After BRICS: Navigating the Realities of Great-Power Rivalries

16 Sep 2026

Tags: International Relations   Groupings   Global agreements

Source: The Indian Express

Context: The global distribution of economic and geopolitical power is increasingly shaped by the United States (U.S.) and China, raising the possibility of a more bipolar global order.

• While forums such as BRICS, G7, G20 and APEC remain important, their effectiveness is increasingly influenced by the strategic competition among major powers.

From Multipolarity to Emerging Bipolarity

• The BRICS Summit in New Delhi highlighted the idea of a more multipolar world, while U.S.–China engagements point towards an emerging G2 dynamic.
• The U.S. and China possess the scale to significantly influence global economic rules, technology standards and supply chains.
• Despite strategic competition, both economies remain deeply interdependent in markets, technology, capital and industrial capacity.
• Both countries seek to reduce strategic vulnerabilities arising from this dependence, but complete economic separation remains difficult.

Changing Balance within BRICS and G7

BRICS

• China's economic weight within BRICS has increased substantially since the original BRIC grouping was formed in 2006.
• China accounted for less than half of the original BRIC grouping's combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but its share has risen to roughly three-fifths following BRICS expansion.
• China's continued economic growth and geopolitical influence therefore give it considerable weight within the grouping.

G7

• The U.S. has similarly increased its economic predominance within the Group of Seven (G7).
• Its share of the group's nominal economic output has risen from less than two-fifths three decades ago to nearly three-fifths.
• Japan's prolonged economic stagnation, weaker European growth and demographic pressures, alongside U.S. strengths in energy, capital markets and artificial intelligence, have widened this gap.

The G20 and U.S.–China Rivalry

• The growing economic weight of the U.S. and China has made their relationship particularly consequential within the G20.
• Disagreements between Washington and Beijing over trade, export-led growth and trade surpluses have hindered consensus in G20 discussions.
• However, bilateral negotiations between the two powers can also influence outcomes for other G20 members, making their relationship important beyond the two countries.

Russia and the Possibility of a G3

• Although Russia has a smaller economic base, it retains significant military capabilities, geographical reach and diplomatic influence, particularly across Eurasia.
• Russia's growing strategic alignment with China has strengthened the latter's geopolitical position.
• At the same time, U.S. efforts to improve relations with Moscow could potentially alter the strategic balance.
• A successful U.S.–Russia rapprochement, particularly in relation to the Ukraine conflict, could create conditions for a broader U.S.–China–Russia (G3) diplomatic framework.

Why BRICS, G7 and Other Forums Still Matter

• BRICS, G7, G20, APEC, European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provide platforms for cooperation, negotiations and bilateral diplomacy.
• Major breakthroughs in collective decision-making are often limited because member states have divergent interests.
• Their importance nevertheless lies in providing venues for great-power engagement, coalition-building and bilateral negotiations.
• The BRICS Summit, for instance, provided an opportunity for India and China to attempt a reset in bilateral relations.

India’s Strategic Challenge

• India seeks a multipolar international order, but the current distribution of economic and strategic capabilities suggests that great-power competition remains a defining feature of world politics.
• India therefore needs to simultaneously engage with BRICS and other multilateral institutions while carefully managing its relationships with the U.S., China and Russia.
• The increasing concentration of power among major states means that India's foreign-policy choices must account for shifts in economic power, technology, supply chains and strategic alignments.

Key Concept: Multipolarity vs Bipolarity

• Multipolarity: International power is distributed among several significant centres, reducing the dominance of any two powers.
• Bipolarity: Two major powers possess disproportionate capabilities and substantially shape the international system.
• G2: Informal concept referring to the U.S. and China as the two principal powers capable of significantly influencing the global order.
• G3: A possible strategic configuration involving the U.S., China and Russia, particularly in the context of great-power diplomacy.

Key Takeaway for India

• Multilateral institutions operate within the broader realities of great-power politics rather than independently determining the global order.
• India’s challenge is to preserve strategic autonomy and multipolar engagement while adapting to the evolving economic and geopolitical weight of the U.S., China and Russia.