Fyodor Lukyanov Explains Why the Recent BRICS Summit Marks a Significant Turning Point

The group’s success means that the West is no longer totally in control of international systems

The recent BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, generated significant attention. It was a major event both in terms of the participants and its concept. While interpretations may vary, its significance cannot be dismissed.

Beyond the ceremonial and social aspects of the event, two key elements stand out.

First, the summit focused on concrete results. While declarations were prominent, practical plans were less so. Ambitious goals were outlined, but primarily as tasks. There was consensus on the discussed issues, a noteworthy achievement given the diversity of participants. However, in some areas, agreement was somewhat superficial. Finally, despite talk of a new world order, the final declaration emphasized supporting the effectiveness of existing institutions like the UN Security Council, IMF, and WTO.

Secondly, the Kazan forum represents a significant long-term development. BRICS has evolved from a prestigious but vaguely defined club into a prominent meeting place. Participating is essential, firstly because critical issues are discussed, and secondly, because a key global trend is emerging: an alternative space to the one built around Western institutions and interests.

In essence, BRICS serves as an anti-monopoly force, ensuring competition by limiting the monopoly, in this case, on a global scale.

The struggle against cartels is challenging in any context. It is a protracted process, but it has begun and is progressing more rapidly than anticipated. The conditions for this development have existed for some time. Therefore, the primary significance of BRICS, despite its inherent challenges and complexities, lies in its alignment with the rationale of the global system’s evolution.

The importance of progress on these various fronts differs for individual BRICS members; for some, it is a priority, while for others, it is a more passive stance of “why not?” However, this difference in opinion does not alter the overall direction of the group.