The emergence of BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—together with its expanding circle of new and partner members, represents one of the most consequential developments in global governance since the end of WWII.
What began as a loose coalition for reform of multilateral institutions has evolved into a more assertive bloc, advancing economic sovereignty and alternative governance models. In doing so, BRICS challenges the intellectual and institutional legacy of neoliberalism, the ideological successor to postwar neocolonial structures.
Fig. 1. Neoliberalism transformed postwar neocolonialism into a political ideology.
After 1945, the international system was structured around Western-led institutions: the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, International Court of Justice and the United Nations, among others. Their governance reflects the geopolitical conditions of the mid‑20th century.
The UN Security Council, for example, still grants permanent veto power to Britain and France (combined population under 150 million), while populous powers such as India (1.45 billion) and Indonesia (283 million) remain excluded from permanent membership.
Repeated proposals to reform these institutions have stalled. In response, BRICS created the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), headquartered in Shanghai, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank.
By 2025, the NDB had approved over $30 billion in projects, mainly in infrastructure and sustainable development, underscoring BRICS’ ability to act as a parallel financial architecture.
Trump shock
Progress toward deeper BRICS integration was uneven until external shocks provided new momentum. The reelection of US President Donald Trump reinvigorated the bloc in several ways:
– Trade Policy: Trump’s tariffs—including 50% duties on Indian goods—signaled to New Delhi the fragility of the US partnership. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded by intensifying diplomatic outreach to Beijing and Moscow while promoting South-South trade. This repositioning reinforced BRICS’ role as a hub for non-Western economic and security cooperation.
– Security Policy: Trump openly questioned NATO’s expansion to Ukraine, aligning partially with Russian concerns and unsettling European allies. His repeated statement—“This war should never have happened”—highlighted divergence from the transatlantic consensus.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, from left, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping talk ahead of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China. Photo: X Screengrab
NATO expansion
The war in Ukraine has been a turning point in international relations—and in the fortunes of BRICS. Western policymakers have framed the war as a defense of the “rules-based international order,” but from a BRICS perspective, the war reflects the classic neoliberal strategy of economic and financial expansion.
After the Soviet collapse, Russia under Boris Yeltsin pursued “shock therapy,” liberalizing capital markets under the advice of Western economists. The results were catastrophic: rapid privatization created oligarchic wealth, GDP contracted by nearly 40% between 1991 and 1998 and poverty rates surged. By 1998, Russia required a $22.6 billion IMF bailout.
Fig. 3. Putin’s reversal of Yeltsin’s neoliberal policies changed history.
Putin reversed many of these neoliberal reforms, reasserting state control over strategic industries and constraining oligarchic political influence. This turn toward economic sovereignty placed him in opposition to the neoliberal order.
NATO’s eastward expansion, especially the 2008 decision to open the door to Ukraine and Georgia, intensified this confrontation. Western strategies to sanction and isolate Russia—described by US officials as “sanctions from hell”—were intended to induce regime change. Instead, Russia weathered sanctions and deepened economic integration with China, India and other non-Western partners.
Europe, long reliant on US leadership within the Atlantic alliance, now confronts the limits of its Russia policy. By strongly supporting Ukraine yet refraining from direct intervention, European states find themselves committed to a costly war of attrition.
Russia controls Crimea and much of Donbass, while Ukraine faces severe manpower shortages. Should a settlement reflect these battlefield realities, Europe may face internal scrutiny over its policies, media narratives and unresolved controversies such as the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
Europe is now rearming and considering the return of conscription. This transition from “welfare to warfare” reflects a reorientation of resources consistent with neoliberal fiscal orthodoxy: social spending contraction paired with military expansion.
Unwilling to admit defeat in Ukraine, Europe doubles down on its failed policies and now stands alone in the world as the last defender of the neoliberal project.
The decline of neoliberalism coincides with the rise of nationalist leaders—Trump and Putin—whose policies, though arising from different traditions, converge with BRICS priorities.
- Economic Sovereignty: Trump promotes reshoring and tariffs; Putin champions self-sufficiency; BRICS members support industrial policy and state direction of strategic sectors.
- Globalization Skepticism: Trump criticizes the WTO and global supply chains; Putin frames globalization as Western dominance; BRICS seeks multipolarity and reforms to global trade rules.
- Populist Legitimacy: Trump appeals to the “forgotten American;” Putin to national pride; BRICS leaders such as Lula, Modi, Xi and Ramaphosa employ similar nationalist-populist narratives to justify alternative institutions.
BRICS is steadily reshaping international relations. By establishing new financial institutions, promoting local-currency trade and advocating for multipolar governance, BRICS offers an alternative to Western-led systems.
BRICS’ impact lies not in replacing the G7 or NATO, but in pluralizing global governance, creating a space where Global South voices shape rules and institutions. In this sense, BRICS embodies the transition from a neoliberal order toward a more multipolar and pragmatic international system.