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.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
