The 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro had no shortage of moral outrage. The group , now comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE and, as of this year, Indonesia – issued a declaration that condemned Israeli aggression in Gaza and recent strikes against Iran. It denounced Western hypocrisy, called for the protection of civilian infrastructure, and reaffirmed support for a multipolar world. But amid the strong words on US-backed interventions and the need to uphold international law, one name was conspicuously missing: Ukraine.
There was no reference to the Russian invasion, no call for an end to hostilities, and no acknowledgement of civilian suffering in Kharkiv, Odessa or Kyiv. Ukraine was mentioned once (briefly) to condemn Ukrainian strikes inside Russian territory. That was it. The elephant in the room stood untouched.
The Logic of BRICS
BRICS began life in the wake of the 2008 financial crash as a loose economic bloc: a challenge to Western-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa represented fast-growing economies with ambitions of reshaping global governance. But over time, BRICS has become more than a financial alliance. It is now an alternative vision of world order, one in which the Global South, not the Global North, sets the terms.
Its recent expansion (adding Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Indonesia) has reinforced that identity. The bloc’s current messaging isn’t just anti-Western. It’s post-Western: explicitly aligned with the idea that power, development, and justice should no longer flow from Washington, Brussels or London.
In that sense, the strong condemnation of Israeli strikes on Gaza and Western support for the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities makes sense. These are long-standing grievances across the Global South. The BRICS declaration channels a righteous anger. When the United States backs Israel’s war on Gaza, or when NATO states applaud airstrikes on Iran, the hypocrisy is glaring. Western powers claim to uphold international law, but they breach it with impunity.
The problem is that BRICS is now doing the same.
Selective Sovereignty
The case for Gaza is clear: over 56,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel stands accused of collective punishment, targeting hospitals, journalists, and refugee camps. The BRICS condemnation is welcome, and overdue. Iran too, reeling from strikes on nuclear infrastructure and the assassination of key officials, has every right to expect solidarity from a bloc that claims to defend sovereignty and non-intervention.
But what about Ukraine? Where is the solidarity for a country invaded by a fellow BRICS member? Where is the defence of sovereignty, the condemnation of war crimes, the calls for a ceasefire?
It is absent, because Russia is not only a BRICS member, but a founding one. And for all the bloc’s talk of international law and human dignity, it is bound by the same realpolitik and power dynamics that shape the Western alliances it claims to oppose.
The Myth of Multipolar Morality
Multipolarity sounds progressive. It suggests a more democratic world, a dismantling of the imperial monopoly. But when multipolarity is selective (when it is used to shield friends and punish enemies) it ceases to be about justice. It becomes just another game of blocs.
BRICS condemns the bombing of Gaza because it fits the political mood of its newest members: Iran, Egypt and the UAE all have a stake in opposing Israeli aggression. It condemns attacks on Iran because to do otherwise would jeopardise its internal unity. But it cannot condemn Russia without tearing its coalition apart.
So it doesn’t.
This isn’t simply a blind spot. It’s a structural flaw. The bloc’s identity depends on solidarity with the Global South—but it also depends on maintaining harmony between states with wildly divergent interests. India and China are regional rivals. Brazil under Lula may condemn Israeli war crimes, but it treads carefully around Moscow. South Africa hosted Putin at last year’s summit, only to dodge the ICC arrest warrant by claiming diplomatic immunity.
To preserve unity, BRICS must remain diplomatically ambiguous. That ambiguity looks, increasingly, like complicity.
An Uneasy Alliance
There is no denying the importance of BRICS. It provides a counterweight to Western institutions long seen as exploitative. It gives voice to emerging economies. It reflects the reality that the global balance of power is shifting, and has been for decades.
But if it wants to be more than a geopolitical bargaining chip, BRICS must grapple with its contradictions.
It cannot claim to defend sovereignty while excusing territorial conquest.
It cannot invoke human rights while ignoring Bucha and Mariupol.
It cannot build a fairer world by adopting the same double standards it once denounced.
The Anti-West is Not the Answer
There is a growing tendency, particularly among some left and postcolonial thinkers, to treat BRICS as an inherently emancipatory project. But simply opposing Western power does not make a bloc progressive. Anti-imperialism cannot mean the uncritical endorsement of rival empires.
If BRICS is to be a genuine force for international justice, it must hold all its members to the same standard. It must be willing to criticise not just the US and Israel, but also Russia and China. Otherwise, it becomes what it claims to resist: a club of powerful states defending their own interests under the guise of multilateralism.
A World Divided
The 2025 BRICS summit offered a glimpse of the emerging order: one in which Western hegemony is declining, but not necessarily replaced by anything more just. The silence on Ukraine was not accidental. It was ideological. It was the sound of power protecting itself.
For those caught in the crossfire (from Rafah to Kyiv) it was another reminder that international law remains a weapon wielded selectively. That the “rules-based order” has no real order. Whether you are seen or heard depends not on your suffering, but on who your friends are.
