Putin and Xi Skip BRICS Summit — Is the Bloc Losing Relevance?

Brazil Hosts Without Two Key Power Players as Expansion Strains BRICS Unity

As the BRICS summit convenes in Brazil this weekend, the conspicuous absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin sends a powerful signal: the once-promising coalition of emerging powers may be struggling to define its purpose in an increasingly fractured world order.

What began as a counterweight to G7 dominance now risks becoming a patchwork of divergent agendas. Rapid expansion, mounting geopolitical differences, and internal contradictions are testing the coherence—and influence—of the bloc.

Xi and Putin: Strategic No-Shows

China Cites “Scheduling Conflicts”; Russia Avoids ICC Legal Minefield

Xi Jinping’s absence marks a sharp departure from his 12-year commitment to BRICS summits. The official explanation—a scheduling conflict—fails to convince analysts who view the move as symptomatic of Beijing’s waning interest in a bloc that no longer aligns with its global ambitions.

Putin’s decision is more clear-cut: facing an active International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for his alleged role in the abduction of Ukrainian children, the Russian leader opted to stay away rather than force Brazil, an ICC signatory, into a diplomatic corner. A similar situation forced Putin to skip the 2023 summit in South Africa.

But the symbolism of both leaders skipping the summit simultaneously is far more telling than their reasons. It underscores a broader discomfort among founding members with the direction the group has taken since its rapid expansion.

From Ideological Alternative to Geopolitical Grab Bag

Expansion Has Diluted BRICS’ Original Vision

Originally comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS aimed to represent a unified front for the Global South—one that could offer a credible alternative to Western-dominated institutions like the G7, IMF, and World Bank.

That vision began to fray in 2023 when BRICS accepted six new members: Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. While some bring economic clout, others add geopolitical baggage.

Rather than bolstering the bloc, the expansion has exposed deep ideological rifts:

• Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Russia: Major oil producers with minimal climate ambition

• India and Brazil: Committed to multilateralism and democratic norms

• Iran and Egypt: Often antagonistic toward the West and focused on regional power struggles

The result? A sprawling, unwieldy organization with no clear consensus on critical issues—let alone a coherent ideology.

Brazil’s Moment—or Missed Opportunity?

Lula Tries to Reframe BRICS Around Reform and Sustainability

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva now finds himself both host and helmsman, seeking to reposition BRICS as a platform for inclusive global governance reform rather than a megaphone for anti-Western sentiment.

Brazil’s agenda includes:

• Coordinated green energy transition

• Vaccine cooperation

• WTO reform through broader most-favored-nation (MFN) privileges

The absence of Xi and Putin may ironically play in Lula’s favor, allowing Brazil to temper the summit’s tone and focus on constructive proposals. With fewer flashpoints over Ukraine or the Middle East, there’s a chance to steer the conversation toward systemic reform.

The Limits of Leadership Without Leverage

But Brazil’s ability to lead the group is constrained. Domestic contradictions—such as its continued oil expansion—undermine its climate credibility. And it lacks the geopolitical heft to bring members like China or Saudi Arabia in line.

Moreover, longstanding goals like UN Security Council reform remain elusive. India’s ambitions for a permanent seat, for instance, are quietly opposed by China—a reminder that not all BRICS members see eye to eye on global governance.

A Multipolar World or Fragmented Chaos?

Former Allies, Diverging Paths

At a recent event in London, Brazil’s ambassador Antonio Patriota argued that the rise of multipolarity—multiple centers of global power—could enhance stability by diluting American dominance.

“The US, through its policies, including on tariffs and sovereignty, is accelerating the transition to multipolarity,” he said, pointing to a world that now has “perhaps two Western poles” instead of one.

But others are less convinced that this multipolar moment represents real progress. As Dr. Samir Puri of Chatham House puts it, “The ending of one international order does not necessarily beget the sudden arrival of another.” Power vacuums, he warns, are just as likely to be filled with chaos as cooperation.

Internal Contradictions Could Stall Future Growth

Beyond ideology, BRICS is now grappling with practical contradictions:

• India has rejected a proposed BRICS currency meant to challenge the dollar

• Climate goals clash with members’ fossil fuel dependence

• Security cooperation is minimal, especially given border tensions between India and China

In short, what united BRICS—economic ambition and political defiance—now threatens to pull it apart.

What’s Next for BRICS?

Summit Still Offers Brazil a Diplomatic Win

Despite the turmoil, this year’s BRICS summit isn’t a total loss. For Brazil, the gathering is a chance to showcase its global relevance, push for UN and WTO reform, and reassert leadership within the Global South.

Yet the path forward remains fraught. Without buy-in from the group’s heavyweights—and without a shared sense of purpose—BRICS risks becoming what critics have long claimed it is: more acronym than action.

Whether the bloc can evolve into a truly effective counterweight to Western institutions depends on whether its members can find common ground—or at the very least, a common enemy.

 BRICS at a Crossroads

The summit in Brazil was meant to signal the dawn of a new global order. Instead, it’s exposing the cracks in an alliance built on contradictions. As Xi and Putin stay home, and Brazil carries the flag of reform, BRICS faces its most existential question yet:

Can a group built on challenging the status quo find unity without a shared ideology—or will it collapse under the weight of its own ambitions?