BRICS+ and the Search for Strategic Autonomy

BRICS+ and the Search for Strategic Autonomy in a Fracturing Global Order

As the BRICS+ summit convenes on September 12-13, the gathering is far more than a routine diplomatic meeting. It is a pivotal moment for a group of countries seeking to navigate an increasingly volatile global landscape. To understand what BRICS+ actually represents—and what it does not—requires moving beyond the Washington-centric narrative that frames it as an emerging anti-American alliance. The fundamental objective is simpler and more pragmatic: strategic autonomy in a world where geopolitics has destroyed much of the trust, systems, and predictability that once underpinned globalization.

The Logic of Strategic Autonomy

BRICS+ exists because its members want greater economic, financial, and diplomatic flexibility. They are not looking for confrontation with the United States, but neither do they want their economic security to depend on Washington, Beijing, Moscow, or any other major power. This distinction matters profoundly. The group is acquiring greater importance precisely because the institutions that were supposed to provide stability are failing to do so. The G20 has been paralyzed by its major members' inability to reach consensus. The G7 remains influential, but its economic weight is declining as its members grapple with anemic growth, deepening domestic political divisions, and rising economic pressures.

The BRICS+ countries have different agendas but share a common frustration. Their goal is not to recreate the old system with different leadership, but to ensure they can survive and function within today's multilateral reality. Members refuse to be dependent on any single power center. This balancing act defines the group's approach to everything from trade finance to technology policy.

The Weaponization of Interdependence

The timing of the summit matters because the global environment has become exceptionally dangerous. Wars and conflicts stretching across the Global South—Ukraine, Iran, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, the Sahel, and eastern Congo—are disrupting energy markets, trade routes, food supplies, and financial relationships. Add to this Washington's increasingly aggressive use of tariffs, export controls, and sanctions against both allies and adversaries, and the result is a global economy that is rapidly fragmenting.

Washington weaponization of interdependence, using its control over the global financial system and key technologies as tools of statecraft has forced nations to respond with countermeasures. This has created a feedback loop that makes the global economy less efficient and paradoxically feeds Washington's paranoia about being challenged. BRICS+ has become an effort to build insulation without necessarily building separation. The goal is not about stopping trade with the West, but about avoiding being dominated and held economically hostage by any single power.

The Iran Test Case

Iran represents a critical test for the bloc's practical capabilities. BRICS+ cannot mount a unified geopolitical response to American sanctions or the conflict involving Iran due to members' diverging foreign policies. But the true test is whether members can build practical mechanisms for trade, investment, and energy cooperation while under geopolitical pressure from Washington.

If Iran can demonstrate that BRICS+ functions through functional cooperation rather than rigid political solidarity, it will prove that economic cooperation can operate independently of political alignment. This outcome would be antithetical to Washington's "with me or against me" worldview and would most likely result in more primary and secondary economic sanctions. Washington will not be happy with a model that demonstrates alternatives to its preferred framework of managed globalization.

The Dollar Question

A single BRICS+ common currency isn't feasible, given members' vastly different monetary systems and fiscal structures. Instead, the realistic path is incremental diversification through local-currency settlements—using renminbi, rupee, and ruble—to reduce absolute reliance on the dollar without replacing it.

In line with this expect The New Development Bank to re-emerge from this meeting structured less around the U.S. dollar and more around local currencies.

While the dollar remains central to global finance, alternative settlement systems are gradually eroding its monopoly on international trade. This is an incremental challenge, not a revolutionary one. A basket-of-currencies approach to trade settlement remains possible but may not be worth the additional cost as long as transaction services exist to smooth out direct currency trade issues. The direction, however, is clear: diversification, not replacement.

India's Strategic Calculus

India's position within BRICS+ illustrates the complexity of the group's dynamics. New Delhi wants to strengthen ties with Washington while preserving relations with Moscow, managing competition and trade with China, and expanding Gulf partnerships simultaneously. This is strategic game theory in practice—maximizing room to maneuver in a multipolar world.

India wants to ensure that BRICS+ does not become a Chinese or Russian proxy, believing that by maintaining this balance it will avoid antagonizing the United States. The problem New Delhi faces is that this nuanced approach may not be acceptable to this administration, or future American governments, that view any deviation from alignment as hostility. This tension between Washington's binary worldview and the practical necessities of Global South nations will define much of the coming geopolitical friction.

The Structural Economic Consequences

The clash between economic efficiency and geopolitical security has consequences. The BRICS+ summit provides some economic direction—if not absolute certainty—catalyzing greater diversification of production and logistics. Countries continue to scramble to find the cheapest trade pathways that still allow them to integrate Chinese manufacturing inputs into goods ultimately sold in the U.S. and Europe. This is not a choice but a necessity, as there remain no reasonable alternatives to China's private-sector dominance of economies of scale manufacturing at low margins across thousands of industrial categories.

Attempting to decouple from China only increases costs without eliminating dependence, creating an expensive and inefficient result. While some states continue to aggressively support investments in parallel technology frameworks and supply-chain infrastructure to bypass potential Western chokepoints. Governments subsidies of domestic production, and technology standards are diverging rather than converging, creating interoperability issues that taxpayers end up footing the bill for. Additionally, companies have to pass on the costs of carrying additional inventories, duplicating infrastructure while reducing economies of scale.

Over time, fragmenting global supply chains and duplicating infrastructure will result in higher costs for consumers and chronic, non-competitive excess manufacturing capacity. This structural economic fragmentation will have lasting consequences, raising inflation and reducing productivity growth across the global economy.

Political Fallout and Domestic Consequences

Rising inflation and lost jobs will trigger widespread social and political unrest across both developed and developing economies. This dynamic leaves political incumbents highly vulnerable and dramatically spikes uncertainty for investors and businesses. Politics has now become a primary business variable—as seen with CATL's experiences in Europe and China's experience in nickel processing in Indonesia. Political risk is now a primary factor in all industrial investment decisions.

A broader global economic downturn is the logical outcome as consumer and corporate spending inevitably shifts away from discretionary choices toward basic necessities. The macroeconomic slowdown is not hypothetical; it is the natural consequence of a global economic system that has become less efficient, more politicized, and more fragmented.

The Washington Dilemma

BRICS+ is not an alliance preparing for war with America. It is a group of countries trying to ensure they have shelter if the economic storm worsens. The real question for Washington is whether it can accept countries building a shelter without interpreting the shelter itself as an act of hostility. Tensions are already high as U.S. officials publicly criticize major corporations like Ford over partnerships with Chinese firms such as CATL, Geely, and BYD. Washington views these technology-licensing and manufacturing arrangements as dangerous dependencies on foreign adversaries, while automakers struggle to balance cost-efficiency with geopolitical compliance.

If Washington cannot accept independent shelters, the attempt to preserve primacy could accelerate the very strategic autonomy that BRICS+ was created to provide. The weaponization of interdependence is producing the opposite of what Washington intends: it is accelerating the construction of parallel systems, driving nations toward each other, and demonstrating precisely why strategic autonomy is necessary.