BRICS and Serbia: Geopolitical Strategy, Economic Realities, and the Limits of Alignment

BRICS is an economic alliance initially established in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The bloc represents a significant portion of the global population, with China and India accounting for the majority of its 3.27 billion people, making up 41.13% of the world’s population. The term "BRIC" was originally coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, then an economist at Goldman Sachs, who forecasted the growing economic influence of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

The group’s collaboration began in 2006 with informal meetings at the United Nations, culminating in the first official BRIC summit in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The summit emphasized the need for emerging economies to play a greater role in the global financial systems. South Africa was incorporated into the group in 2010, renaming the alliance as BRICS. The group operates on a consensus basis without a permanent secretariat, with annual summits hosted by each member in rotation. A notable achievement was the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2016, designed to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects across BRICS nations and other emerging economies.

After over a decade without expansion, BRICS broadened its membership at the 2023 Johannesburg summit, inviting Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, informally giving rise to BRICS+. Their membership officially commenced on January 1, 2024, while Saudi Arabia has yet to confirm its participation, and Argentina withdrew from its planned accession under its new leadership. Building on this wave of expansion, Indonesia officially joined BRICS on January 8, 2025, becoming the first Southeast Asian nation to be admitted as a full member of the bloc.

However, the BRICS nations are a highly heterogeneous group, lacking unity in ideology, geography, or culture, with their cooperation primarily rooted in opposition to Western dominance rather than shared values or goals. Economic divergence further highlights their disparities, as only China and India maintain high growth rates, while Brazil and South Africa face economic stagnation and Russia struggles with Western sanctions and limited growth prospects. These differences are compounded by significant variations in political systems, ranging from China’s one-party dictatorship to India’s multi-party democracy, which create contrasting domestic priorities and approaches to international collaboration. Additionally, regional tensions, particularly between China and India due to historical conflicts and competition for influence in Asia, weaken the group’s ability to present a united front. Although initiatives such as the New Development Bank demonstrate some level of economic cooperation, BRICS lacks the cohesive structure and shared goals of Western alliances like NATO or the EU, leaving its unity superficial and its future uncertain.

The 16th BRICS Summit, held in 2024 in Kazan, Russia, marked a landmark moment in the bloc’s evolution, demonstrating its growing geopolitical influence and evolving economic ambitions. As BRICS expands its membership and deepens cooperation, it signals an increasing shift away from a Western-dominated world order. The summit underscored two major themes: the realignment of global power dynamics and the pursuit of alternative economic mechanisms that challenge the hegemony of the U.S. and European financial systems.

Geopolitical Shifts: A Pluralistic Power Arrangement

The BRICS expansion aims to counter Western economic leadership but primarily advances China’s geopolitical ambitions. Beijing expands its influence under “Global South cooperation”, yet opaque trade practices and debt-trap diplomacy raise concerns. Russia and Iran, struggling under Western sanctions, see BRICS as a last resort, while India, the bloc’s only true democracy, remains wary of Chinese dominance, exposing BRICS’ internal contradictions.

Washington’s firm stance against de-dollarization protects global financial stability. Trump’s tariff threat reinforces the dollar’s dominance, while China’s controlled renminbi lacks trust. BRICS remains divided, with India and Brazil prioritizing U.S. trade ties over China’s agenda. As the U.S. leads global economic innovation, BRICS’ challenge appears fragile. Meanwhile, Russia’s summit hosting bolstered diplomatic resilience, attracting 30 delegations despite Western pressure. Russia strengthened trade and security ties with China, India, and Iran, while India promoted diplomacy on Ukraine but remains cautious of Sino-Russian dominance, maintaining a strategic balance between BRICS and the West.

Economic Impact: BRICS as a Challenge to Western Financial Dominance

The BRICS expansion strengthens its influence over global oil markets, with Iran and the UAE joining and Saudi Arabia considering membership. If Riyadh joins, BRICS would control 42% of the world’s oil supply, challenging the petrodollar system. However, efforts to trade in local currencies remain speculative, as the U.S. dollar’s dominance is backed by transparent institutions, strong regulations, and deep market liquidity—advantages BRICS lacks.

In finance, BRICS is developing alternative trade mechanisms, led by the New Development Bank (NDB) to counter Western institutions like the IMF and World Bank. However, internal divisions persist, with China, Russia, and Iran pushing de-dollarization, while India and Brazil prioritize Western trade ties. China’s opaque lending and economic dominance raise concerns that BRICS financial structures may serve Beijing’s interests rather than create a balanced alternative. With no enforcement mechanisms, conflicting priorities, and internal rivalries, BRICS’ challenge to the U.S.-led system remains aspirational, reinforcing Western economic leadership as the more stable global framework.

Serbia’s Attendance at the BRICS Summit: Strategic Diversification or Political Signaling?

Serbia’s decision to send a high-profile delegation to the BRICS summit in Kazan appears more performative than strategic, revealing the limited priority the Serbian administration places on the bloc. The absence of President Aleksandar Vučić from the summit underscores this, signaling a lack of serious commitment to BRICS as a cornerstone of Serbia’s foreign policy. Instead, the presence of Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, a known Russophile and vocal advocate for Serbian-Russian relations, highlights the delegation’s primary aim: showcasing symbolic alignment with Russia rather than advancing meaningful engagement with the BRICS agenda. Vulin’s participation seems more rooted in his ideological affinities than in advancing Serbia’s strategic interests. Vučić’s absence, meanwhile, is tied to his focus on solidifying Serbia’s path toward the European Union, as he prioritized engagements with key EU leaders, including Donald Tusk, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, and Ursula von der Leyen, reaffirming his pro-European commitment while being transparent about his decision to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

While BRICS may offer Serbia certain geopolitical and economic incentives, including greater access to non-Western markets, alternative financial mechanisms, and diplomatic backing on issues such as Kosovo, Serbia’s deep-rooted economic and political ties with the EU make a full-fledged pivot towards BRICS highly unlikely. Furthermore, Serbia’s governance structures, regulatory framework, and long-term aspirations align more closely with European standards than with the more state-controlled economic models prevalent in BRICS countries.

What BRICS Has to Offer Serbia

BRICS presents several potential benefits to Serbia, particularly in areas of economic cooperation, alternative financial institutions, and geopolitical positioning. These include:

1. Economic Diversification & Trade Expansion
   While China and Russia have become key economic partners for Serbia, particularly through infrastructure investments under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and energy cooperation, deeper engagement with BRICS nations presents significant risks. The U.S. sanctions on Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) highlight the potential consequences of Serbia’s close economic ties with Russia, forcing Belgrade to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape where Western economic leverage remains dominant. The roots of this predicament trace back to Russia’s acquisition of NIS in 2008, during which Gazprom Neft, a Russian state-controlled company, purchased a controlling 51% stake in Serbia’s largest oil company for a mere €400 million—an amount widely regarded as far below market value. This deal, heavily criticized within Serbia, was politically motivated and secured in exchange for Russian support over the Kosovo issue. However, it failed to deliver tangible benefits for Serbia, with profits largely flowing to Russian shareholders and little reinvestment into the local economy. The recently imposed U.S. sanctions on NIS, which demand a complete Russian divestment from Serbia’s largest oil company, pose a serious challenge for Belgrade. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić acknowledged the severity of the sanctions, stating that Serbia has just 45 days to restructure NIS's ownership and complete a financial transaction by mid-March.
   
   

2. Access to Non-Western Financial Institutions
   The New Development Bank (NDB), established by BRICS, provides an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. For Serbia, which has relied on EU loans and development funds, engaging with BRICS financial structures could serve as a hedge against potential Western economic pressures. However, BRICS financial structures remain untested for small economies like Serbia, and China’s dominance raises concerns about transparency and fairness.
   
   

3. Diplomatic Support on the Kosovo Issue
   Serbia has struggled with EU pressure to recognize Kosovo’s independence, a key condition for its accession to the European Union. In contrast, Russia and China have consistently backed Serbia’s stance on Kosovo. Strengthening ties with BRICS could offer diplomatic leverage in international forums like the UN Security Council. Yet, BRICS lacks a unified foreign policy, and the UAE and Egypt recognize Kosovo, limiting its effectiveness as a diplomatic ally.
   
   

4. Political Autonomy & Non-Conditional Engagement
   Unlike the EU accession process, which requires adherence to strict political and economic conditions, BRICS does not impose requirements related to human rights, democratic governance, or foreign policy alignment. Vulin and Republika Srpska’s leader Milorad Dodik have highlighted BRICS as a bloc that does not demand political reforms, sanctions compliance, or alignment with Western liberal values. However, lack of political standards risks aligning Serbia with authoritarian regimes, undermining its long-term European aspirations.

What BRICS Has to Offer Serbia

Despite these questionable benefits, Serbia remains structurally, institutionally, and economically aligned with the West, making a deep integration into BRICS impractical.

1. The EU is Serbia’s Largest Economic Partner
   Serbia’s economy is fundamentally intertwined with the EU. Between 2010 and 2022, more than 59% of Serbia’s foreign direct investment (FDI) came from EU countries. Germany alone accounts for €9 billion in trade with Serbia, nearly double that of any other trading partner. Serbia’s regulatory framework, business environment, and financial systems are built to align with EU standards, making integration with BRICS economies—which have vastly different regulatory models—a complex and inefficient proposition.
   
   

2. Serbia’s Institutional and Governance Models Follow Western Norms
   Although Serbia exhibits some authoritarian-leaning tendencies, its institutional, legal, and economic frameworks remain largely oriented toward European integration. The country has adopted numerous EU regulatory standards, particularly in areas such as trade, competition law, judicial reforms, and public administration, as part of its accession process. Serbia’s central bank policies, fiscal governance, and financial regulations also align with Western institutions like the European Central Bank and the IMF, reinforcing a market-based economic model that prioritizes transparency, private sector growth, and foreign investment stability. In contrast, BRICS operates as an amorphous bloc lacking a cohesive institutional framework or binding agreements, which often hampers its ability to implement unified policies or strategies.
   
   

3. Western Influence on Serbia’s Security and Defense Policy
   Despite its refusal to impose sanctions on Russia, Serbia maintains strong security ties with NATO through the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, a framework designed to enhance cooperation between NATO and non-member states. The Serbian military regularly participates in joint exercises with NATO forces, contributing to interoperability and regional security coordination. Additionally, Serbia's defense modernization and training efforts rely significantly on Western military cooperation, including partnerships with individual NATO member states.
   Notably, there are no military exercises conducted with Serbia's eastern partners, and the procurement of weapons from Russia has been effectively suspended, reflecting a shift in Serbia’s defense policy. This suspension is partly due to geopolitical pressures and Serbia’s desire to avoid further entanglement with Russian military infrastructure, which could complicate its relations with the EU and NATO. Rather than aligning with BRICS defense structures, which lack a formalized military alliance, Serbia continues to pursue a balanced approach, maintaining its military neutrality while deepening strategic security engagements with Western institutions. This approach underscores Serbia’s pragmatic balancing act, ensuring its defense priorities align more closely with its European trajectory.
   
   

4. Public Opinion and Political Balancing
   Serbian society remains divided on whether BRICS represents a viable alternative to the EU. While 42% of Serbians now view BRICS favorably, EU support remains a major political force. President Aleksandar Vučić has avoided directly endorsing BRICS, signaling a more cautious approach. His decision to decline Putin’s personal invitation to the summit highlights Serbia’s delicate balancing act between the East and the West.

Serbia's BRICS Engagement is Symbolic, Not Structural

Serbia’s attendance at the BRICS summit in Kazan is best understood as a strategic move to diversify diplomatic options, rather than a genuine shift away from the EU integration process. While BRICS might offer Serbia alternative economic ties, investment opportunities, and diplomatic support on Kosovo, Serbia’s economic realities, regulatory framework, and long-term political aspirations remain firmly anchored in the West.

The Serbian government appears to be pursuing a dual-track strategy: maintaining strong economic ties with the EU while leveraging BRICS as an additional diplomatic tool. However, Serbia’s economic model, institutional alignment, and security cooperation are fundamentally more Western-oriented. Even as some Serbian politicians, like Vulin and Dodik, advocate for a BRICS alternative, Serbia’s economy and governance structures make a full pivot to the BRICS model neither feasible nor desirable.

Ultimately, Serbia cannot afford to abandon its European path. The government’s exploration of BRICS cooperation is more about securing diplomatic flexibility than a serious economic realignment. While Serbia may seek "partner status" within BRICS, as suggested by Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, full membership is unlikely, as Serbia’s strategic interests, economic dependencies, and political trajectory remain firmly tied to the West.

Date: January 24th 2025

Аuthors:
Vuk Velebit, Pupin Initiative
Aleksa Jovanović, Pupin Initiative