The BRICS alliance began life as something between a Goldman Sachs marketing gimmick and a drunken bet among emerging market traders. “I’ll wager you a case of champagne these four economies will dominate by 2050!” Fast-forward two decades, and what started as an investment banker’s acronym has somehow morphed into a geopolitical bloc with expansionist ambitions. The recent addition of new members under the “BRICS+” banner suggests this is no longer just about economics. This is about building an alternative world order where the rules are made by autocrats and petrostates.

A history of mild ambition

The story begins in 2001 when Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, presumably while staring at a spreadsheet after his third espresso, coined the term “BRIC” to describe the four economies he believed would reshape global capitalism. For years, it remained little more than a handy label for fund managers looking to justify their emerging market bets. Then came the 2008 financial crisis, which provided the perfect catalyst for these nations to discover their shared victimhood. “Why should the West get to break the global economy and still run all the institutions?” they asked, while conveniently ignoring the skeletons rattling in their own financial closets.

The first formal BRIC summit in 2009 was less a meeting of minds and more a gathering of countries united by what they opposed (American hegemony) rather than what they supported (any coherent alternative). South Africa’s inclusion in 2010, transforming BRIC into BRICS, was the geopolitical equivalent of adding a fifth wheel to a car that wasn’t sure where it was driving anyway. But with characteristic emerging market optimism, they pressed on, creating institutions like the New Development Bank - essentially a World Bank tribute act with slightly worse lending terms.

Accepting questionable members

The 2024 expansion brought in four new members, each with their own diplomatic luggage. Iran showed up in mirrored sunglasses, asking if anyone could break a hundred barrels of oil under sanctions. Egypt and Ethiopia arrived with the quiet determination of guests who’ve been waiting far too long for Africa’s seat at the table. The UAE, ever the polished operator, glided in with a tray of canapés and a portfolio of trade deals.

Argentina, however, never made it past the velvet rope—pulling out at the eleventh hour after a change in government reminded everyone that its economic compass still points squarely at the IMF’s front door, hat in hand. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia remains at the door, sipping something expensive and undecided, its application still “under consideration” as of mid-2025.

The price of entry? A public commitment to “de-dollarisation” (while discreetly clutching your US Treasury bonds), a tolerance for photo ops with Vladimir Putin (or whatever wax replica the Kremlin’s using that week), and the ability to nod solemnly when China extols the virtues of “win-win cooperation” without bursting into laughter. For Europe, watching once-reliable partners like the UAE and (potentially) Saudi Arabia court BRICS+ is like seeing your local pub agree to host a conspiracy theory symposium—not yet disastrous, but definitely unnerving.

The current BRICS+ composition includes nine countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE).

The BRICS To-Do List

The BRICS wishlist reads like a teenager’s letter to Santa after a weekend binge of anti-capitalist TikToks. A common currency! An alternative to SWIFT! (That’s the global financial messaging system dominated by the West, not the pop star.) An end to Western hegemony! The reality, as any half-sober economist will tell you, is a little less revolutionary.

The New Development Bank: Big promises, cautious chequebook

Since its launch in 2015, the New Development Bank (NDB) has disbursed around $39 billion in loans — roughly what the World Bank dishes out on a quiet Tuesday. It was founded as the BRICS bloc’s shiny new alternative to the Bretton Woods institutions, pledging to fund infrastructure and sustainable development in member countries. And to be fair, it has stuck fairly close to that script.

In practice, the NDB’s lending portfolio is cautious and conservative. Between 2015 and 2024, most of the money went to transport, energy, and water projects — think roads, hydroelectric dams, and sanitation systems. Renewables are increasingly in the mix, though fossil fuels haven’t exactly been given the boot.

China, unsurprisingly, wears two hats — as both the largest contributor and a major indirect beneficiary. Its companies are often involved in construction contracts, and many projects follow the subtle contours of Belt and Road logic. India has focused on urban infrastructure and metro lines, while Brazil and South Africa have drawn loans for energy and healthcare. Russia’s access has dwindled under the weight of sanctions, though the NDB has tiptoed carefully to avoid being seen as politically compromised — no small feat, given the diplomatic messiness of its membership.

And while the NDB talks a good game about de-dollarisation, most of its loans are still denominated in US dollars, euros, or Chinese yuan. Local currency lending is on the rise — but slowly. In theory, this reduces reliance on the Western financial system. In practice, it’s more about insulating borrowers from exchange rate mood swings than upending global finance.

With the 2024 expansion, the bank is expected to extend its reach into Africa and the Middle East. Whether its internal machinery can scale as quickly as its ambition remains to be seen. For now, the NDB sits somewhere between cautious lender and diplomatic prop — more talk show than power player.

BRICS pay and the space elevator of currency dreams

The much-vaunted BRICS Pay system is still stuck in the eternal limbo of “pilot phase” — like a bus route that’s always coming soon. As of late 2024, it exists as a decentralised payment messaging platform meant to allow transactions in local currencies between members. China has backed it enthusiastically, but it’s yet to seriously rival SWIFT or shake off its beta-label branding.

And the proposed common BRICS currency? That’s the monetary equivalent of announcing plans to build a space elevator — technically feasible in theory, prohibitively expensive, and utterly impractical in this century.

Energy leverage: Now we’re talking

Where BRICS+ genuinely wields clout is in the global energy market. The expanded bloc now accounts for roughly 44% of global oil production, giving it considerable leverage — on paper. In practice, coordinating that influence is another matter entirely.

Expecting Saudi Arabia and Iran to agree on production quotas is like watching two rival football firms try to organise a charity bake sale. The potential for disaster is high, and the likelihood of unity is — at best — fragile.

Too Good to Be True?

For all its grand ambitions, BRICS resembles nothing so much as a group project where none of the members particularly like each other. China and India continue their Himalayan staring contest while pretending to be economic partners. Brazil periodically remembers it’s actually a Western-aligned democracy and gets cold feet. South Africa struggles to explain why it’s even there. And Russia, increasingly a geopolitical pariah, clings to BRICS like a drunk to a lamppost - it’s not taking him anywhere useful, but it’s better than lying in the gutter.

The institutional weaknesses are glaring. Unlike the EU, which at least attempts to pretend it has common policies, BRICS operates on a principle of “agree to disagree… and then issue a vague joint statement.” The New Development Bank’s insistence on equal voting rights sounds noble until you realize it means a €17 trillion economy (China) gets the same say as a €400 billion one (South Africa). It’s the equivalent of giving every member of a football team equal playing time regardless of ability - heartwarming in theory, disastrous in practice.

Future scenarios for BRICS+

The BRICS+ alliance is at a crossroads, balancing between lofty ambitions and geopolitical realities. Its future trajectory will shape not just its member states but the entire global order—whether as a paper tiger, an economic powerhouse, an anti-Western bloc, or a fractured coalition. Exploring each scenario’s likelihood, mechanics, and global ripple effects, from trade wars to currency battles.

Here are four plausible futures for BRICS+, ranging from bureaucratic farce to financial realignment—and how Europe might adapt to each.

The ‘United Nations 2.0’ scenario

Likelihood: High

Mechanics:

  • BRICS+ summits devolve into diplomatic theater, producing grand declarations (e.g., “multipolar world order”) but little action.
  • The New Development Bank (NDB) remains a minor player, approving modest loans ($39B total since 2015) while members still rely on Western financial systems.
  • Trade within BRICS+ stagnates at ~6.5% of members’ total trade. Challenges such as logistical barriers and differing economic structures contribute to this low level of internal trade.

Global impact:

  • Symbolic wins, no systemic change. The dollar stays dominant, and Western sanctions retain their bite.
  • Europe breathes easy: No threat to EU trade or financial systems. Brussels may even chuckle at the bloc’s dysfunction.
  • Developing world disillusionment: Countries like Ethiopia or Argentina, which joined for economic alternatives, see few tangible benefits.

Wildcard: A major crisis (e.g., Russia’s collapse) could force BRICS+ to act—or implode.

The ‘Competence Surprise’ scenario

Likelihood: Low but plausible

Mechanics:

  • NDB evolves into a true World Bank rival, leveraging its AA+ credit rating to fund mega-projects (e.g., transcontinental railways).
  • BRICS Pay gains traction, enabling local-currency transactions and denting SWIFT’s monopoly (though dollar conversions persist).
  • Oil producers (Saudi, UAE, Iran) price crude in yuan/rupees, chipping away at petrodollar hegemony.

Global impact:

  • Dollar erosion: The greenback remains top, but BRICS+ currencies carve out 15–20% of global trade.
  • Europe’s dilemma: Forced to engage with BRICS+ financial tools while protecting euro stability. German exporters cheer cheaper yuan deals; French bankers panic.
  • Global South shift: African/Latin American nations pivot trade to BRICS+, demanding concessions from the West.

Obstacles:

  • China-India rivalry: Beijing’s dominance (e.g., via digital yuan) spooks New Delhi.
  • US countermeasures: Trump’s threatened “150% tariffs” on BRICS+ trade could spark a financial cold war.

The ‘Anti-West Alliance’ scenario

Likelihood: Very low

Mechanics:

  • Common BRICS+ currency launched, backed by gold/oil reserves—a “dragon-ruble-riyal” frankenstein.
  • Joint security pact formed (Russia sells S-400s to Iran; China builds bases in Africa).
  • Coordinated UN voting to block Western resolutions (e.g., on Ukraine, Taiwan).

Global impact:

  • Financial Armageddon: The Fed/EU retaliate with capital controls. Bitcoin soars as everyone hedges.
  • Europe’s energy crisis 2.0: Russia-Saudi-Iran oil cartel squeezes EU via production cuts.
  • Global fracture: WTO collapses into BRICS vs. G7 trade blocs. Neutral states (e.g., Indonesia) profit as swing players.

Why It’s Unlikely:

  • Ideological incompatibility: Sunni UAE won’t share intel with Shia Iran. Democratic India won’t back Putin’s wars.
  • China’s caution: Beijing prefers economic infiltration (Belt and Road) over open confrontation.

The ‘Messy Divorce’ scenario

Likelihood: Moderate

Mechanics:

  • India exits, citing China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” and joins US-led Chip 4 alliance (a semiconductor alliance including the US, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea).
  • Brazil swings right, electing a pro-US leader who calls BRICS+ “a CCP puppet show”.
  • Rump BRICS (China, Russia, Iran) becomes a pariah bloc, reliant on forced yuan trade and North Korean IT support.

Global impact:

  • Short-term chaos: Markets panic as BRICS Pay collapses; oil prices swing wildly.
  • Europe’s opportunity: Exploits the split to lure India/Saudi into EU trade pacts.
  • China’s isolation deepens: Forced to double down on Belt and Road—or risk irrelevance.

Trigger Events:

  • India-China border clash (again).
  • US offers Brazil NATO “partner” status.

The ripple effects for Europe

Europe’s fate hinges on which scenario unfolds:

  1. If BRICS+ fizzles (first or last scenario):

    • Business as usual. EU maintains dollar-centric trade, though Germany may push for more yuan flexibility.
    • Energy security improves as Russia’s influence wanes.

  2. If BRICS+ succeeds (other scenarios):

    • Euro under pressure as yuan gains reserve status. ECB scrambles to defend monetary sovereignty.
    • Sanctions become toothless: EU can no longer isolate Iran/Russia without economic blowback.
    • Tech decoupling: Forced to choose between US semiconductors and Chinese 5G—a lose-lose.

Wildcard: A “BRICS-EU détente” where Brussels brokers deals with factions (e.g., India+South Africa vs. China+Russia).

Conclusion: BRICS+ is a weathervane, not a hurricane

The bloc’s real power lies in its potential to disrupt, not its current coherence. Even in its weakest form (first scenario), it erodes Western unipolarity. In its strongest (third scenario), it could rewrite global rules—though that remains fantasy for now.

As BRICS+ gathers steam (or sputters theatrically), Europe faces a familiar choice: retreat into transatlantic routines or learn to dance with new partners—some of whom don’t believe in choreography. In a world of shifting alliances, perhaps the real game is less about joining blocs and more about playing them off each other. Your move, Brussels.

Resources