Two Global Orders: Comparing USA Vs BRICS
Overview
The geopolitical landscape in 2025 reads like a ledger being rewritten in real time. On one side stands the United States, a single polity with unrivalled military reach, financial-market depth, and a still-dominant reserve currency. On the other side is BRICS, originally a shorthand for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. A group of fast emerging countries and potential challengers to America’s dominance.
It has since become an expanding coalition that combines demographic mass, rapid economic dynamism, and a deliberate push to rewire global governance. This article by Academic Block compares the two orders, “USA and BRICS,” across economic scale, demographics, military capacity, and financial leverage. It shows why the rivalry is less a binary clash and more an uneven competition of institutions, norms, and instruments.
BRICS: Origin and Expansion
BRICS is an international alliance of countries co-founded by Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2006. Later, South Africa joined in 2010. It promotes multilateralism, economic cooperation, and reform of Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank. BRICS expanded significantly in 2024-2025, adding new full members (e.g. Egypt, UAE, Indonesia) and numerous partner countries.
From formation to the 2025 Rio summit
This timeline traces BRICS evolution from its 2001 origin to the 2025 Rio Summit, highlighting milestones shaping global economic power.
What role GDP and Military Personnel playing in US Vs BRICS?
United States (IMF, 2025): Nominal GDP: $30.51 trillion; Population: 342.37 million.
BRICS Countries (IMF, 2025): Nominal GDP: ≈ $30.82 trillion; Population: ≈ 3900 million.
These hardline facts matter because they reveal a paradox. On a GDP basis, the BRICS bloc (included new members) slightly exceeds U.S. output, highlighting the scale of their rise. In military personnel, BRICS collectively outnumbers the United States, showcasing manpower advantage despite America’s superior defense spending and technological edge.
Comparative Table: USA Vs BRICS
Looking at the below comparison image between the USA and BRICS, it’s clear how differently power is distributed. BRICS has an enormous young population advantage of nearly 3900 million (Avg. Age: 32) compared to just 342 million in the U.S. (Avg. Age: 39), which naturally gives them far larger military personnel. Over 12 million against America’s 2.1 million.
Yet, despite this scale, the U.S. still manages to nearly match BRICS in GDP, with both hovering around $30 trillion. What really stands out is military spending, America spends $997 billion, exceeding BRICS’ combined $610 billion. This reflects the U.S.’s focus on current technological and strategic dominance, however BRICS is also catching up. It feels like a contest of quality and quantity in both economics and defense.
The two tables below highlights a side-by-side look at BRICS and the USA, showing how they differ in population, economic strength, military power, and different parameters. It gives a quick snapshot of where each side stands today.
What exactly is “BRICS” now and why it matters?
It should be noted that numbers matter, but structure matters more. The U.S. current advantage is concentrated: one polity, a unified fiscal and monetary system, the Federal Reserve, capital markets, and global soft-power reach. The dollar’s dominant share of official forex reserves roughly 58% by 2024 is the cleanest example of that network advantage. It reduces transaction costs for U.S. commerce and underwrites the global liquidity the world relies on.
BRICS, by contrast, is a coalition of sovereignties with divergent interests. China contributes most of the economic heft; India brings scale and growth momentum. Russia brings raw power in energy and arms; Brazil and South Africa anchor the bloc in Latin America and Africa respectively. That means BRICS is powerful in aggregate, especially demographically and in raw production capacity. The 2023-25 expansion of BRICS to include additional partners has increased its footprint, but not its institutional coherence.
What the above numbers mean and what don’t, USA Vs BRICS?
1. Economic mass is shifting but capability remains uneven
BRICS’s enlarged bloc now slightly surpasses the U.S. in nominal GDP, driven by China’s scale and India’s rapid growth. Yet, per-capita GDP, financial sophistication, and technological infrastructure remain strongly concentrated in the United States and other advanced economies. Thus, BRICS’s sheer scale grants bargaining power, but lacks equivalent structural control over global finance, institutions, or military reach.
2. Dollars and institutions still anchor rules of the road
The U.S. enjoys an unmatched institutional endowment. The dollar, deep capital markets, a massive Treasury market, and global institutions like the IMF and World Bank. This gives financial leverage and lower transaction costs while commanding approximately 57-58% of global FX reserves. BRICS has promoted de-dollarisation through swap lines, payment systems, and local-currency mechanisms, but progress remains slow and costly.
However, influence of BRICS under dominance of dollar is clearly visible. In the year 2006 when BRICS was formed total global holding of the US dollar was 78% which now is reduce to 57.8%. This considerable drop of 20% is a serious cause of worry for United States, as it highlight the potential capabilities of the BRICS.
3. The finance game: reserves, payments and sanctions
On one hand the current U.S. dollar strength , underpins cross-border settlement, enabling sanctions leverage and financial incentives. On other hand, BRICS states pursue de-dollarization through local-currency trade, BRICS Pay, and alternative institutions like NDB and CRA. Yet, establishing a alternate credible reserve-currency requires deep market liquidity, trusted legal frameworks, international allies, and seamless payment infrastructure. It may take BRICS atleast a decade to achieve this task.
4. Trade networks and supply-chain leverage are BRICS’ strongest cards
BRICS’s strategic strength stems from diversified economic specializations. China in manufacturing, India in services, Brazil and Russia in commodities, UAE in energy finance. Intra-BRICS trade and investment corridors have expanded significantly rising over 9% annually, with intra-bloc trade nearing $700 billion in 2024. This integration enables coordinated strategies to mitigate sanctions, tariffs, and supply-chain disruptions across the bloc.
5. Political cohesion, not size, will decide whether BRICS acts as a single “order”
BRICS is a coalition, not a single state. Its members hold divergent strategic agendas. China’s technological and regional security, Russia’s geopolitical ambitions, India’s strategic autonomy needs, and Gulf states balancing Western ties, this heterogeneity complicates policy coordination. It makes deep integration in currency, defense, or sanctions problematic. While expansion bolsters BRICS’ diplomatic heft, it presents challenges like internal fragmentation.
Methodology used in showing comparison between USA Vs. BRICS
We have collected the data from (1) International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook (April 2025 dataset) and (2) country pages for nominal GDP and population figures. The data covers the United States and each BRICS member cited above. We also referenced (3) SIPRI for 2024 military-expenditure statistics.
For foreign exchange reserves, We relied on the (4) IMF’s COFER brief, which tracks the currency composition of official global reserve holdings worldwide. Each country figure is drawn from its IMF profile or the WEO dataset. These sources are considers as authoritative and consistent.
Web Resources on the USA Vs. BRICS
1. IMF.org: GDP by Countries
2. IMF.Org: Population of United States and BRICS
3. SIPRI.org: Military Spending
4. IMF COFER: Official Foreign Exchange Reserves by Currency
Final Words
The U.S. vs BRICS contest in 2025 underscores a transforming global order. America retains dominance through military power, deep financial markets, and the dollar’s reserve currency role, while BRICS leverages demographic scale, GDP growth, and trade networks. De-dollarization debates, gold accumulation, and local-currency trade highlight an emerging multipolar economy.
Yet, structural cohesion remains BRICS’s challenge. The rivalry is not absolute displacement but a gradual power shift, reshaping global geopolitics, finance, and the balance between unipolar and multipolar worlds. Please share your thoughts below in the comment section and help us to make this article better. Thank you for reading!
Questions and answers related to Comparing USA and BRICS:
A BRICS currency could, in time, reduce some bilateral dollar invoicing and payment demand; however, its impact would depend on convertibility, liquidity, and trust. Consequently, short-term disruption is likely limited. Over years, widespread adoption of a credible BRICS unit could lower marginal dollar use, yet only if backed by deep markets and policy coordination.
BRICS increases economic heft, yet it is not an immediate existential threat to the dollar. Rather, it presents a strategic challenge through alternatives (local trading, payment rails). In short, the dollar remains dominant because of deep capital markets, liquidity and institutions, although BRICS initiatives gradually erode exclusivity if sustained policy and market reforms continue.
Measured in nominal terms, the core BRICS group accounts for roughly US$28 trillion, versus the United States at about US$30.3–30.4 trillion (2025 estimates). Conversely, on a PPP basis the expanded BRICS bloc represents a far larger share (circa 40% of global PPP output), underscoring scale but also structural heterogeneity across members.
BRICS matters because it aggregates demographic weight, raw materials and fast-growing markets, thereby offering alternative governance and finance pathways. Moreover, it advances instruments swap lines, BRICS Pay and the New Development Bank—that diversify global economic architecture, encouraging multipolarity and providing options for states seeking to reduce reliance on Western institutions.
As of mid-2025 there is no official launch date for a single BRICS currency. Instead, leaders emphasize incremental steps: local-currency settlements, BRICS Pay and technical studies. So any unified currency would likely require years of design, agreement and market development before release. Therefore, a near-term launch is not confirmed.
De-dollarization describes the deliberate shift from dollar-dominated invoicing, reserves and payments toward national currencies and regional systems. For BRICS this means bilateral local-currency trade, expanded swap lines, BRICS Pay and greater use of the yuan, rupee or others. Thereby reducing transaction costs and exposure to dollar-based sanctions, although full replacement remains a long-term objective.
If the dollar lost reserve status, the U.S. would likely face higher borrowing costs, reduced seigniorage, and greater exchange-rate volatility. Consequently, global refinancing costs could rise, and financial markets would reprice assets; however, a disorderly shift is unlikely transitions typically unfold over many years as alternatives develop, and markets reallocate gradually.
Notably, Russia, China and India have actively reduced dollar reliance, while Brazil and several Gulf states explore alternatives. Consequently, many emerging-market central banks diversify reserves, expand local-currency settlement, and pilot new payment rails. Overall, these steps accelerate a gradual shift away from exclusive dollar invoicing but do not yet displace the dollar’s central role.
De-dollarization contributes to multipolarity by enabling alternative settlement systems and regional financial hubs. Therefore, power shifts arise as countries diversify trade invoicing and strengthen regional ties; however, because the dollar remains deep and liquid, change will be incremental rather than immediate, giving rise to a more fragmented but competitive international monetary architecture.
If de-dollarization advances, expect higher FX diversification, more local-currency invoicing, and parallel payment rails, so transaction costs and short-term volatility could rise. Over time, US seigniorage and monetary leverage would shrink modestly, while alternative currency networks and digital-payment solutions gain prominence, reshaping finance without an immediate collapse of dollar dominance.
Using IMF 2025 estimates, the United States’ nominal GDP is roughly $30.5 trillion. By contrast, the original five BRICS economies (China ~$19.23T, India ~$4.19T, Brazil ~$2.13T, Russia ~$2.08T, South Africa ~$0.41T) combined total about $28.0 trillion. Thus, the US remains slightly larger in nominal terms, although BRICS lead in population and growing share of world GDP.
Recently, US imports have driven global trade growth, while BRICS members expanded intra-regional trade. Consequently, South-South flows are rising in some regions, yet overall North-South trade remains significant. Tariffs and policy uncertainty create headwinds, so trade patterns are diversifying: services and regional value chains are increasingly important for BRICS growth versus US import-led demand.
Not yet. Although BRICS’ aggregate economic weight has grown and membership expanded, the US retains decisive advantages: capital-market depth, reserve-currency status, technological leadership and military reach. Therefore, BRICS influence is rising and will reshape choices for other states, but it does not currently supplant US dominance across financial and high-technology markets.
China is the BRICS growth engine and strategic driver for financial alternatives to the dollar. Accordingly, Beijing pushes RMB internationalisation, pilots the digital yuan, and explores yuan-linked payment solutions (including regulated stablecoin concepts), thereby raising the costs and complexity of dollar-centric systems while expanding China’s economic leverage across Asia and Africa.
Rivalry will fragment governance: expect competing institutions, alternative payment rails, and divergent regulatory standards. Consequently, multilateral decision-making will become more contested, increasing transactional bargaining and regional blocs’ influence. Yet, practical cooperation will persist on climate, health and trade where mutual interests require coordination, albeit under more competitive conditions.