Divide and Rule: Washington’s New Playbook Against BRICS
The U.S. once ignored the BRICS. Now, it fears them.
The world is shifting. BRICS — the coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — has evolved from a loose economic club into a geopolitical force. Together, these nations represent nearly half of the world’s population and more than 40 percent of global GDP. In sheer demographic and economic weight, the BRICS are now more diverse and representative than the G7.
What began as an economic partnership of emerging markets is now being described in Washington as something far more threatening: a challenge to the U.S.-led world order. Policymakers in D.C. are already thinking out loud: If you can’t beat BRICS… divide it.
The Trump administration has already started to implement this approach by imposing sanctions on Russia’s energy exports and pressuring both New Delhi and Beijing to cut Russia off completely.
From Cooperation to Containment
By its own definition, the BRICS bloc is not anti-American. It doesn’t seek confrontation. Its ethos is pro-sovereignty and pro-equality — a framework for what many call a post-Western order. Unlike the Cold War blocs defined by opposition, BRICS promotes cooperation, mutual respect, and the political and economic independence of the Global South — nations that have historically been on the receiving end of Western dominance.
But now, Washington seems determined to frame BRICS as a new geopolitical adversary. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, former McCain adviser Richard Fontaine and strategist Gibbs McKinley outlined what they call America’s new strategy: “break BRICS into two camps.” Translation: divide and rule.
The New Cold War Logic
The authors warn that BRICS could soon become a fully anti-Western bloc — one dominated by China and Russia. Unless the United States acts quickly, they say, Washington will “pay for this realignment in the long term.”
Here’s the thinking: China and Russia are beyond reach — firmly opposed to Washington’s worldview. Brazil, India, and South Africa, however, remain “winnable.”
So the plan is to pull those three away — not through open hostility, but through strategic leverage. For example, with Brazil, offer trade deals and rare earth partnerships to counterbalance China’s influence. With India, quietly nurture its rivalry with Beijing to keep it aligned with the West. With South Africa, support its regional ambitions in Africa to weaken its BRICS loyalty.
“It is in the United States’ interests to see the BRICS divided between two factions: one that includes China and Russia, which oppose the United States, and the other composed of Brazil, India, and South Africa, which are not automatically at odds with Washington. When the BRICS is polarized, it is less likely to oppose the United States’ interests. But if the former faction takes hold, American power will suffer.”
It’s 21st-century geopolitics, powered by 19th-century thinking. The old colonial instinct — divide, isolate, and control — lives on.
Why Washington Is Worried
If BRICS stays united, it could do what Washington fears most: de-dollarize the global economy:
“The BRICS, for example, might lead a coordinated effort to de-dollarize trade and create alternative payment systems that erode the global dominance of the U.S. economic system, weakening a key pillar of American clout and the effectiveness of Washington’s sanctions. If the BRICS collectively invests more in alternative institutions, including its New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement, existing U.S.- and European-led financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, might lose their influence. China and Russia will also gain more opportunities to expand their spheres of influence in the global South, putting U.S. interests in these regions at greater risk.”
A coordinated effort to trade in local currencies, build new payment systems, and strengthen BRICS institutions like the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement could gradually erode the dominance of the dollar — the foundation of U.S. global influence. Needless to say, it likely won’t happen overnight since the share of non-dollar-denominated trade, investments, and transactions is still relatively low, but it has certainly been on the rise. For example, Indonesia just issued its first Yuan-denominated Dim Sum Bonds worth $842 million (6 billion Yuan), a move that enables Jakarta to diversify its financing sources. According to a Finance Ministry statement, the bonds received total orders of up to 18 billion yuan, or three times the issuance amount, reflecting strong investor interest.
Without dollar supremacy, Washington’s most powerful tools — sanctions and financial coercion — lose their edge. Even the IMF’s reach could weaken, making it harder for the U.S. and Europe to dictate economic rules. That’s the nightmare scenario driving America’s new strategy.
Why It Probably Won’t Work
But there’s one problem: the world has seen this playbook before. America’s recent wave of protectionism, sanctions, and tariff wars has only pushed nations closer together, not apart. Competent diplomacy cannot be reduced to coercion. But that’s not a fashionable view in the current capital.
Rather than deterring cooperation, U.S. economic coercion has accelerated South-South trade and infrastructure investment across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Even countries outside the bloc are lining up to join or partner with BRICS. The Global South has learned that dependency comes with strings attached.
Even Fontaine and McKinley admit their divide-and-rule strategy might not succeed. But that won’t stop Washington from trying — because a fractured BRICS is far less dangerous than a united one.
The fight over BRICS isn’t just about alliances or influence. It’s about who writes the rules of the next global financial order. Will the Global South continue to play by Washington’s rules — or finally write its own?
Thank you for being a part of this community! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to continue supporting my work.
There is no longer an doubt that the U.S. hegemony is fading quickly, especially under Trump. I'm more concerned about how this will effect the regular people just trying to survive another day with food, clean water and a place to live. Those basic necessities are starting to go away for more and more people and hungry people become angry people pretty quickly.
An article written by a former John McCain advisor (warmonger) who wants the US to try to control every country everywhere. One day we will receive our well-deserved blow-back and unfortunately every American will pay a price for Washington's folly.