BRICS After the Illusion: Power, War, and the Limits of Alignment

An Extension of “From Economic Bloc to Global Geostrategic Power”

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about BRICS as an emerging geostrategic force; an idea taking shape in the cracks of a weakening liberal order. At the time, it was a forward-looking argument, built on signals: expansion, de-dollarization efforts, and a growing dissatisfaction with Western dominance.

Today, that argument has met reality.

Not in theory, not in projections, but in war.

The ongoing confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has become an unexpected stress test for the very idea of BRICS. And like all real tests, it has revealed not just strengths; but limits, contradictions, and, more importantly, its true nature.

What we are seeing now is not the rise of a unified counter power, but something more subtle, and perhaps more consequential.

The Moment of Truth

If BRICS were truly a geopolitical bloc in the traditional sense, this would have been its moment.

One of its expanded members—Iran—is directly embroiled in conflict with Western-backed forces. The situation carries global implications: energy markets are volatile, trade routes are threatened, and the risk of escalation looms large.

And yet, BRICS has not moved as one.

There has been no unified doctrine, no collective response, no coordinated strategic posture. Instead, what we see are individual states acting according to national interest:

• China is cautious, balancing economic exposure with strategic positioning
• India is measured, mindful of its ties with both the West and Global South
• Russia is opportunistic, leveraging the crisis diplomatically
• Gulf states are calculating, navigating both proximity and partnership
• Brazil remains distant, as geography often dictates

This is not failure. But it is clarity.

BRICS, as it stands today, is not an alliance.

What BRICS Actually Is

The mistake, mine included, was to interpret BRICS through the lens of existing power structures. To expect it to resemble NATO, or even the European Union, is to misunderstand its foundation.

BRICS is not built on shared ideology.
It is not bound by collective defense.
It is not driven by uniform political systems.

What binds BRICS is something less visible but more durable: converging dissatisfaction.

A shared discomfort with:

• A dollar-dominated financial system
• Sanctions as instruments of control
• Institutions that reflect a past era of power distribution
• A global order where influence is often conditional

This means BRICS is not a coalition of agreement, it is a coalition of necessity.

And necessity behaves differently from unity.

War as an Accelerator, Not a Unifier

Wars do not always create alliances. Sometimes, they expose why alliances cannot form.

This conflict is doing exactly that.

The idea of BRICS evolving into a NATO-style military bloc is, at least for now, unrealistic. The internal contradictions are too deep, too structural:

• Strategic rivalries exist within the bloc itself
• Threat perceptions are not aligned
• Geographic priorities differ drastically
• Military integration is nonexistent

No member is prepared to subordinate its sovereignty to a collective defense mechanism.

But here is the paradox:

The war is still strengthening BRICS. Not by unifying it militarily, but by deepening the conditions that make it relevant.

The Quiet Expansion of Influence

While BRICS does not respond as one, it benefits from the environment the war creates.

Every sanction imposed…
Every trade route threatened…
Every financial restriction enforced…

…pushes more countries to reconsider dependence on Western systems.

And BRICS offers something critical in that moment:

Options.

• Alternative payment systems
• Bilateral currency arrangements
• Energy trade outside traditional frameworks
• Diplomatic space not dominated by Western priorities

This is not power in the conventional sense.
It is leverage.

And in international politics, leverage often matters more than alignment.

The Shift from Structure to Environment

A year ago, I framed BRICS as a potential “alternative pole” in global power. That framing assumed a level of cohesion that, today, appears premature.

What BRICS is becoming is not a pole, but a platform.

Not a unified force, but a strategic environment.

An environment where:

• Countries can hedge without committing
• Partnerships can exist without alliances
• Influence can be exercised without dominance

This is a different model of power; less rigid, more adaptive, and arguably more reflective of the current global reality.

After the War: What Changes

When this conflict stabilizes; whether through negotiation, exhaustion, or escalation containment, the effects will outlast the battlefield.

Three shifts are likely:

1. Economic Realignment Accelerates
Trust in global systems will erode further. Countries will seek redundancy, flexibility, and autonomy. BRICS mechanisms, formal or informal, will expand in response.

2. Institutional Pressure Increases
Global institutions will face intensified scrutiny. Calls for reform will grow louder, and BRICS will position itself not as a replacement, but as a counterweight.

3. Strategic Non-Alignment Evolves
The old model of “neutrality” will give way to something more active: selective alignment. Countries will engage multiple power centers simultaneously, and BRICS will be central to that balancing act.

The Limits That Define It

To understand BRICS, one must accept its limits.

It will not become NATO.
It will not offer collective security guarantees.
It will not operate with unified command or doctrine.

And yet, dismissing it on those grounds misses the point entirely.

Because BRICS is not trying to replicate the past.

It is responding to a world where:

• Power is more distributed
• Alliances are more fluid
• Control is harder to centralize

Its strength lies not in what it is, but in what it allows others to do.

 

A Revision of the Original Thesis

A year ago, I ended with a declaration:

“BRICS is not coming. BRICS is already here.”

Today, I would revise that.

BRICS is not yet power.
But it is becoming the condition under which power is negotiated.

That distinction matters.

Because the future of global order may not be decided by who dominates, but by who creates the frameworks within which others can operate.

And in that quiet, often overlooked space, between alignment and independence, BRICS is steadily, and unmistakably, taking shape.