At first glance, the 16th BRICS summit did not result in the formation of the anti-Western coalition that President Vladimir Putin had envisioned. Instead, the summit’s final declaration and primary discussions centered around a broad array of financial initiatives aimed at enhancing international trade and fostering global development. Key topics included proposals for reforming the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, along with the persistent call for a two-state solution to the enduring Israel-Palestine conflict—subjects that, while significant, are not particularly contentious on the global stage.
In this diplomatic atmosphere, Putin concluded his closing press conference with overtly conciliatory expressions, asserting that the financial proposals emerging from the summit were not intended to serve as substitutes for existing financial frameworks. Notably, he entertained a question from BBC correspondent Steve Rosenberg, marking his first engagement with Western media since the onset of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. In a notable concession to ally nations Brazil and India, Putin also promised that no new nations would be inducted into BRICS in the immediate future, hinting at a desire for stability among the existing members.
a total of 36 countries, including NATO member Turkey, were represented at the summit, alongside the presence of UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Sergey Ryabkov, Russia’s BRICS “sherpa,” emphasized the inclusive nature of the group at the summit’s conclusion, insisting that BRICS was not aligned against the West. The decision to host the summit in Kazan was strategically chosen to project an image of Russia as a bastion of tolerance and a facilitator of coexistence among diverse “civilizations,” reinforcing a prevailing narrative within BRICS.
All these aspects might suggest that Russia is positioning itself as a credible participant in the global arena.
However, the stark reality is that Russia currently relies heavily on foreign allies to sustain its military operations in Ukraine. Non-Western trade has supplanted every essential element required for the Russian economy’s survival—albeit precariously—while simultaneously ensuring ongoing access to dual-use components. The scale of reported arms shipments from Iran and North Korea to Russia is colossal, with North Korean artillery shells documented in the millions and Iranian drones counted in the thousands. Recent reports further suggest the possibility of North Korean troops engaged in combat alongside Russian forces against Ukraine, potentially in areas like Kursk or deeper within Ukraine.
Amid this backdrop, Russia hosted the significant 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan. In contrast to Russia’s considerably diminished influence at the 2023 Johannesburg BRICS Summit, this year’s chairmanship offered Putin a valuable opportunity to reassert Russia’s position as a major global player. The ceremonial grandeur inherent in such significant summits is vital to buttressing this perceived status.
The Kremlin’s domestic narrative around the summit is equally critical. During the event, Verstka disclosed that Vkontakte bots had generated over ten thousand comments regarding BRICS within just a few days, marking one of the Kremlin’s “largest propaganda campaigns in recent history.
Beyond the optics and messaging, tangible results are essential to validate Russia’s stature as a formidable power. The Kazan summit prominently featured Russia’s BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, alongside efforts to develop a payment messaging service aimed at replacing the SWIFT system and circumventing the dollar’s influence, thereby mitigating the exposure of financial transactions to U.S. jurisdiction for significant financial dealings.
For the past several years, discussions surrounding the diminished role of the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT system have gained traction in international trade circles. However, Russia’s intensified push for alternatives comes amid an era of heightened global fragmentation and a rush for technological innovations. The outlined Russian proposals seek to incorporate blockchain technologies to empower users against “political pressures, abuses, and external sanctions.” BRICS nations have displayed a consistent opposition to the application of international sanctions on principle, aligning with Russia’s position on this matter since 2014.
Consequently, documents leaked by Meduza reveal that Russian propagandists were assigned the task of portraying the Kazan summit as a significant achievement, one that would provoke unease in the West. Yet, as highlighted by an anonymous BRICS central banker quoted by The Banker, the U.S. dollar is likely to remain the currency of choice for the foreseeable future, even among BRICS member nations. Key financial representatives from China, India, and South Africa notably chose not to attend crucial preparatory meetings addressing this topic prior to the summit. Ultimately, Putin had little choice but to temper expectations regarding these proposals, leading him to deny that they represented a viable alternative to SWIFT, a significant shift from previous assertions that such steps could herald the “demise of the dollar’s hegemony.”
While the grandiosity of the summit portrayed an image of Russia as a major global power, the lukewarm reception of its primary policy proposal severely undermined this narrative.
Another essential aspect to consider is that BRICS serves as a collaborative platform for major powers. In this light, a comparison with the G7 is pertinent, given that both assemblies operate without stringent formal rules, functioning as rather fluid coalitions. This characteristic mirrors a longstanding Kremlin preference for international relations to be dictated by summits of major powers rather than being anchored in a rigid international legal framework. Consequently, BRICS has remained integral to Putin’s vision of a multipolar world that seeks freedom from international laws that the Kremlin perceives as a Western imposition.
The question remains whether other participants align with this perspective. For several member states, the BRICS summit served primarily as a diplomatic forum. The event provided an opportunity for Egypt and the UAE to engage in a cooperative outreach effort towards Iran. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, facing international isolation due to the Tigray conflict, managed to engage with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and addressed the BRICS Business Forum. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan employed the BRICS platform to indicate his intent to balance Turkey’s relations with Europe, leveraging the prospect of joining the group as a potential threat. Notably, despite their competitive history, Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting during the summit, which marked their first interaction since the armed clashes in 2020 brought the two nations to the brink of war. Even Abiy and Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi, both embroiled in a tense conflict, were able to shake hands.
Nevertheless, Russia’s ongoing military actions in Ukraine continue to pose a significant hindrance for the BRICS coalition. The Kremlin has rhetorically framed this conflict as a confrontation against Western unipolarity, positing that Russia’s struggle in Ukraine represents a battle against NATO and aims to dismantle U.S. dominance, purportedly benefitting the global majority.
However, this interpretation of multipolarity significantly diverges from its more conventional understanding, contributing to divisions within the group. Broadly speaking, BRICS members appear split between nations like Brazil, India, and South Africa that perceive BRICS as resembling non-alignment, and those like China and Russia who view it as a mandate to oppose Western interests. The expansion of the group in 2024 is largely attributable to the latter faction gaining leverage, particularly against those advocating for cohesion rather than further enlargement.
In light of Russia’s ongoing actions, it is arguable that it should have been expelled from BRICS in 2022, similar to its exclusion from numerous other international platforms. Even the BRICS’ New Development Bank halted all project engagements in Russia following its military aggression. Had Putin been barred from the coalition, the schisms between member nations might have persisted but would be less burdensome. The alliance could have concentrated on establishing institutions independent of perceived Western dominance without aiding Russia in its military endeavors. Such a scenario would likely have fostered greater enthusiasm for the group’s financial initiatives, unencumbered by the specter of sanctions.
The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office has designated The Moscow Times as an “undesirable” organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a “foreign agent.”
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work “discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership.” We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It’s quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you’re defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
**Interview with Dr. Maria Petrovna, International Relations Expert on the 16th BRICS Summit**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Petrovna. The recent BRICS summit in Kazan has sparked quite a debate regarding its outcomes and implications for global geopolitics. At first glance, it seems to fall short of President Putin’s ambitions. What are your thoughts on this?
**Dr. Petrovna:** Thank you for having me. Yes, the summit did not materialize the anti-Western coalition that Putin was likely hoping to achieve. Instead, the focus was on financial initiatives aimed at boosting international trade and development—topics that don’t tend to provoke strong reactions globally. This reflects a nuanced shift in emphasis, perhaps indicating a recognition of the complex dynamics at play within BRICS.
**Editor:** Putin was notably conciliatory at the closing press conference, going so far as to assure allies that no new members would join BRICS for now. What does this say about Russia’s stance within the group?
**Dr. Petrovna:** It suggests a desire for stability and unity among existing members, particularly with influential allies like India and Brazil. By not expanding the coalition, Putin is likely trying to bolster internal solidarity amidst ongoing geopolitical challenges. This can be seen as a strategic move—focusing on maintaining relationships rather than adding new, potentially contentious members.
**Editor:** There’s mention of significant military support for Russia from countries like North Korea and Iran. How does this connect to the BRICS summit and Russia’s position?
**Dr. Petrovna:** This is crucial. While Russia seeks to portray itself as a major global player through initiatives like the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, its reliance on foreign allies for military support undercuts that narrative. The summit’s diplomatic optics might suggest strength, but the underlying reality of Russia’s dependency on these relationships reveals a more precarious situation.
**Editor:** There appears to be a division within BRICS regarding the interpretation of multipolarity. How do you see this impacting future collaborations?
**Dr. Petrovna:** Indeed, members like Brazil and India view BRICS as a platform for non-alignment, while Russia and China push for a collective opposition to Western dominance. This ideological fracture may hinder effective collaboration moving forward. The divergent outlooks could complicate decision-making and strategic unity, as members negotiate their own national interests against the backdrop of broader geopolitical tensions.
**Editor:** with discussions around alternative financial systems and potential challenges to the U.S. dollar, do you believe Russia’s efforts will bear fruit in the long run?
**Dr. Petrovna:** It’s a highly complex issue. While there’s significant discourse around alternatives to the SWIFT system and diminishing dollar dependence, the reality is that these discussions have yet to yield substantial practical outcomes. The entrenched dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade remains, and unless BRICS can present a cohesive and robust framework that garners broad support, Russia’s push might face significant challenges.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Petrovna, for your insights on the complexities surrounding the BRICS summit. It seems that while Russia is keen to assert its global position, various internal and external challenges could shape the future of this coalition.
**Dr. Petrovna:** Thank you for having me. The upcoming months will be crucial for how BRICS evolves amidst these challenges.
To be divergent views within BRICS regarding its purpose and direction. How do you interpret these differences, and what impact could they have on the group’s future?
**Dr. Petrovna:** The differences within BRICS are profound. On one hand, you have countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa that traditionally view BRICS as a platform for non-alignment and cooperative development, focusing on mutual benefit and economic collaboration. On the other hand, China and Russia perceive BRICS as a counterbalance to Western hegemony, advocating for a more confrontational stance against the U.S. and its allies. This schism has the potential to create tensions, particularly when it comes to collaborative decision-making.
The future of BRICS hinges on its ability to navigate these divergent perspectives. If the members can find common ground, possibly by focusing on economic initiatives that benefit all, there is potential for BRICS to emerge as a significant global player. However, if the coalition becomes increasingly polarized, with China and Russia pushing for a more aggressive agenda while others advocate for stability and cooperation, it could lead to fragmentation or at least a dilution of efficacy in achieving collective goals.
**Editor:** In light of the summit’s outcomes, do you believe Russia’s ongoing actions in Ukraine are a liability for its role in BRICS?
**Dr. Petrovna:** Absolutely. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine cast a long shadow over its interactions within BRICS. While Russia may attempt to frame its struggle as a fight against Western dominance, many countries in the coalition prioritize their national interests, which do not straightforwardly align with any one side. There’s an inherent tension as some member states view Russia’s aggression as destabilizing, potentially undermining BRICS’s central thesis of promoting a multipolar world free of Western dominance.
If Russia continues its aggressive posture, it risks alienating members who might otherwise align with its vision for multipolarity but are wary of being associated with a state engaged in protracted conflict. This reality could lead to a more cautious approach from these nations toward deeper collaboration with Russia, especially in economic and financial initiatives.
**Editor:** how might the BRICS summit’s focus on alternative financial initiatives indicate a shift in global economic power dynamics?
**Dr. Petrovna:** The emphasis on developing alternatives to the SWIFT system and the U.S. dollar showcases a significant shift in intentions among BRICS members to assert economic independence from Western frameworks. As the world becomes more multipolar, there’s a clear desire among these nations to explore financial mechanisms that could mitigate the impact of Western sanctions and reduce reliance on the U.S. financial system.
However, actualizing these initiatives will require overcoming considerable logistical and practical challenges. The hesitation shown by key financial players within BRICS to fully back these alternatives may reflect a cautious approach to transitioning away from established systems that, despite their flaws, provide stability and familiarity. If successful, these efforts could lead to a reconfiguration of global economic dynamics, with BRICS positioning itself as a competitor to traditional Western-led financial institutions. But it will take time, and the current geopolitical realities—especially concerning Russia—will heavily influence the pace and success of this transformation.
