted de-dollarisation, with many transactions already conducted in national currencies. However, plans for a dedicated BRICS currency remain distant, as does Russia’s attempt to create a SWIFT alternative following the exclusion of its major banks in 2022.
Assessing Conflicts and Alignments
While Kazan offered Putin the chance to underscore that his country was not isolated and that his allies had rejected Western calls for them joining the sanctions, this support is conditional. Members like China and India have expressed unease with the Ukraine conflict, never anticipating that Russia would invade nor that the West would respond so strongly. Nevertheless, many countries in Kazan, particularly CIS states, benefit from the sanctions regime and maintain cordial ties with Moscow without committing to more than pragmatic cooperation.
The resurgence of a polarised world order has driven many BRICS members to adopt a non-aligned stance, particularly given their interest in keeping good relations with the US. This is notably true for countries like Ethiopia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, whose cautious posture has reportedly perplexed Russia. Calls for ceasefires and peace talks, as seen in recent summits, reflect a pragmatic approach. On the day the summit opened, Moussa Abu Marzouk of Hamas visited Moscow to discuss “ending the war in Gaza and the broader region,” while peace proposals for Ukraine from Turkey and a joint effort by China and Brazil were declined by President Zelensky in favor of his “Victory Plan.” President Putin, however, expressed his openness to mediation from partners.
In reality, Summits form only part of Russia’s broader strategy to solidify BRICS as a major economic alliance, carefully avoiding overt political pressures that could alarm partners. Facing sanctions that have distanced Russian intellectuals and academics from the Western sphere, the Kremlin has promoted BRICS cultural forums, scholarships, and a network of multilateral contacts, aiming to strengthen ties across the 30-plus countries represented in Kazan through Russia.
Once, this might simply have been called “soft power.”