Is BRICS Becoming an Anti-Western Bloc or Just Expanding? Experts Weigh In on Kazan Summit
As BRICS expands its membership, experts debate whether the bloc is evolving into a geopolitical counterweight or remains a loosely structured platform for economic cooperation
From October 22 to 24, the city of Kazan in Russia hosted the BRICS summit, marking the largest gathering of international leaders in Russia since the war in Ukraine began. Leaders from all nine member states attended: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—collectively known as BRICS—and the newly admitted members Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. This was the bloc’s first meeting since its recent expansion, which also includes Iran and Saudi Arabia. Six international organizations were also represented, including the United Nations, with Secretary-General António Guterres present.
As BRICS evolves, experts debate whether it is becoming an anti-Western force or simply an alternative platform for global cooperation.
Alexey Maslov, a Russian expert specializing in the socioeconomic and political dynamics of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) countries, discussed BRICS’s evolution. He told The Media Line, “The positioning of BRICS has significantly changed over the past few years,” noting a gradual shift in its aims.
BRICS was never conceived as an alternative center but rather as a platform for states with similar development trends toward a unified economy
“BRICS was never conceived as an alternative center but rather as a platform for states with similar development trends toward a unified economy,” Maslov said. “For a long time, BRICS did not set any goals in terms of proposing global initiatives in either the economy or politics.”
Maslov noted that “BRICS is trying to acquire the characteristics of a reasonable alternative” but does not aim to “replace existing institutions.” Instead, it seeks to “complement and extend them” so member states can gain greater global influence.
Not all countries equally assess this alternative position
However, not all BRICS members equally embrace this alternative role. “Not all countries equally assess this alternative position,” Maslov explained. “For Russia, it’s crucial to have an alternative payment system and approaches to global politics and multipolarity, but other countries like India do not entirely share this perspective.” He added, “India does not seek to exit the dollar system, although it wants to gain greater influence in global politics.”
On the perception of BRICS as a challenge to global power dynamics, Maslov said, “BRICS challenges not so much the United States but a unified system formed as the Global North, where all the levers of power and the economy come from a single center and are determined by a few organizations.”
“BRICS is only beginning to acquire alternative features, and it’s not certain that this will happen very quickly, though the trend is set,” he added.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Nikolay Kozhanov, a research associate professor at the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University and an expert on Iran, shared his perspective on BRICS’s evolution.
I don’t see BRICS as an anti-Western alliance
“Personally, I don’t see BRICS as an anti-Western alliance,” he told The Media Line, adding that “certain powers like Russia attempt to frame it as such or exploit opportunities for confrontation with the West, as we see, for example, with China.”
He noted that newly participating nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not inclined to join in such confrontations, and even Saudi Arabia’s membership is not yet fully confirmed. “In many cases,” Kozhanov explained, “the interest is primarily in developing and taking advantage of the economic opportunities this structure provides,” describing BRICS as a “fairly loose structure that mainly serves as a platform for joint discussions.”
However, Kozhanov acknowledged that some other BRICS members, such as Iran, view the bloc as a counterweight to Western influence. He cautioned, “We should not exclude that for some countries, diversifying relations within BRICS is part of a broader strategy to strengthen their position on the international stage and enhance their ability to confront the West.” He clarified, “Russia is not alone in this.”
Kozhanov was careful not to exaggerate BRICS’s potential as a political force, pointing out that “a substantial part of the bloc’s members do not want BRICS to have an explicitly political anti-Western, confrontational stance.”
According to Kozhanov, for countries like Russia and Iran, BRICS’s gains are largely symbolic. He described it as “more a matter of propaganda or part of their information strategy to present themselves as part of a larger international community, one that is seen as more significant than Western-led structures.” He cautioned against overstating the bloc’s threat, adding, “It’s not a reason to be concerned or see BRICS as a real confrontational bloc.”
Kozhanov remained skeptical: “I don’t see it turning into a huge anti-Western machine or anything like that. It’s simply not feasible because it contradicts the interests of quite a number of participants.”
For Russia, he noted, the priority is to prove “we are not isolated,” by raising issues like an “alternative to the dollar-based exchange system.” On the economic front, Kozhanov acknowledged BRICS’s extensive reach, stating, “It’s quite global, with economic interdependence and trade within the bloc accounting for roughly 30–40%.”
Maslov underscored BRICS’s opposition to isolationism, saying, “BRICS expresses strong doubts about isolationism and demands respect for all countries’ interests, regardless of their national traditions.”
When it comes to military capabilities, Maslov clarified that “individual BRICS countries have military potential, but BRICS as an entity does not.” He noted, “There are no military agreements within BRICS,” and the group’s current focus is on collective security, which remains “quite vague.” He pointed out that China has started discussing “comprehensive or multilateral security, which includes military, cyber, food, and technological security.” However, he observed that “many countries, like India, view security primarily as the absence of conflicts with others.”
On the topic of BRICS’s military potential, Kozhanov shared: “I don’t see any military potential in BRICS. It primarily serves as a forum where countries can raise questions and deliberate on various initiatives, rather than engaging in military coordination.”
Kozhanov clarified that even initiatives perceived as anti-Western, such as creating an alternative financial exchange system, are not intended for direct confrontation. Instead, these efforts reflect concerns over “what happens if they are cut off from the dollar-based international system of exchanges.”
Drawing parallels with the SCO, Maslov noted that BRICS repeats some principles, such as combating “terrorism, separatism, and extremism,” although differing definitions of terrorism complicate cooperation. He said, “Organizing even the exchange of lists of potential terrorists or organizations is very difficult,” as countries have varying views on what constitutes terrorism.
On the question of BRICS’s relationship with the West, Maslov highlighted significant discussions. He stated, “Theoretically, if any European country, even one hostile to a member like Russia, decided to join BRICS, it would likely be welcomed.” The platform’s rules, he said, are “maximally democratic.”
Kozhanov stressed that Russia’s influence in BRICS is less dominant than it may seem. “Russia is the noisiest element,” he noted, but its “economic weight within the system is not that big.” He pointed out that relations with China and India are more central to the group’s dynamics. Kozhanov warned that Russia’s anti-Western agenda could harm BRICS, repeating, “Not all the countries want to be part of this confrontation,” with China in particular wanting to avoid escalating tensions.
Reflecting on the recent BRICS summit, Maslov emphasized that despite disagreements, the group managed to establish a “common stance on multipolarity and opposition to isolationism.”
Kozhanov, however, expressed skepticism about the outcomes of the Kazan summit, noting, “There are lots of contentions. There are lots of statements. But most of these are nonobligatory, or at least demonstrating wishful thinking.”
