In a decisive turn toward pragmatic great-power diplomacy, the Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy introduces the “Core-5” (C5) concept—a proposed forum bringing together the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan to shape global stability. The idea reflects a shift toward a modern great-power concert, signalling a move away from ideology-driven alliances toward a post-ideological order anchored in national interests.
By Subhash Dhuliya
This reorientation unfolds against a changing economic backdrop. While the G7’s share of global GDP (PPP) has declined to roughly 28–30 percent, an expanded BRICS now accounts for more than 40 percent. The imbalance underscores a broader transition in global governance: traditional post-World War II coalitions rooted in democratic idealism are giving way to interest-based cooperation among the world’s most powerful and populous states.
Geopolitics Rewritten: Pragmatism Replaces Value-Based Politics
In this emerging landscape, raw national pragmatism increasingly eclipses value-based diplomacy. Major powers are prioritising transactional stability over ideological alignment, seeking flexible arrangements that reflect shifting power realities rather than inherited alliances. The Core-5 concept thus captures a world in which strategic weight, not shared values, is becoming the primary currency of global order.
The Core-5 grouping is proposed as a mechanism for major powers to collaboratively address global challenges, marking a potential departure from traditional post-World War II alliances. The NSS, both in its public and reportedly longer, classified versions, emphasizes “Peace Through Strength” and prioritizes core American interests like economic prosperity and military deterrence. At its heart, Core-5 reflects a pragmatic realignment, where ideological divides give way to national interests in a multipolar world.
Understanding the Core-5 in the US NSS
The Core-5 idea, detailed in the extended NSS draft, envisions these five nations—representing the world’s largest economies and military powers—as a de facto steering committee for global governance. Unlike ideological blocs like NATO or the G7, which are rooted in liberal democratic values and Western solidarity, Core-5 prioritizes practical cooperation on issues such as Middle East security, trade disputes, and great-power competition. The US, as the architect, positions itself at the center, leveraging its technological and military edge to mediate among rivals like China and Russia.
This concept builds on Trump’s “America First” doctrine, focusing on threats like migration, drugs, and Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere. For India, inclusion in Core-5 elevates its role, offering a platform to balance against China while pursuing economic gains. Japan, a traditional US ally, gains from enhanced security ties amid regional tensions. Russia and China, often adversaries in US strategy, are included to foster dialogue, potentially de-escalating conflicts like Ukraine or Taiwan.
“The Core-5 proposal reflects a non-ideological worldview, prioritizing spheres of influence and deal-making with strong leaders over value-based alliances—a stark departure that could redefine global governance by sidelining Europe and embracing rivals like China and Russia.”- Torrey Taussig, former NSC Director for European Affairs
Critics argue Core-5 undermines Europe’s influence, as the NSS calls for “Make Europe Great Again” but excludes EU powers from the group. This exclusion highlights a shift: the US no longer sees post-WWII transatlantic bonds as sacrosanct, instead favoring a concert of powers reminiscent of 19th-century diplomacy. The strategy’s emphasis on “strength as the best deterrent” underscores a realist approach, where alliances are fluid and interest-driven rather than value-based.
The Future of the G7: Economic Decline Amid BRICS’ Ascendancy
The G7—comprising the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK—has long symbolized Western economic hegemony, but its global GDP share has eroded to approximately 30% in 2025, down from over 60% two decades ago. Using purchasing power parity (PPP), this figure stands at about 28.4%, reflecting slower growth in mature economies. In nominal terms, it’s around 25.5%, with the US dominating the bloc’s output. Stagnant growth, averaging 1.2% in 2025, stems from aging populations, high debt, and deindustrialization.
In contrast, BRICS—now expanded to include Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, UAE, and partners like Vietnam—commands 41% of global GDP in PPP terms, surpassing the G7. With a 2025 growth rate of 3.4%, driven by China’s 4.2% and India’s 6.2%, BRICS accounts for 39.5-44% of world output, representing 56% of the global population. This shift is fueled by emerging markets’ industrialization, commodity exports, and intra-bloc trade, which reached $5.9 trillion in 2024.
The future portends further G7 marginalization. Projections show BRICS+ GDP eclipsing the G7 by 2026, with members like Ethiopia (7.1% growth) and Indonesia outpacing G7 laggards like Japan (0.1%). BRICS’ emphasis on renewable energy and infrastructure contrasts with G7’s focus on services and finance, potentially widening the gap. However, challenges persist: BRICS’ per capita GDP ($8,200) lags far behind the G7’s ($53,000), and internal divisions—e.g., India-China border tensions—could hinder cohesion. The G7 retains advantages in innovation, inward investment (31% global share), and exports (26.7%), but protectionism within BRICS may erode these.
“With BRICS+ projected to represent 41% of global GDP (PPP) in 2025 against the G7’s declining 28%, economic power is shifting decisively toward emerging multipolar players, forcing Western institutions to adapt or risk irrelevance in a world driven by population, growth, and hard power.” -IMF World Economic Outlook Analysis, 2025
As BRICS expands, it positions itself as a counterweight to G7 dominance, advocating for multipolarity and de-dollarization. Yet, the G7’s institutional maturity and allied military spending could sustain its relevance in security domains, even as economic influence wanes.
Core-5 as a Harbinger of a Post-Ideological Era
The Core-5 concept raises a pivotal question: Does it signify the world’s transition to a post-ideological era, where pragmatism and national interests eclipse idealism? Post-WWII order was ideologically bifurcated—liberal democracy versus communism—manifesting in alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Today, as Trump’s NSS illustrates, ideology is deprioritized; the inclusion of authoritarian states like China and Russia in Core-5 prioritizes power balances over values.
This shift aligns with realist theory, where national interest—defined by survival and power—guides policy. In a multipolar world, states engage pragmatically, as seen in Russia’s outreach to the Global South or US deals with autocracies. Soft power evolves from value promotion to harnessing dissatisfaction with liberal orders, favoring transactional diplomacy. Critics of “post-politics” argue this erodes ideological diversity, but evidence suggests flux: populism and nationalism challenge liberal hegemony without fully replacing it.
Pragmatism’s rise is evident in responses to global crises. Climate accords, trade pacts, and conflict resolutions increasingly bypass ideological blocs, focusing on mutual gains. Yet, idealism persists in areas like human rights advocacy, suggesting a hybrid era rather than pure post-ideology. Core-5 embodies this: by uniting democracies (US, India, Japan) with autocracies (China, Russia), it privileges interests like economic stability over democratic promotion.
Major Powers Converging: Replacing Post-WWII Alliances?
Are major powers coalescing, supplanting post-WWII structures? Core-5 suggests yes, echoing wartime conferences like Yalta and Potsdam, where the “Big Three” (US, UK, USSR) redrew maps based on power, not ideology. Post-1945 alliances—NATO for collective defense, UN for multilateralism—were rigid, bipolar constructs. Today, multipolarity fosters flexible groupings: AUKUS for Indo-Pacific security, QUAD against China, and now Core-5 for global steering.
This convergence is driven by shared threats like climate change and pandemics, transcending old divides. BRICS’ expansion exemplifies this, uniting disparate regimes for economic leverage. However, rivalries persist: US-China tech wars and Russia-NATO tensions indicate alliances are evolving, not dissolving. Core-5 could replace G7 as a forum, but its feasibility is uncertain amid distrust.
The “Core-5” concept signals a decisive shift in global power politics—from ideology-driven alliances to pragmatic great-power management. As the G7’s share of global GDP shrinks and an expanded BRICS commands over 40 percent, economic weight is redefining influence.
In this emerging order, national interest increasingly outweighs democratic idealism, with major powers pursuing transactional stability over inherited post-World War II alignments. The Core-5 idea captures a world moving toward pragmatic coexistence among its strongest states, where power, not principles, is becoming the primary organizing logic of global governance.
The US NSS’s Core-5 heralds a pragmatic reconfiguration, as G7’s economic eclipse by BRICS accelerates shifts toward interest-based diplomacy. While not fully post-ideological, the world inches toward a concert of powers, potentially revitalizing global stability but risking exclusion of smaller states. This evolution demands adaptive strategies to navigate a less predictable order.
From Ideology to Interests: The Core-5 and the Remaking of Global Order
The emerging Core-5 framework, centred on pragmatic great-power dialogue, reflects a profound transformation in the global order. Shifting economic and strategic weight is accelerating the move away from post–World War II alliances anchored in liberal democratic ideals toward more fluid, interest-driven arrangements among the principal centres of population, military strength, and productive capacity. This transition points to a post-ideological era in which national pragmatism increasingly eclipses value-based idealism, enabling major powers to pursue transactional stability in a multipolar world. Yet this realignment carries risks: it may marginalise smaller states and weaken the rules-based frameworks that long sustained Western-led prosperity and global governance.
About the Author: Prof. Subhash Dhuliya is a researcher, educator, and commentator with a focus on global politics, media, culture, and international communication. His academic interests extend to development and inter-cultural communication As the Founder-Director & Editor of Newswriters.in, he has significantly influenced the discourse on media and communication
Image: Igor Omilaev
