As New Delhi prepares to host the 18th BRICS Summit, the gathering is likely to reveal whether the expanded group can convert its growing political reach into practical cooperation amid multiple wars and sharpened geopolitical divisions. India’s role as host places it at the center of discussions involving Russia, Iran, China, and other members whose interests converge on some questions of global governance but diverge significantly on active conflicts.
The summit, scheduled for 12 and 13 September at Bharat Mandapam, will take place under India’s 2026 chairship theme, “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability.” Official sessions are expected to address inclusive global governance, multilateralism, economic resilience, and cooperation across sectors such as food, energy, health, and supply chains. The meeting is also expected to conclude with a New Delhi Declaration, which will offer an important indication of how much political consensus members can achieve.
Expansion Meets Political Fragmentation
BRICS was established as a platform through which major emerging economies could seek a stronger voice in international institutions historically shaped by Western influence. Its subsequent expansion has enhanced the group’s geographic and economic breadth, adding Middle Eastern members and partners to an organization that already connected major powers from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Yet expansion has also complicated consensus building. The presence of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates within the broader BRICS framework illustrates this challenge. These states hold differing strategic interests and positions in relation to the current conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. As a result, the summit will test whether BRICS can produce language that acknowledges regional instability without exposing divisions that could limit collective action. AFP reported that BRICS foreign ministers failed to agree on a joint statement when they met in New Delhi in May, suggesting that agreement at the leaders’ level cannot be assumed.
The likely implication is that the summit’s success may be measured less by sweeping political declarations than by whether members can protect cooperation in areas where their interests overlap. Energy security, trade, payment systems, technology, and supply chain resilience may therefore prove more attainable areas for agreement than detailed positions on conflicts.
India’s Balancing Role
For India, hosting the summit is both an opportunity and a diplomatic constraint. New Delhi maintains long standing ties with Russia, has cultivated engagement with Iran, and continues to pursue a cautious stabilization of relations with China. At the same time, India has developed substantial partnerships with the United States, European countries, Israel, and Gulf states. This network of relationships gives India room to act as a convening power, but it also requires careful diplomatic calibration.
A possible visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping would carry particular significance. It would be his first visit to India since 2019, according to AFP, following years of strained relations after the 2020 border clash in the Himalayas. Although bilateral contacts, visas, and flights have gradually resumed, the disputed border, trade imbalance, and wider strategic competition remain unresolved. A meeting between Modi and Xi could signal that both governments see value in managing tensions, even if it would not necessarily amount to a substantive breakthrough.
India’s relationship with Russia will also remain central. Russia is an important strategic and energy partner for India, while the continuing war in Ukraine has made that relationship more internationally sensitive. India’s recent diplomatic engagement with Ukraine indicates its effort to preserve channels with all relevant parties and maintain its stated preference for dialogue rather than alignment with a single geopolitical bloc.
What the Declaration Could Show
The New Delhi Declaration will be closely watched for its treatment of war, sovereignty, economic stability, and institutional reform. Strong and specific language would suggest that BRICS has found a basis for common political messaging. More general wording, however, would underline the limits of a forum whose members share dissatisfaction with aspects of the international order but do not hold identical strategic priorities.
Even a cautious declaration should not be interpreted solely as failure. In a larger and more diverse BRICS, maintaining dialogue itself has strategic value. The more consequential question is whether political differences will prevent progress on practical initiatives that can strengthen members’ resilience during periods of global disruption.
A Final Note
The New Delhi summit is therefore more than a diplomatic showcase for India. It is a test of whether BRICS can function as a durable platform for cooperation while its members confront conflicts that pull them in different directions. Its outcomes may clarify whether the group’s expansion has increased its capacity to shape global debates or made consensus increasingly difficult to sustain.
