Indonesia
Source: www.thejakartapost.com

BRICS has emerged as a significant international force since 2009 when it was established at a summit in Russia. What began as a five-member group encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, is now expanding with the integration of five new members and eight new partner countries. Even more countries may be joining in the next few years.

This growth raises essential questions about whether BRICS will challenge the leadership of traditional powers such as the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union.

But analysts are also questioning how united the bloc really is and whether a perceived lack of unity constitutes an obstacle to the bloc’s expansion. BRICS is undoubtedly diverse. Iran and Saudi Arabia compete as regional powers in the Middle East, Egypt and Ethiopia have had different conflicts around the Nile’s governance and the skirmishes between China and India are well known.

Yet, the bloc’s strength may reside in its capacity to integrate this diverse array of countries that are not fully aligned. Building loose international organizations might be the key to navigating international politics in these times of increasing polarization.

The rise of BRICS must be contextualized within the ongoing competition between the US and China. The rivalry between the world’s two largest economies is likely to intensify in the coming years, shaping the contemporary global order. China’s announcement of a record US$1 trillion trade surplus for 2024 and its solid 5 percent economic growth have bolstered the narrative that its development model represents an alternative to the US-sponsored neoliberal policies that have dominated much of the world in the past four decades.

Political leaders and economic elites worldwide are closely observing the US-China competition and most countries strive to maintain an equidistant approach. Countries traditionally within the US sphere of influence, including Brazil and Peru, have been cautiously moving toward China, attracted by the economic opportunities the Asian giant offers. Others previously in China’s orbit, like Vietnam, are working to maintain or expand their ties with the US.

China is unquestionably the driving force that holds BRICS together. Without China, it wouldn’t have come into existence. All BRICS countries share two key characteristics. They are global south countries that do not belong to the traditional group of hegemonic powers. And they have significant economic ties with China, especially through trade relations.

The official BRICS narrative emphasizes multilateralism, cooperation and fair global development. But in fact the group serves primarily as an instrument for China to project its power and influence. China achieves this through a combination of rhetoric and by using the bloc as a special trade platform linked to the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI).

BRICS seeks to position itself as an alternative to US hegemony, promoting free trade and multilateralism. In times of political turbulence and the growth of illiberal forces, this narrative serves as a powerful legitimizing tool for the group globally. But the group’s diversity also poses significant challenges to its rise as an alternative to the US-led global order. It is unlikely that BRICS will evolve into a unified military alliance like Nato or a free trade area like Asean or the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA – formerly NAFTA). The group’s diversity prevents it from acquiring these characteristics.

Aware of this, China strategically uses BRICS to increase its business opportunities and international influence. It maintains a fine balance between a loose bloc and a more solidified military or economic alliance. Contrary to the Cold War era, when the two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, had well-defined spheres of influence, the current world order appears to be shaped by loose, interconnected international blocs.

China’s prominence within BRICS is clear and unlikely to change. It accounts for two-thirds of both the group’s gross domestic product (GDP) and intra-BRICS trade. The country is the primary trade partner for Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran. China also holds significant investments in these nations. Russia is the largest recipient of Chinese foreign direct investment within BRICS with an accumulated stock of more than $10 billion.

Most BRICS member states are also directly or indirectly involved in the BRI. While the major BRI projects may not be located within BRICS countries, as they are primarily in central, south and southeast Asia, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran also host BRI initiatives. Though not an official BRI member, Brazil has become a key partner due to its role as a central food supplier to China.

These figures highlight that expanding BRICS is one of China’s foreign policy priorities. The country uses the group to project both economic and ideological influence. Donald Trump’s plans to impose trade tariffs on several countries, including China, is likely to prompt China to intensify this policy. It is a distinct possibility that the recent episode with Colombia, where the US president reportedly threatened to impose tariffs if Colombia continued to push back against deportation flights, could encourage more countries to seek closer trading relationships with China.

Some analysts correctly claim that BRICS is divided between anti-western states and those that prefer to remain nonaligned. While the anti-western group, led by Russia, advocates for a confrontational stance towards the US, the nonaligned countries, including India and Brazil, favor a more nuanced approach.

Analysts argue that the US should try to develop closer relations with non-aligned countries to influence internal BRICS debates. But this overlooks the fact that China is not only the de-facto leader of BRICS, but also has an unequivocal strategy of favoring a nuanced approach toward the west, based on multilateralism and free trade. So, despite what Russia may want, it’s unlikely that BRICS will assume a confrontational stance toward the west.

China knows that a non-confrontational approach is the best way to attract more countries and solidify BRICS as a loose bloc that advocates for more democratic global governance. So far, this strategy appears to be working.

The writer is a teaching fellow at the School of International Studies, University of Nottingham. The article is republished under a Creative Commons license.

USA
Source: thegeopolitics.com

The geopolitical landscape of the 21st century is increasingly shaped by the rise of multipolarity, with nations aligning, balancing, or remaining neutral in response to the shifting dynamics of global power. The BRICS bloc—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—stands at the forefront of this transformation, posing a formidable challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States and its Western allies. This essay explores the intricate web of geopolitical alignments, economic dependencies, and strategic calculations that define the BRICS nations and their broader network of allies and partners. It also examines the role of neutral nations in this evolving global order and the implications for U.S. influence.

The BRICS Framework: A Multi-Tiered Alliance

The BRICS bloc is not a monolithic entity but rather a multi-tiered alliance that includes full members and partner nations. The first tier consists of the core BRICS nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. These countries represent a significant share of global economic output, population, and geopolitical influence. The second tier includes full members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, which have recently joined and are closely aligned with BRICS objectives. The third tier comprises partner nations like Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Singapore, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. These nations, while not full members, maintain strategic ties with BRICS countries, often balancing their relationships with other global powers.

Geopolitical Alignments: A Spectrum of Allegiances

The geopolitical alignments of BRICS and its associated nations can be mapped along a continuum ranging from U.S.-leaning to neutral to China-Russia leaning. Advanced economies like Singapore maintain a neutral stance, while China stands firmly within the China-Russia bloc. Middle-income nations such as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey often navigate a delicate balance, leveraging relationships with both the U.S. and China-Russia for economic and strategic benefits. Low-income and peripheral nations, including Bolivia, Uganda, Algeria, and Vietnam, tend to align more closely with the China-Russia bloc, driven by economic dependencies and shared geopolitical interests.

Economic and Security Considerations

The duality of allegiance among many nations reflects the complex interplay of economic and security considerations. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia exemplify this balancing act. Saudi Arabia relies on U.S. military support for regional security while engaging with China for economic projects and arms deals. Similarly, Indonesia balances U.S. investments with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, seeking to maximize economic benefits without committing fully to either side. Turkey, a NATO member, further illustrates this complexity by maintaining defense ties with the U.S. while collaborating with Russia on energy and defense projects.

Economic dependency is a key driver of these dual allegiances. Nations often align with powerful economies to secure trade deals, investments, and infrastructure development. For instance, Malaysia benefits from strong economic relations with both the U.S. and China, while Saudi Arabia’s oil exports and investments tie it closely to the U.S. market. At the same time, China’s Belt and Road Initiative offers an alternative source of economic leverage, particularly for developing nations.

Security relationships and defense pacts also play a critical role. Turkey’s NATO membership aligns it with U.S. and European security policies, but its purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile system underscores its willingness to engage with rival powers. Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s reliance on U.S. military support coexists with its growing economic ties to China, reflecting the multifaceted nature of modern geopolitics.

The Role of Neutral Nations

Neutral nations occupy a unique position in this geopolitical landscape. Countries like South Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia often adopt a cautious approach, weighing the benefits and risks of aligning too closely with either the U.S. or the China-Russia bloc. This neutrality stems from a desire to maximize their own geopolitical and economic interests without committing fully to one side. For example, Indonesia’s historical non-alignment policy allows it to navigate relations with both the U.S. and China, benefiting from investments and infrastructure projects without becoming entangled in great power rivalries.

Neutrality also serves as a strategic choice to avoid the potential repercussions of taking sides. By remaining noncommittal, these nations can maintain greater autonomy in their foreign policy decisions, diversify their economic dependencies, and reduce risks associated with geopolitical conflicts. This approach allows them to remain flexible and responsive to changing global dynamics, ensuring their long-term stability and prosperity.

The Challenge for the United States

The rise of BRICS and the growing cohesion of the China-Russia bloc present a significant challenge for the United States. The combined economic power of BRICS nations, particularly China and India, represents a formidable counterbalance to U.S. dominance. Moreover, the creation of alternative financial institutions like the New Development Bank challenges the Western-led global financial order.

The U.S. faces the additional challenge of expanding its influence within BRICS and similar blocs. Brazil, as the only U.S.-leaning BRICS member, highlights the difficulty of gaining traction within a group increasingly dominated by China and Russia. The stability of the China-Russia alliance, reinforced by shared strategic goals and economic initiatives, further complicates U.S. efforts to counterbalance their influence.

Neutral nations add another layer of complexity. Their noncommittal stance and cautious approach to alignment make it difficult for the U.S. to build cohesive alliances. These nations are likely to continue playing a critical role in shaping the geopolitical balance, as their alignment choices could sway the global power dynamics in favor of one bloc or the other.

Conclusion

The geopolitical dynamics within BRICS and beyond reveal a complex and evolving landscape of alliances, neutrality, and strategic calculations. The rise of multipolarity, driven by the economic and geopolitical ambitions of BRICS nations, poses a significant challenge to U.S. dominance. Neutral nations, with their cautious and pragmatic approach, further complicate this landscape, ensuring that the global balance of power remains fluid and unpredictable.

For the United States, navigating this complexity will require a nuanced and adaptive strategy. Fostering strong alliances, addressing the concerns of emerging powers, and engaging with neutral nations on their own terms will be essential to maintaining influence in this dynamic and multipolar world. As the global order continues to shift, the choices made by BRICS nations, their partners, and neutral countries will shape the future of international relations for decades to come.

[Photo by Press Service of the Head of Tatarstan, via Wikimedia Commons]

Sheikh Rahman specializes in U.S. national security policy, international development, human rights, and arms transfers. He studied at the University of Dhaka, Northeastern Illinois University, and SUNY Binghamton. He is the Managing Partner of Enertech International, Inc. in Dhaka. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Russia
Source: eng.globalaffairs.ru

In a move that has sent ripples through the global economic landscape, President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose heavy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. The tariffs are aimed at addressing the failure of Canada and Mexico to stop illegal migration and combat the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs into the United States. This includes a 25% additional tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, set to take effect in February, with a 10% tariff on imports from China.

The BRICS bloc—comprising the nucleus of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—along with a growing number of new members like Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, and others waiting in the pipeline, is expanding its influence on the global stage. The bloc has been exploring avenues to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar, a move perceived as a direct challenge to American financial hegemony. Russia and China, in particular, have been vocal proponents of establishing an alternative currency to facilitate international trade within the bloc. India, however, has expressed scepticism about adopting a single BRICS currency, with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar emphasizing the complexities involved in aligning the fiscal, monetary, economic, and political policies of member nations.

Trump’s aggressive stance underscores a broader strategy to reassert U.S. dominance in global trade and finance. By leveraging tariffs as a punitive measure, the administration aims to deter developing nations, both fast-developing and still underdeveloped, from pursuing economic policies that could dilute the dollar’s supremacy. However, this approach risks alienating key trading partners and could trigger retaliatory measures, potentially destabilizing international markets.

The imposition of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, both integral partners in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), marks a significant departure from the cooperative framework established under the agreement. The tariffs are expected to increase consumer costs in the U.S., particularly in sectors such as electronics, groceries, and apparel, as businesses pass on the additional expenses to consumers. Critics argue that such protectionist policies may backfire, leading to supply chain disruptions and strained diplomatic relations. The threatened 100% tariff on BRICS nations, should they move forward with a new currency, could further complicate international trade dynamics.

Beyond immediate economic ramifications, Trump’s return and his renewed focus on tariffs could significantly impact the geopolitical order. His previous tenure saw the U.S. pulling out of multilateral agreements, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, and engaging in trade wars that led to unpredictable economic volatility. His potential second term appears poised to follow a similar trajectory, with an emphasis on economic nationalism that could accelerate global economic fragmentation.

The BRICS, now essentially the BRICS Plus bloc, has steadily grown in influence, not just in economic terms but also as a geopolitical counterweight to Western-dominated institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. The expansion of BRICS, with new potential members like Nigeria and Pakistan, signals a strategic shift toward an alternative global financial architecture.

If these countries move forward with a shared currency or trade settlements in local currencies, the U.S. dollar’s pre-eminence in global transactions could face significant challenges.

Yet, within BRICS itself, there are notable fissures. India, a key player in the bloc, has maintained a balanced approach in its foreign policy, often aligning with the West on critical matters while engaging pragmatically with Russia and China. Unlike Russia and China, which advocate aggressively for a multipolar world order, India remains cautious in upsetting the global economic status quo. New Delhi’s hesitation toward a BRICS currency is indicative of broader concerns regarding sovereignty, economic autonomy, and its existing economic ties with the U.S. and Europe.

China, on the other hand, has been steadily pushing for de-dollarization, particularly through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Digital Yuan expansion. Russia, hit hard by Western sanctions following its Ukraine conflict, has accelerated its push for financial alternatives, increasingly conducting trade with China and other partners in non-dollar transactions. Brazil and South Africa, while supportive of BRICS initiatives, lack the economic leverage that China and Russia have to drive such fundamental changes in the global financial system.

Trump’s return to power injects further unpredictability into these evolving dynamics. His history of unilateralism suggests a likelihood of heightened economic confrontations, particularly with China, which he has repeatedly accused of «cheating» in trade. If he follows through on his 100% tariff threat, BRICS countries could respond by deepening their efforts to circumvent the dollar, potentially accelerating global financial fragmentation.

Moreover, a more protectionist America under Trump 2.0 could create unexpected strategic realignments. India, which has cautiously engaged with BRICS while maintaining strong ties with the U.S., may be forced to recalibrate its position depending on the economic consequences of American trade policies. Likewise, the European Union, already wary of Trump’s «America First» doctrine, might seek to strengthen economic partnerships with BRICS nations, particularly in the wake of energy supply disruptions caused by the Ukraine war.

For Russia, Trump’s tightening grip over U.S. administrative machinery presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, Trump has historically expressed scepticism toward NATO and questioned the extent of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, positions that align with Moscow’s strategic interests. On the other hand, his tariff threats and potential economic hostility toward BRICS could complicate Russia’s economic recovery, given its increasing reliance on non-Western trade partners.

China, often seen as the primary target of Trump’s economic policies, faces a more challenging scenario. The first Trump administration saw an intense U.S.-China trade war that led to tariffs on billions of dollars worth of goods. A second Trump term could escalate this conflict, particularly if he seeks to cut off Chinese access to critical technologies or limit its influence in global supply chains, such as restricting access to high-bandwidth memory chips crucial for AI applications, as seen with recent curbs on U.S. and foreign companies like South Korea’s SK Hynix Inc. and Idaho-based Micron Technology Inc

Amid these uncertainties, BRICS itself must navigate internal contradictions. While the bloc aims to challenge Western financial dominance, the differing priorities of its members create internal roadblocks.

A more aggressive U.S. under Trump may either accelerate BRICS cohesion as a defensive response or expose fault lines as individual members prioritize national interests over collective action.

The return of Trump thus heralds a new era of strategic uncertainty. His tariff-centric policies, coupled with BRICS’ growing push for de-dollarization, could reshape global economic alignments in unprecedented ways. While the full impact remains to be seen, what is certain is that both the U.S. and BRICS nations are entering a period of intensified economic and geopolitical contestation. The coming years will likely determine whether these tensions lead to a fundamental shift in the global financial order or merely reinforce existing divisions in an increasingly fragmented world economy.

Belgium
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu

While issuing a warning to countries going in for de-dollarisation and a BRICS currency — via a social media post on January 30^, 2025, US President Donald Trump said:

“. They can go find another sucker Nation. There is no chance that BRICS will replace the US Dollar in International Trade, or anywhere else, and any Country that tries should say hello to Tariffs, and goodbye to America!”

Trump had already announced tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China which were supposed to come into force on February 4, 2025. As of now, tariffs against Mexico and Canada have been put on hold — for 30 days — after Mexico and Canada agreed to stricter border security and addressing US concerns on drug trafficking. China however has responded to Trump’s tariffs. 15% import tax will be placed on US coal and liquefied natural gas from February 10, 2025. Apart from this, several US imports — crude oil, agricultural machinery, pickup trucks and large-engine cars — will face a 10% tariff. China also launched an enquiry against google for violating anti-monopoly laws. Beijing also announced strong measures against other US businesses as well.

Trump’s warning to countries trading in non-dollar currencies

While currently all eyes are on the new round of trade wars which have begun under Trump 2.0. It remains to be seen as to whether the US President can follow up on his threats against BRICS countries. A few points need to be borne in mind:

First, with the recent entry of Indonesia into the BRICS grouping, the organisation now accounts for 40% of the world economy and nearly half of the global population. At the previous summit held in Kazan (Russia), in October 2024, China’s President Xi Jinping had said:

“We must make full use of this summit, maintain the momentum of Brics, and consider and devise our strategy to address issues that have a global impact.”

Second, trade in local currencies has gained momentum after the imposition of sanctions on Russia in the aftermath of Russia-Ukraine war. Several of the countries which have been carrying out trade in local currencies share close ties with the US and have been trading in local currencies to circumvent US sanctions on Russia. Prominent examples of the same are India and UAE.

During Indonesian President, Prabowo Subianto’s state visit to India — last month — both sides had agreed to give a fillip to trade in local currencies. Here it would be pertinent to point out, that India is also exploring the possibility of trade in local currencies with several other countries.

Third, countries like India have supported trade in local currencies but categorically ruled out the possibility of a BRICS currency. After Trump’s recent warning, India’s External Affairs Ministry reiterated the point that:

“On de-dollarisation, the External Affairs Minister has made it clear that we don’t have any policy or strategy in this regard,”

Senior Indian officials have made this point on more than one occasion.

After Trump’s warning to BRICS countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:

“There are no talks about establishing a common BRICS currency. Such discussions have not taken place and are not taking place now. Instead, BRICS is focused on developing new joint investment platforms to facilitate mutual investments and projects in third countries,”

Finally, for China and Russia the weakening of a US dollar is linked to their long-term strategic objectives for others such as India, exploring the non-dollar trade option is linked to their economic interests as mentioned earlier.

Conclusion

Trump’s recent warning to countries going in for de-dollarisation is linked to his “America First strategy”. Action against countries trading in local currencies will not be easy and individuals within his team may advise him against the same. Washington also needs to understand that several countries have opted for trade in local currencies, due to the imposition of sanctions on Russia. If these sanctions are removed or even relaxed, several countries may avoid trade in local currencies. Apart from several other reasons, one of the key factors why several countries are eagerly waiting for a solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the complication of economic linkages with Russia due to the stringent sanctions imposed by Washington. While Trump may be able to successfully use tariffs as a bargaining chip — on trade issues — vis-à-vis some individual countries, it will be tougher to stop countries from non-dollar trade in the current geopolitical landscape. As for a BRICS currency, as of now it seems far-fetched if not impossible in any case — given the lack of enthusiasm of several members regarding the idea.