In a watershed moment for those espousing the idea of a world beyond Western dominance, their convictions found validation. The annual summit of the BRICS forum, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, convened in Johannesburg and resounded with news of a sweeping expansion. An invitation extended to six new members—Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—has set the stage for a transformative shift.

This array of nations, converging under the BRICS banner, is slated to hold greater collective economic clout. Their joint share of global GDP, based on purchasing power parity, surpasses that of the G-7 industrialized nations.

The origins of the term "BRICS" trace back to 2001, initially coined as "BRIC" by Jim O'Neill, a Goldman Sachs economist, in the influential report "Building Better Global Economic BRICs." The expansion's roots can be traced to December 2010, when South Africa was incorporated into the forum, reshaping the acronym. Notably, the BRICS states maintain no formal alliance; their inclusion primarily harks back to their appearance in a widely acclaimed Goldman Sachs report from over two decades ago.

With the recent surge in American interest rates and the consequential impact on international monetary conditions, coupled with Western sanctions in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine, global attention has pivoted to concerns about the extent of influence commanded by the United States and Europe within the global financial framework. This climate has spurred numerous emerging markets to explore alternative financial systems detached from Western influence.

Amid these dynamics, opinions on the expanded BRICS bloc diverge. Some hail it as a burgeoning powerhouse, while others harbor reservations. However, both perspectives are arguably premature. The expanded BRICS group is unlikely to upend the world's equilibrium, nor does it herald an imminent dawn of a post-Western global order. Assertions of BRICS' expansion as a triumph for China and Russia or a catalyst for a fresh Non-Aligned Movement are equally speculative, neglecting the complex internal dynamics and implications that the expansion entails.

Indeed, the clamor for BRICS membership by major nations has colored the analysis. Yet, the augmentation of member nations doesn't automatically confer potency upon BRICS. On the contrary, expansion could erode the cohesion that the group had painstakingly cultivated. Already, a closer examination of economic indicators reveals China and India overshadowing Russia, South Africa, and Brazil. In truth, China's predominance is unrivaled, contributing 72% of the bloc's GDP and 80% of its growth. The recent addition of members to the group will not move the needle much.

The significance of China within the global economic landscape is undeniable. However, embracing a course away from a Western-centric economy implies ceding power to China—a proposition that might not universally resonate within the BRICS alliance. The prominence of the US Dollar as a reserve currency is not due to coercion; rather, it stems from the fact that several major economies maintain persistent trade surpluses. In this context, the US plays a vital role in balancing the surpluses generated by other global economies by willingly generating deficits.

While China could theoretically purchase assets in other major economies like the EU and Japan, the prevalence of persistent surpluses among these economies along with most other advanced  non-anglophone economies constrains such endeavors. 

China's reluctance to surrender control over its administered economy is compounded by India's likely hesitance to relinquish power to China instead of the United States, given the current state of affairs. The simmering geopolitical rivalry between China and India casts a shadow over BRICS, hindering cohesive agenda-setting.

The inclusion of new members engenders fresh fault lines. Egypt and Ethiopia grapple over Nile waters, while Iran and Saudi Arabia remain regional adversaries despite a Beijing-facilitated reconciliation effort. These inherent divisions pose challenges to harnessing the collective economic might of BRICS as a potent political and economic entity on the global stage.

The notion of BRICS evolving into a new Non-Aligned Movement is not without merit, but for all the wrong reasons. The BRICS alliance will have difficulty translating rhetorical pronouncements into actionable outcomes. China's push for expansion might yield a grander platform, but it remains constrained by the presence of countries within the group that are still aligned with the United States.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE maintain close security ties with the US, making it improbable that they would forsake established security guarantees for untested Chinese assurances. Chinese President Xi Jinping's call for genuine multilateralism is challenged by the existing affiliations of BRICS members, such as India's participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the I2U2 forum. In Johannesburg, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi even called for "resilient and inclusive supply chains," an obvious euphemism for reducing economic dependence on China.

The BRICS expansion declaration might inadvertently convey a salient message: the West should not underestimate the global south. Wise Western decision-makers should abandon both disdainful disregard and condescending paternalism, as these attitudes impede effective engagement with the leaders of the global south. The most substantial challenges the modern West has faced from non-Western regions have emanated from the surge of nationalism in Asia and Africa. The West's ability to navigate decolonization and competition during the Cold War proved pivotal in regaining influence. However, these lessons appeared to wane after the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, replaced by dismissive attitudes toward the global south.

China and Russia adroitly seized this opportunity, capitalizing on anti-Western sentiment. The recent expansion of BRICS, though potentially lacking transformative impact, serves as a warning to the West to awaken from strategic complacency. The global south, with its manifold potential, remains a compelling force, ready to be engaged on renewed terms.