Can BRICS Really Break the Western Grip on Global Power?

In recent years, a major question has surfaced in global politics: Can BRICS truly challenge the dominance of the West?

What began as a simple investment acronym, representing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has evolved into a broader geopolitical alliance. With new members like Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE joining recently, BRICS is now larger, more assertive, and more ambitious than ever before.

But ambition alone doesn’t translate into global power.

While the idea of BRICS counterbalancing the West isn’t new, recent developments suggest it’s no longer just theoretical, it’s becoming a geopolitical pivot. As the bloc expands and sharpens its agenda, the global power landscape may be entering a slow but significant transformation.

Still, the question remains: Can BRICS move beyond economic statistics and population size to become a coherent political force? That would require strategic unity, institutional depth, and a shared long-term vision, all of which remain uncertain.

Originally conceived as an investment term by Goldman Sachs in 2001, BRICS has outgrown its acronym. With its expansion in 2024 to include nations like Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, BRICS+ now reflects a broader coalition of non-Western powers aiming to rewrite parts of the global order.

Combined, the bloc accounts for over 45% of the global population and, more importantly, now contributes more to global GDP in PPP terms than the G7.

But these headline figures often obscure the complexity beneath. For BRICS to challenge the West, it must become more than just an economic bloc, it must act as a coherent political force.

A critical but underappreciated shift is BRICS’ effort to build autonomy from Western financial systems, which reflects not just economic strategy, but geopolitical intent.

Since 2022, BRICS nations, particularly Russia and China, have accelerated efforts to reduce dependence on the US dollar. The yuan’s use in global trade settlements saw significant growth between 2022 and 2023, with notable increases across cross-border transactions, payment volumes, and its share in global payments and it has now surpassed the euro in Russia’s foreign currency transactions.

India has also begun purchasing discounted Russian oil using rupees, while the UAE and China recently settled their first LNG trade in yuan.

These aren't symbolic gestures, they’re carefully calculated moves that signal a desire to fragment the Western-controlled financial system.

Yet financial de-dollarization is only one piece of the puzzle. A deeper, less talked-about trend is the way BRICS members are building parallel institutions that bypass traditional Western platforms.

Image by Bb3015, taken on 25 November 2016, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai, may still be small compared to the IMF or World Bank, but it marks a philosophical departure.

The NDB lends in local currencies, avoids policy conditionality, and supports infrastructure and climate projects in ways that resonate with the priorities of the Global South.

While since its inception in 2015, the New Development Bank (NDB) has cumulatively approved over USD 40 billion in financing for various projects, its symbolic value lies in its intent, to prove that a multipolar financial ecosystem is possible, even if it is not yet dominant.

Critically, BRICS is not a monolith. Internal divergences, especially between China and India, remain one of its biggest liabilities.

The two Asian giants not only have unresolved border disputes, but also diverging visions for global leadership. China aims to rewire the global order in its favor, India prefers a more balanced, non-aligned multipolarity.

Russia, meanwhile, is largely focused on resisting Western sanctions and preserving strategic depth in Eurasia.

These diverging motivations prevent BRICS from functioning like a NATO-style bloc, which is structured around shared security guarantees and ideological alignment.

The absence of such cohesion is not just a weakness, it fundamentally shapes what BRICS can and cannot do.

On the geopolitical front, however, BRICS’ strength lies in narrative power.

The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as the spokesperson for the Global South, a term that encapsulates countries excluded from the centers of Western economic and strategic influence.

At the Johannesburg summit in 2023, leaders repeatedly invoked themes of sovereignty, non-intervention, and multipolarity. These are more than slogans, they’re framing devices that appeal to nations frustrated by perceived Western double standards, especially around military interventions, IMF austerity, and climate finance.

One lesser-discussed aspect of BRICS’ strategy is its focus on commodity leverage.

In a world where supply chains are increasingly weaponized, control over critical materials is a potent form of power.

Russia and Iran hold significant sway over global energy flows, Brazil and Argentina are agricultural powerhouses, China dominates rare earth processing, and South Africa sits on vast mineral wealth.

Together, BRICS countries could dictate terms in sectors ranging from electric vehicle batteries to food security.

Already, Chinese export controls on gallium and germanium, key inputs in semiconductors, have rattled Western manufacturers. If BRICS members coordinate more strategically on these fronts, they could influence global markets in ways that rival military alliances.

Technology remains a battleground where BRICS lags behind the West.

The US and its allies still control the key nodes of the global internet infrastructure, advanced semiconductor manufacturing, and digital standards.

However, China’s rise in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and fintech is narrowing the gap.

India’s digital public infrastructure, particularly its Unified Payments Interface (UPI), has been quietly revolutionary and is now being exported to countries like Singapore, France, and the UAE.

If BRICS can synergize these individual tech competencies, it could reduce its technological dependence on Silicon Valley and Brussels.

Yet the question remains: Can BRICS translate this economic and technological growth into actual power projection?

So far, the bloc has lacked a unified response to major global crises.

During the Israel-Gaza war of 2023, BRICS countries issued fragmented statements. On the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the split is even more obvious, India and Brazil have remained neutral or critical, while China and South Africa have leaned towards Moscow.

This kind of strategic incoherence limits BRICS’ ability to act as a counterweight to the West, whose responses, though imperfect, are usually coordinated through institutions like NATO, the EU, or the G7.

Furthermore, soft power, often overlooked in hard geopolitics, is where BRICS still struggles.

Western media, education, and cultural institutions remain dominant globally. Hollywood, Ivy League universities, and English-language journalism continue to shape global narratives.

While China has invested heavily in global media and educational outreach, it has faced credibility issues.

BRICS countries lack the kind of soft power ecosystems that allow Western values and systems to be accepted, if not embraced, across the world.

Yet, it would be premature to dismiss BRICS’ potential.

As a concept, it speaks to a global desire for alternatives. As a platform, it’s evolving, slowly but steadily.

The strategic value of BRICS may lie not in replacing the West, but in offering a credible alternative to countries tired of Western gatekeeping.

This alternative may not look like a single power bloc with a common army or currency. Instead, it may emerge as a web of overlapping institutions, trade routes, and digital networks that offer real choices outside the G7 system.

In the long term, BRICS’ ability to challenge the West depends less on matching its power and more on shaping the choices of others.

If BRICS can become the preferred partner for infrastructure, trade, and technology in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, its influence will grow organically.

Already, dozens of countries have expressed interest in joining the bloc or aligning with it on specific issues. The idea of “BRICS+” suggests a modular form of influence, flexible, expandable, and not necessarily limited to fixed treaties or military commitments.

So, can BRICS challenge the West?

The answer lies in timelines.

In the short run, no, the institutional asymmetries are too vast. But in the medium to long term, BRICS doesn’t need to copy the West to be influential.

If it can offer countries real choices on trade, finance, or digital infrastructure, it will have already begun to change the rules of global power.