Moscow’s unfulfilled quest for allies in the Ukraine war

The recent BRICS summit in Kazan showcased a dynamic but fragmented bloc grappling with internal divisions and external pressures. Russia’s ambition to project itself as a formidable global player amidst the Ukraine war faced critical scrutiny, as BRICS nations failed to present a unified stance on the conflict. This inconclusive outcome underscored the limitations of the bloc’s ability to align diverse geopolitical interests on globally contentious issues. The summit’s aftermath raises pivotal questions about the effectiveness of BRICS as a counterweight to Western dominance and the broader implications for Ukraine and its supporters navigating an increasingly multipolar world.

BRICS, an amalgam of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, represents an ambitious coalition with significant economic clout and political influence. However, the inherent diversity among its members complicates its ability to function as a cohesive force. In Kazan, these divergences were starkly evident. Despite Russia’s efforts to secure a definitive statement of support for its position on Ukraine, the final communiqué offered only a tepid acknowledgment of the situation, referencing national positions and reiterating the importance of the UN Charter.

This outcome highlights the paradox within BRICS: while it aspires to serve as a platform to challenge the Western-dominated global order, its members’ disparate priorities and regional tensions often hinder collective action. For Russia, the summit was an opportunity to consolidate support within the bloc and counter narratives of its diplomatic isolation. Yet, the muted response to its overtures reflected the broader challenges Moscow faces in leveraging BRICS as a strategic vehicle for its geopolitical ambitions.

The political heterogeneity within BRICS is both its strength and its weakness. While the bloc’s diversity underscores its potential to represent a wide array of global perspectives, it also renders consensus on contentious issues, such as the Ukraine conflict, exceedingly difficult. For instance, China and India—two of the bloc’s most influential members—are often at odds due to longstanding border disputes and competing strategic interests. Similarly, other member states, such as Brazil and South Africa, prioritize regional stability and economic development over engaging in polarizing geopolitical conflicts.

This lack of unanimity reflects deeper structural challenges. Unlike alliances such as NATO or the G7, BRICS lacks a unifying ideological or strategic framework. Instead, it is a coalition of convenience, where members pursue their individual agendas under the umbrella of multipolarity. The inability to align on Ukraine is symptomatic of these deeper fissures, highlighting the limitations of BRICS as a platform for unified action on global crises.  

For Russia, Ukraine remains an existential issue—both a cornerstone of its foreign policy and a litmus test for its global standing. Hosting the BRICS summit was an attempt to showcase its diplomatic relevance and to rally support against what it perceives as Western encroachment. However, the lack of a collective stance on Ukraine from the bloc underscored Moscow’s constrained influence even among its closest partners.

This diplomatic setback reveals a broader strategic dilemma for Russia. While it seeks to leverage platforms like BRICS to counterbalance Western pressure, its actions in Ukraine have alienated potential allies and reinforced its dependence on a limited circle of supportive states, such as Iran, North Korea, and Belarus. The failure to secure broader backing within BRICS reflects not only the bloc’s inherent divisions but also the global unease with Russia’s unilateral attempts to redraw internationally recognized borders.  

While BRICS struggles with internal discord, the Western alliance, too, faces challenges in maintaining a unified stance on Ukraine. The war’s protracted nature has exposed cracks within NATO and the European Union, with growing war fatigue among member states. In countries like Hungary and Slovakia, political leaders have openly questioned the value of continued support for Ukraine, advocating instead for negotiated settlements that could involve territorial concessions.

These divisions were evident at the NATO summit in Washington earlier this year, where hopes for a clear pathway to Ukrainian membership were dashed. The alliance’s cautious approach reflects both strategic considerations and internal disagreements, as member states grapple with the risks of escalating their involvement in the conflict.

The United States, a key player in the Western response, is also witnessing a polarized debate over its Ukraine policy. The approaches of newly elected president—Donald Trump’s advocacy for a negotiated settlement—highlight the complexity of sustaining a coherent foreign policy in the face of domestic political divisions.

For Ukraine, the fragmented international response presents a formidable challenge. While the recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity remains a cornerstone of international law, the practicalities of rallying consistent global backing are far more complex. The geopolitical realities of a multipolar world mean that many countries are reluctant to take definitive sides, prioritizing their national interests over principled alignments.

Countries like India and Brazil exemplify this pragmatic approach. Both nations have avoided taking overtly pro-Western or pro-Russian positions, instead focusing on economic opportunities and maintaining strategic autonomy. This balancing act reflects a broader global reluctance to become entangled in a conflict that has significant implications for energy security, trade, and regional stability.

The inability of BRICS to agree on Ukraine underscores the bloc’s limited capacity to address divisive global issues. While Russia and China may view BRICS as a platform to counter Western dominance, other members approach it as a complementary rather than alternative forum. For nations like India, Brazil, and South Africa, BRICS offers a means to diversify their diplomatic engagements without alienating Western partners.

This pragmatic approach limits the bloc’s effectiveness in addressing conflicts like Ukraine, where aligning diverse national interests is a Herculean task. It also highlights the limitations of multipolarity as a framework for global governance. While a multipolar world offers opportunities for greater inclusivity, it also complicates efforts to build consensus on critical issues, as nations prioritize their individual interests over collective action.

As Ukraine and its allies navigate this fragmented landscape, their success will depend on a combination of steadfast commitment and adaptive diplomacy. Building a resilient coalition requires engaging not only staunch supporters but also more neutral actors who may share an interest in upholding international norms. This approach necessitates a nuanced understanding of global dynamics and the ability to address the concerns of diverse stakeholders.

For Western allies, this means acknowledging the complexities of a multipolar world and tailoring their strategies to accommodate the varied priorities of non-aligned nations. Economic incentives, targeted diplomacy, and a focus on shared values could play a crucial role in broadening support for Ukraine.

The recent BRICS summit in Kazan offered a stark reminder of the challenges of achieving global unity in an era of multipolarity. While Russia’s efforts to rally support within BRICS fell short, the broader international response to Ukraine remains equally fragmented. For Ukraine and its allies, the road ahead will require not only sustained military and financial aid but also a deft diplomatic strategy to navigate the shifting geopolitical landscape. In a world where alliances are tested, and priorities diverge, maintaining a unified stance on Ukraine will demand creativity, pragmatism, and an unwavering commitment to the principles of sovereignty and international law. As the conflict continues to unfold, the ability to bridge divides and foster cooperation across a fragmented global order will be critical to shaping its ultimate resolution.