• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Petr Topychkanov"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Russia",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Global Governance",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

The BRICS and the West: Partners or Rivals?

The BRICS and the West are neither rivals nor partners. The BRICS isn’t challenging the West, but the West’s own growing weaknesses are empowering the BRICS.

Link Copied
By Petr Topychkanov
Published on Jul 8, 2015

Source: Russia Direct

The BRICS and the West have neither a rival nor partner relationship. There is no basis for such perceptions between the BRICS and the West. The BRICS is not an alliance. It's not a military bloc. The members of this group don't have any intention to transform it into something formalized.

They are not interested in any confrontation with the West, because all of them except Russia have close ties with Western countries. Even Russia, which has problematic relations with many Western countries because of Crimea, is still connected to them via economic, political and cultural links.

The West doesn’t have any reason to see the BRICS as something challenging it. There is only one reason to worry [for the West] – its own growing weaknesses. BRICS was created in response to changes in the world order and global economy.

The space for such an initiative was cleared by Western institutions, which turned out to be unable to play the role that they used to play after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The need for the growth and development of Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa can’t be satisfied with the sole help of the West. These countries’ growth demands injections from many sources.

The BRICS’ economic demands dictate the political agenda for its member states. The group’s creation reflected their understanding the world as polycentric and free of dominance of one center over others.

This understanding is basic for the BRICS. From this point of view, the West is accepted by the BRICS as one of the other centers in international affairs. Those politicians in Western countries who want to secure the West’s superiority over other centers of the world may oppose the BRICS as a manifestation of the world order change.

In short, the more active role of the BRICS is becoming possible because of the growing demands of its member-states and inability of Western institutions to satisfy them.

This article originally appeared in Russia Direct.

About the Author

Petr Topychkanov

Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center

Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global System

      Petr Topychkanov

  • In The Media
    Premonition of Nuclear Threat

      Petr Topychkanov

Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Petr Topychkanov
EconomyGlobal GovernanceForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChinaRussiaWestern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire

    Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy

    In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

    The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?

    In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

      Nur Arafeh

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Tehran’s Easy Targets

    In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.