At first glance, the 16th BRICS summit failed to materialize as the anti-Western assembly that President Vladimir Putin had envisioned. Instead, the final declaration and the majority of discussions centered around an array of financial measures aimed at enhancing international trade and development. Significant topics included proposals for the reform of the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions, along with discussions advocating a two-state solution for the long-standing Israel-Palestine conflict—issues that lacked the international controversy Putin may have hoped for.
In alignment with this approach, Putin infused his closing press conference with gestures of conciliation, explicitly stating that the summit’s financial initiatives were not intended as alternatives to existing financial systems. Notably, he engaged with a question from BBC correspondent Steve Rosenberg for the first time since before the start of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Furthermore, in a strategic nod to Brazil and India, Putin assured attendees that no additional BRICS members would be added in the near future, thereby reinforcing a sense of stability.
In total, representatives from 36 diverse countries, including NATO member Turkey, were present at the summit, along with UN General Secretary António Guterres. Sergey Ryabkov, the Russian BRICS “sherpa,” emphasized at the conclusion of the summit that the organization does not have an anti-Western bias and remains inclusive. The choice of Kazan as the venue was symbolic, intended to illustrate Russia as a hub of tolerance and coexistence among varying “civilizations”—an enduring theme associated with BRICS.
While these elements might project an image of Russia as a dignified member of the global community, the underlying truth presents a stark contrast. Currently, Russia finds itself heavily reliant on foreign partners to sustain its ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Non-Western trade has become indispensable for the Russian economy’s fragile survival, continuously supplying access to critical dual-use components. The scale of arms deliveries from Iran and North Korea to Russia has reached alarming levels, with North Korean artillery shells numbering in the millions and Iranian drones easily exceeding thousands. Recent reports add to the gravity of the situation, suggesting the deployment of North Korean troops to the frontline against Ukrainian forces in regions like Kursk.
In light of these circumstances, Russia organized the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, aiming to assert its position as a significant power, a stark contrast to its diminished influence at the 2023 Johannesburg BRICS Summit. This year’s chairmanship afforded Putin a timely opportunity to showcase this narrative of Russia’s major power status, emphasized by the intrinsic grandeur expected of high-profile summits.
The Kremlin’s domestic messaging is also crucial. During the summit, it was revealed by Verstka that Vkontakte bots amassed over ten thousand comments regarding BRICS within a matter of days, marking one of the Kremlin’s “largest propaganda campaigns ever undertaken.”
However, crafting an image through messaging—whether domestic or international—is not a panacea. For Russia’s aspirations of regaining its status as a major power to materialize, its proposals must yield tangible results. Central to Russia’s goals at the Kazan summit was the introduction of the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, coupled with the development of a new payment messaging service. This initiative aims to circumvent the SWIFT system and reduce dependency on the U.S. dollar for significant financial transactions, effectively shielding them from U.S. jurisdiction.
The diminishing role of the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT system has been a long-standing discussion in global trade, but Russia’s renewed emphasis on this topic occurs amid rising global fragmentation and a swift technological evolution. The proposed initiatives would leverage blockchain applications as a defensive mechanism against perceived “political pressure and external sanctions.” Since 2014, BRICS has generally opposed international sanctions, aligning with Russia’s stance on this matter.
Documentation leaked to Meduza indicated that Russian propagandists were instructed to frame the Kazan summit as a success capable of unsettling Western powers. Nevertheless, according to an anonymous BRICS central banker quoted by The Banker, the dollar is expected to maintain its status as the primary currency of preference in the foreseeable future, even among BRICS member nations. Key economic officials from China, India, and South Africa notably chose to absent themselves from preparatory meetings regarding these proposals in advance of the summit. Ultimately, Putin faced the necessity of recalibrating expectations surrounding these initiatives. Thus, he stated that the proposals were not intended as alternatives to SWIFT, reflecting a significant shift in rhetoric from prior claims of heralding the “death of the dollar’s dominance.”
While the summit’s grandeur crafted a narrative portraying Russia as a pivotal player on the global stage, the lukewarm response to its primary policy initiatives undermines this portrayal.
BRICS constitutes a consortium of influential global powers, and therefore, the comparison to the G7 holds relevance, as this group also exhibits a lack of stringent formal regulations and remains a flexible coalition. This reflects a long-held preference within the Kremlin for international relations steered by top-level summits rather than through established norms. In this respect, BRICS has become integral to Putin’s vision of a multipolar world, liberated from what the Kremlin perceives as Western dominance in international law.
Did other members resonate with this perspective? For some BRICS participants, the summit served as more than negotiations; it functioned as an exclusive club. For countries like Egypt and the UAE, it provided a platform for a joint outreach initiative towards Iran. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, previously marginalized due to the Tigray conflict, engaged with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and made appearances at the BRICS Business Forum. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan utilized the BRICS platform to signal his intent to navigate a hedging strategy towards Europe, hinting at the prospect of group membership as a bargaining chip. Despite historical tensions, Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met on the summit’s sidelines, marking their first encounter since the heightened tensions of 2020. Additionally, Ethiopian and Egyptian leaders managed to exchange pleasantries despite their escalating conflict.
Nonetheless, Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine remains a significant obstacle for BRICS. The Kremlin perceives this conflict as a strategic battle against Western unipolarity, framing its engagement in Ukraine as a critical fight against NATO forces that aims to challenge U.S. dominance for the benefit of a supposed global majority.
This interpretation of multipolarity diverges significantly from a more conventional understanding and serves to create divisions within the group. In a broad sense, BRICS is divided between nations like Brazil, India, and South Africa, who perceive it as a form of non-alignment, and Russia and China, who seek to adopt a more confrontational stance towards the West. The expansion of the group in 2024 predominantly reflects the preferences of the latter faction, particularly at the expense of a more unified approach.
There were calls for Russia’s suspension from BRICS in 2022, similar to its expulsion from numerous international organizations. Even the BRICS New Development Bank halted collaborations pertaining to Russian projects following the invasion. Had Putin been excluded from the organization, existing divergences in the members’ visions would likely have persisted but without the burden of aiding Russia’s military ambitions. Without the looming threat of sanctions, there may have been greater enthusiasm for the group’s financial initiatives, following a potential reconfiguration of support in favor of projects that could better serve its goals.
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.
Continue
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.
**Interview with Political Analyst Dr. Maria Ivanova on the 16th BRICS Summit Outcomes**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Ivanova. The recent BRICS summit in Kazan has drawn considerable attention. What were the key takeaways from this summit in terms of its geopolitical implications?
**Dr. Ivanova:** Thank you for having me. This BRICS summit has shown a nuanced shift in dynamics. While President Vladimir Putin had hoped to galvanize a strong anti-Western coalition, the discussions largely focused on economic reform and financial cooperation—much less contentious subjects. For instance, significant proposals included reforms for the United Nations and discussions advocating for a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict. These topics indicate a desire for stability and development rather than outright confrontation.
**Editor:** That’s an interesting point. So it seems the summit didn’t quite fulfill Putin’s expectations for a united front against Western powers. How did he address this at the closing press conference?
**Dr. Ivanova:** At the press conference, Putin took a notably conciliatory approach, clarifying that the financial initiatives proposed were not intended as alternatives to existing systems like SWIFT. By engaging with Western media for the first time since the Ukraine conflict, he signaled a willingness to navigate these turbulent waters without deepening the divide. This alleviation of tension is strategic as Russia tries to maintain its global standing.
**Editor:** The summit brought together representatives from 36 countries, including NATO member Turkey, and emphasized inclusivity. How did this choice of participants reflect the current state of BRICS?
**Dr. Ivanova:** The inclusivity is crucial. It reflects BRICS’s ambition as a counterbalance to Western dominance while also showcasing its ability to bring diverse nations to the table. However, there is an underlying tension; many nations present, particularly Brazil and India, are leaning towards a non-alignment strategy rather than a direct opposition to the West as suggested by Russia and China. This division highlights the complexity within BRICS itself.
**Editor:** It’s notable that Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine looms over its diplomatic efforts. How is this conflict affecting Russia’s position within BRICS?
**Dr. Ivanova:** The Ukraine conflict significantly complicates Russia’s role. While Russia portrays itself as fighting against Western hegemony, some BRICS nations see this as a liability. A divide exists where countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa are hesitant to align too closely with Russia’s confrontational stances. The potential for calls to suspend Russia from BRICS member discussions has highlighted this friction, emphasizing the need for a unified approach that currently seems elusive.
**Editor:** do you think the initiatives discussed at the summit, like the proposed BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, could gain traction in the long run?
**Dr. Ivanova:** That remains uncertain. While there’s been a shift towards de-dollarization, concrete outcomes from these initiatives are vital. The lukewarm response from some of the key economic players in BRICS indicates skepticism about shifting away from established systems like the U.S. dollar and SWIFT. The viability of such proposals will depend on mutual agreement and the geopolitical landscape evolving further.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Ivanova. Your insights shed light on the complexities and challenges facing BRICS today, particularly in the context of Russia’s ambitions and the shifting global landscape.
**Dr. Ivanova:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss these significant developments.
F, suggesting that while there is a desire for collaboration, the pathways to achieving shared goals may differ significantly among member states.
**Editor:** Considering these divisions, how do you view the future direction of BRICS in light of the outcomes from the Kazan summit?
**Dr. Ivanova:** The future of BRICS appears to be at a crossroads. While the summit aimed to strengthen cooperation, the responses to key proposals indicate a lack of consensus among members. Countries like China and Russia may push for more confrontational approaches, while others such as India and Brazil seem more inclined towards diplomacy and economic development. This divide could hinder the group’s effectiveness in presenting a united front against Western powers, which Putin seems to envision. Instead, we might see BRICS evolve into a platform for dialogue among emerging economies, which could limit its potential impact on global geopolitics.
**Editor:** So, would you say that BRICS is currently more focused on internal cohesion rather than external confrontation?
**Dr. Ivanova:** Exactly. The Kazan summit has underscored the necessity for internal cohesion, with member nations recognizing the value in collaboration over conflict. While Putin may desire to project an image of strength against the West, the reality is that many BRICS countries are prioritizing stability and economic development. This pragmatic approach might ultimately lead to a more resilient collaboration, albeit one that might not align perfectly with Russia’s ambitions in the short term.
**Editor:** What specific initiatives emerged from the summit that might bolster this collaboration among BRICS countries?
**Dr. Ivanova:** One of the main initiatives discussed was the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative, aimed at reducing dependency on the U.S. dollar and circumventing SWIFT. This could facilitate trade among member countries and empower them to operate more independently of Western financial systems. However, the reception of this initiative was lukewarm, with many countries expressing skepticism about its viability. Nonetheless, it demonstrates a collective desire to explore alternatives and enhance financial cooperation.
**Editor:** Given the complexities and divisions within BRICS, what do you think will be the key challenges it faces moving forward?
**Dr. Ivanova:** The key challenges will revolve around reconciling the differing visions and strategies among member states. As BRICS seeks to assert its role in a multipolar world, it will need to navigate external pressures, particularly from Western nations, while maintaining internal unity. Furthermore, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its repercussions may strain relationships between members who have differing stances on such geopolitical issues. Managing these dynamics will be crucial for BRICS to evolve into a more cohesive and impactful entity on the global stage.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Ivanova, for your insights on the 16th BRICS Summit and its geopolitical implications.
**Dr. Ivanova:** Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure to discuss this important topic.
