As BRICS expands and strengthens, it is becoming a centre of attraction for an increasing number of countries whose goal is not to win the technological race at any cost, but to participate in defining its rules. However, progress remains fragmented and under-institutionalised, writes Anna Sytnik.
The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and the transformation of the global order have converged on a single point: the strengthening of BRICS’s role as a key platform for the formation of a digital-focused “belt of institutions” and the establishment of future rules for global AI regulation. For BRICS, strengthening cooperation in this area is not so much a matter of innovation as it is a challenge of enhancing strategic resilience in the face of the AI race. For a significant group of countries outside BRICS, it could become a tool for geopolitical insurance against the consequences of uncontrolled and unipolar technological development.
The unpredictability of American commitments and pressure in the technological sector have pushed many countries of the World Majority toward a strategy of multi-alignment. A striking example is India, which is striving to deepen cooperation within BRICS while working to maintain compatibility with Western norms. The country will not only chair BRICS in the summer of 2026 but also host the global AI Impact Summit in February.
BRICS cooperation in the AI field has demonstrated significant progress in recent years. Consensus has been reached on AI development, ethics, and security, enshrined in joint declarations and recommendations. A network of multilateral and bilateral mechanisms has been established, covering education, applied technologies, and digital infrastructure.
A landmark milestone was the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Summit in July 2025, the first global attempt to address AI governance at the intergovernmental level. Unlike previous international declarations in the field of AI, which were initiated primarily by Western countries and covered only part of the global community, this document defines universal, equitable foundations for a future system of international rules and institutions in the AI area. This is an attempt to create a regulatory framework in which the interests of most states – not just technology leaders – will be taken into account from the outset.
In recent years, an entire network of structures has been established to support BRICS cooperation in the AI field, from the BRICS Institute for Future Networks (BIFN) and the Partnership for the New Industrial Revolution (PartNIR) to ad hoc groups on the digital economy and AI, the Russia-initiated BRICS+ AI Alliance, and the BRICS-China AI Development and Cooperation Centre. However, institutional development faces significant challenges: a lack of transparency and duplication of initiatives. Many BRICS structures operate in a disjointed manner – websites are not updated, and the mandates of different working groups overlap. This is largely due to the fact that BRICS is not an integration bloc with a single command centre, but a platform for coordinating the efforts of sovereign states.
Another challenge is the uneven development of AI within the BRICS countries. China accounts for over 86% of the generative AI impact, while India, Brazil, and Russia together account for approximately 12%, and the other BRICS countries together account for only 2%. Therefore, for unification, it is especially important now to systematically expand the network of joint research centres, scale up technology and talent exchange programs, and invest in infrastructure and local AI projects in less developed member states.
The national AI strategies of BRICS countries demonstrate both convergence and divergence in priorities. All members, except Ethiopia, which has only a national AI policy, have adopted such strategies. They are focused on five key priorities: the development of common ethical principles and standards, the development of solutions for healthcare and medicine, the application of AI in agriculture and environmental monitoring, the transformation of education and the development of digital era skills, and strengthening cybersecurity and data protection. This dual foundation – systemic regulation and industry-specific applications – provides both the normative framework and practical channels for building a more coherent, multipolar global AI governance architecture.
The rise of BRICS as an alternative centre for AI policymaking has naturally led to increased countermeasures from the West, which perceives this as a direct challenge to its interests and a claim to technological dominance. In response, a comprehensive strategy based on three pillars has been formulated.
First, a policy of technological containment is being implemented against BRICS countries, with export restrictions as a key tool. The US and EU are consistently blocking BRICS countries (China, Russia, and Iran) from accessing advanced GPUs and semiconductors needed to train AI models. This policy is intended to push India and Brazil toward closer cooperation with the US, while China and Russia are intended to be locked into their own ecosystems. As a result, BRICS countries are forced to accelerate local production or seek parallel supply chains, making projects more costly and slower to implement.
Second, media and political pressure is being exerted on the World Majority countries outside BRICS. Western media often labels BRICS initiatives as “authoritarian” or “repressive,” which is intended to undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of potential partners.
Third, competing platforms are being created to promote their own AI alliances and initiatives. For example, Meta (banned in Russia) and IBM launched the AI Alliance, which unites 140 organisations from 23 countries and is positioned as a “democratic” counterweight to BRICS+. The OpenAI for Countries program is active in several states and is promoted as a structured mechanism to assist governments in using AI for development, offering specific solutions for the adoption of technology. At the same time, major American corporations (AWS, Google, Microsoft) are investing billions in data centres in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, displacing Russian and Chinese projects. This is especially critical for countries wavering between BRICS and Western partnerships.
Despite active resistance to the formation of more equitable approaches to AI development, BRICS is not responding to confrontation with confrontation.
On November 3, during the 30th meeting of the prime ministers of Russia and China, the parties agreed to establish a Joint Expert Council on AI Cooperation. The new body will coordinate research, standards, and joint technology initiatives. Moscow and Beijing also confirmed their readiness to work together to establish a Global Organisation for AI Cooperation – potentially the first global structure of its kind aimed at shaping an international AI regulatory regime. This initiative reflects both countries’ commitment to an approach based on the central role of the UN, inclusiveness, and respect for sovereignty.
It is important that BRICS is moving on from declarations to concrete projects. On November 20, on the side-lines of the AI Journey conference, the AI Success Hub, an international platform for AI application cases in BRICS+ countries and partners, was announced. Currently, it presents nearly 80 AI implementation cases from around 30 BRICS+ and partner countries.
As BRICS expands and strengthens, it is becoming a centre of attraction for an increasing number of countries whose goal is not to win the technological race at any cost, but to participate in defining its rules. However, progress remains fragmented and under-institutionalised. Looking ahead, BRICS needs to move from disparate initiatives to sustainable institutions that ensure policy coordination, data sharing, and collective risk management. Moreover, the group already has the foundation for creating a common AI governance centre that will unite regulatory, expert, and applied areas.
