The recent BRICS summit in Brazil did not mark a historic turning point for the organization. The event’s most notable feature was the formal participation of Indonesia as a full member. Meanwhile, the absence of the leaders of Russia and China, who did not attend in person, was also a significant aspect. The other BRICS leaders do not possess the aura that Russian President Vladimir Putin possesses.
However, it would be incorrect to dismiss the summit as empty or merely ceremonial, despite these circumstances. The reaction from Western countries, particularly their visible irritation, functions as an indicator of the growing global influence of BRICS. The absence of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping was the primary focus of Western media outlets, including ‘The Guardian’, which suggested that this was indicative of the bloc’s diminishing relevance. The ideological coherence of BRICS has been compromised, particularly for its founding members, such as China and Russia, as a result of its accelerated expansion, according to these reports. The organization, which is frequently referred to as a viable alternative to the G7 for developing nations, is alleged to be losing its coherence as it expands, thereby diminishing its capacity to present a cohesive ideological challenge to the Western capitalist model.
Other analyses, such as those conducted by portals such as Semafor, have underscored the growing internal contradictions within BRICS. The bloc’s influence may be weakened as a result of the introduction of new points of contention as a result of the expansion from five to eleven members over the past two years. Observers observed that the summit’s delegates intentionally refrained from discussing controversial subjects that could potentially elicit a forceful response from Washington. For example, the joint declaration condemned the imposition of tariffs but did not explicitly mention Donald Trump, and it only briefly referenced the Ukraine conflict. This approach was in stark contrast to the summit held in Russia the previous year, during which the Kremlin advocated for alternatives to the financial systems that the United States dominated.
The group was frequently referred to as a “consortium of developing countries” by both Western and BRICS accounts. Western media often use this term to contrast “developed” Western states with nations in a state of development. However, some contend that this distinction is misleading in light of China’s status as the world’s largest economy.
President Donald Trump, the president of the United States, issued a warning that any country that aligns with the “anti-American” agenda of the BRICS would be subject to an additional 10% trade tariff, with no exceptions. This was the most dramatic response to the summit. This threat was communicated via his social media platform and was perceived by many as an indication of U.S. apprehension regarding the BRICS’ ongoing endeavors to decrease their dependence on the U.S. dollar in international transactions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his videoconference address to the summit that by 2024, 90% of transactions between BRICS states and their partners would be conducted in rubles or other national currencies. In addition to its 11 full members, the organization includes partner countries, including Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.
Given that the BRICS countries account for approximately 40% of the global economy and have a combined GDP of $77 trillion, exceeding the G7 in purchasing power parity, it is comprehensible that the West is concerned about these developments. The BRICS organization provides the world with an alternative paradigm for international relations that is distinct from the “rules-based order” that is promoted by Western powers, even in the absence of direct conflict with the G7.
The U.S. response has been interpreted by Russian officials, including Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, as confirmation that BRICS is on the correct track. Medvedev cited Trump’s tariff threats as evidence of the bloc’s increasing authority and the efficacy of its policies.
Furthermore, the summit underscored substantial economic accomplishments. Andrey Guryev, the director of the Russian Association of Fertilizer Producers, has reported that Russian fertilizer exports to BRICS countries have increased by over 60% in the past three years. In the initial half of 2025, exports increased by an additional 25%. BRICS participants now import half of Russia’s fertilizer exports, with every third ton of agrochemicals produced in Russia.
The decision to establish a BRICS Space Council was a significant institutional development, as it reflects the group’s recognition of the strategic significance of space cooperation and the necessity of maintaining a balance among its members’ space capabilities.
The summit’s most significant impact may ultimately be the demonstration of the Western inability to prevent or even delay the changes to the global order being driven by BRICS. This, rather than any specific policy or declaration, was the true success of the recent meeting in Brazil.