BRICS is a talking shop masquerading as a new world order
By Nikhil Raghavan · Reporting from San Francisco ·
# If you want to understand the BRICS summit in New Delhi, stop reading the joint declaration and start looking at the gaps.
On September 11-12, 2026, leaders from Brazil and Russia joined India and China in New Delhi. They were joined by South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE to stage a diplomatic performance. The bloc condemned cross-border incursions and frozen assets, according to CNA and TelegraphHerald.com.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi framed the Global South as a "rule-shaper" rather than a rule-taker. He argued that if the future is shared, the right to shape it must be shared. Vladimir Putin spoke of a "multipolar world" and said those resisting the shift still think in "colonial categories." Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian pushed for national currencies to bypass the SWIFT banking system.
The rhetoric suggests a revolution. The text reads like a press release.
A Joint Statement That Names No One
The most telling detail of the summit is what the leaders refused to say. The joint declaration condemns "unilateral aggression by any country," but it names no one. When a bloc representing one in every two people on Earth cannot name the aggressor it condemns, it is not a pact of mutual defense. It is a lowest-common-denominator agreement.
This gap defines the BRICS architecture. The bloc projects unity while members freeze each other out. In May, BRICS foreign ministers failed to issue a joint statement because Iran and the UAE clashed over shipping lanes in the Gulf. A similar frost lingers between Modi and Xi Jinping after soldiers fought with clubs and stones in the Himalayas in 2020.
The group has a long history of promising tools it cannot build. In 2009, the group aimed to challenge the IMF and World Bank. By 2015, they opened the New Development Bank to lend money without Washington's strings. In 2023, the bloc added Iran and the UAE to shield their oil rigs and mines from Western sanctions. Each step looks like progress on a slide, but the unity vanishes the moment the conversation turns specific.
Why the Non-Aligned Ghost Still Haunts the Bloc
We are not seeing a new world order, but a high-gloss reboot of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). During the Cold War, NAM served as a forum for countries refusing to pick between the US and the Soviet Union. They sought autonomy through a "third way."
The mechanism is the same. Like NAM, BRICS is a coalition defined by what it hates—Western hegemony and blocked bank transfers—rather than what it wants to build. Both movements mistake a shared grievance for a shared strategy. The Non-Aligned Movement faded because "non-alignment" is a posture, not a governing system. It provides a place to complain about superpowers, but it offers no way to replace the plumbing of global power.
Advocates say this time is different because of the sheer economic mass.
| Metric | BRICS Share of Global Total | | :--- | :--- | | Global GDP | One in four dollars | | World Population | One in two people |
But this weight does not solve the problem of trust. To replace the US dollar or the IMF, a bloc needs more than a declaration; it needs matching tax codes, transparent clearinghouses, and shared banking laws. You cannot build a financial system on a foundation of the Sunni-Shia divide and border skirmishes. When President Pezeshkian calls for national currencies, he proposes a feature without a backend. He does not say who handles the liquidity, who manages the volatility, or who wakes up at three in the morning when a settlement fails.
Can a Mailing List Protect a Ship?
Modi’s proposal for a "BRICS seafarers’ network" to protect maritime workers in the Red Sea illustrates this pattern. The idea sells, but it cannot ship. In a region where Houthi drones and missiles target tankers, a "network" is just a mailing list. It is useless without a coordinated naval command and a shared set of rules for when to fire.
The BRICS leaders treat the way the world manages trade and war like a software update they can simply vote into existence. But the UN Security Council is not a piece of code; it is a power structure held together by the vetoes of the P5. Putin’s call to expand the council is a rhetorical flourish. He is asking the current holders of power to voluntarily delete their own admin privileges.
BRICS is a talking shop for leaders who want the prestige of a superpower bloc without the discipline of an actual alliance. It is a diplomatic hedge, allowing members to keep their oil and mineral trade flowing to the West while signaling that they are keeping their options open. Until these nations agree on a specific enemy or a shared technical standard for trade, they are not shaping the rules. They are just complaining about the ones that already exist.