No mention of Ukraine conflict in New Delhi BRICS declaration, break from earlier joint statements
The New Delhi Declaration, adopted at the 18th BRICS Summit (12 September 2026), contains no reference to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, despite the war entering its fifth year.
This breaks from the 2025 Rio de Janeiro declaration, which had included language welcoming "relevant proposals of mediation and good offices" for a peaceful resolution "through dialogue and diplomacy," and from the 2024 Kazan declaration (issued under Russia's own BRICS chairship), which had also referenced the conflict.
The 2026 declaration instead runs to 15 paragraphs covering other conflicts and geopolitical flashpoints — including Palestine, West Asia broadly, Syria, Sudan, and the economic blockade on Cuba — while staying silent specifically on Ukraine.
India's BRICS Sherpa, Sudhakar Dalela, said the declaration's approach emphasises "dialogue and diplomacy as a guiding parameter" for addressing global tensions generally, rather than naming individual conflicts, but declined to comment on why Ukraine specifically was left out.
Joint Declarations: Consensus Documents, Not Treaties
A "joint declaration" or "leaders' declaration" issued at a multilateral summit is a politically negotiated statement of shared positions — it is not a legally binding treaty (which requires ratification and creates enforceable obligations) nor an MoU (a narrower bilateral/limited-scope administrative understanding). BRICS declarations are adopted by consensus, meaning every one of the 11 members must agree to every line; the absence of language on a topic often reflects a specific member's objection rather than the majority's silence.
Key Details
- Consensus-based drafting means silence on a topic (like Ukraine in 2026) is itself a negotiated outcome, distinguishable from oversight — likely resulting from an inability to reconcile Russia's position with other members' preferences, since Russia is both a founding member and a party to the conflict.
- This differs from a UN General Assembly resolution, which is adopted by majority vote and can record dissenting or abstaining states individually — BRICS has no comparable voting or abstention mechanism.
- The BRICS Sherpa system (senior diplomats appointed by each government) conducts the actual line-by-line negotiation before leaders adopt the final text; sherpas negotiated the 2026 text for over four days before the summit.
The Ukraine omission illustrates how consensus-based multilateral texts can go silent on major global events when a member state is a direct party to the conflict — contrasted with West Asia language in the same declaration, where no BRICS member is itself a direct combatant.
India's Diplomatic Balancing and Strategic Autonomy
India has historically pursued "strategic autonomy" — maintaining independent relationships with competing power blocs rather than aligning fully with any one — visible in its simultaneous membership of BRICS (with Russia and China) and the Quad (with the US, Japan, Australia), and its continued purchase of discounted Russian oil despite Western sanctions pressure.
Key Details
- During India's G20 presidency in 2023, India brokered the "New Delhi Leaders' Declaration," which secured consensus language referencing the Ukraine war acceptable to both Western nations and Russia — a widely cited example of India's convening diplomacy.
- India abstained (rather than voting for or against) on most UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions explicitly condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine since February 2022.
- Bilateral mechanisms (such as the India-Russia annual summit, held on the margins of BRICS 2026) operate independently of multilateral consensus documents, allowing India to manage the relationship separately from what BRICS as a bloc says.
The contrast between India's 2023 G20 success in securing Ukraine-related consensus language and the 2026 BRICS text's total silence on the same conflict highlights that consensus outcomes depend heavily on the specific composition and interests of the negotiating group, not just India's own diplomatic effort.
Geopolitical Alignment Within BRICS
BRICS combines states with divergent and sometimes conflicting foreign-policy alignments — Russia and Iran face Western sanctions, India maintains close Western partnerships alongside its BRICS and SCO memberships, and China's position on Ukraine emphasises "no-limits" partnership rhetoric with Russia while officially calling for peace talks.
Key Details
- This internal divergence is why BRICS statements on Ukraine have varied summit to summit depending on the chair country and prevailing diplomatic climate (Russia's 2024 Kazan chairship naturally featured Ukraine language favourable to Moscow's framing).
- By contrast, BRICS members broadly converge on criticising Western/Israeli actions in West Asia and support for Palestinian self-determination, explaining why that section of the 2026 declaration is comparatively more detailed (15 paragraphs on conflicts overall, with West Asia prominent).
- The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a separate Eurasian security-economic grouping (est. 2001) where India, Russia, and China also sit together, offering a comparative case of similar consensus dynamics on Ukraine language.
The Ukraine silence, set against detailed language on Palestine/West Asia/Syria/Sudan/Cuba, reflects where genuine consensus exists among the 11 members and where it does not — a useful illustration for GS2 answers on multilateral diplomacy and consensus-building.
- New Delhi Declaration (2026): 15 paragraphs on global conflicts; zero mention of Russia-Ukraine.
- 2025 Rio de Janeiro declaration: included language on mediation/good offices for Ukraine.
- 2024 Kazan declaration (Russia's BRICS chairship): also referenced the Ukraine conflict.
- Russia-Ukraine war began February 2022 — in its fifth year as of the 2026 summit.
- India's 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders' Declaration is the benchmark precedent for India brokering Ukraine-related consensus language among divided parties.