BRICS began as a shorthand for a handful of fast-growing emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — and has since evolved into a formal diplomatic grouping with a rotating chair and a dedicated development bank. In recent years it has expanded its membership, bringing in additional countries from the Middle East, Africa and beyond, a move that supporters describe as a step toward a more multipolar world order.

That growth has also made consensus harder. Members differ sharply on trade policy, security alignments and how confrontational to be toward Western powers, and the group has long been criticized for producing communiqués that paper over those divisions rather than resolving them.

Leaders are gathering in India for the latest BRICS summit, with the meeting framed around a world that is simultaneously more fragmented and more interconnected. According to reporting by AP News and other outlets including The New York Times, Reuters, UPI and Al Jazeera, the agenda is being shaped by ongoing wars and by rising tensions with the United States.

The summit comes as Washington's tariff and trade measures weigh on several member economies, giving the host and other leaders a ready-made argument for deeper coordination on trade, payment systems and supply chains. The expanded roster means the guest list is broader than in past years, but so is the range of competing national interests in the room.

The core question hanging over the summit is whether BRICS is a genuine counterweight to Western-led institutions or simply a talking shop that expands faster than it can agree. Members share a desire for more influence in global governance, but they diverge on how far to push — particularly when it comes to directly confronting Washington.

Trade frictions with the United States give the bloc a unifying talking point, yet the same frictions expose how differently members are exposed: some depend heavily on American markets and technology, while others have already absorbed heavy sanctions or tariff barriers. That asymmetry limits how far joint commitments can realistically go.

The practical test will be whether the summit produces concrete steps — on trade settlement, lending, or joint positions on conflicts — or another set of broad declarations. Watch for language on the wars referenced in the reporting, and for any signals about how the group intends to handle relations with the United States going forward.

For now, the meeting is best read as a barometer of how confidently emerging economies believe they can act collectively. The stated ambition is coordination; the delivered outcome will show how much of that ambition survives contact with national interest.