Middle powers rising: How Turkey, India and Brazil punch above their weight

The main hall at a G20 summit can feel like theatre. The cameras face one lectern, the flags stand neat, the speech is polished. But the real movement happens at the edges. In side rooms, in corridor chats, in last-minute edits to a joint statement, countries that aren’t superpowers still shape what the world does next.

That’s the story of middle powers in 2025 to 2026. A middle power isn’t the United States or China, but it’s also not a bystander. It’s a country with enough economic size, diplomatic reach, and regional pull to change outcomes, especially when big powers are stuck, tired, or distracted.

Turkey, India, and Brazil show how this works in practice. Each has limits, and each makes mistakes. Yet they keep finding ways to matter, not by being the biggest, but by being useful, hard to ignore, and sometimes hard to replace.

Why middle powers are rising right now

For a while after the Cold War, global politics often looked like a one-leader meeting. Many states adjusted to the rules set elsewhere, then tried to win small gains inside them. That rhythm has changed.

The world now feels more crowded with decision-makers because the big powers keep pulling in opposite directions, and the shocks don’t arrive one at a time. War spillovers raise food and energy costs, shipping routes turn risky, sanctions reshape trade, and supply chains get rebuilt in slower, messier ways. This is the background music of 2025 and early 2026, a period that Chatham House’s outlook for 2026 describes as full of crunch moments and overlapping risks.

In a split world, a country doesn’t need to run the show to influence the plot. It can become a “swing state” in geopolitics, the kind that can tilt a vote, open a corridor, host a deal, or block a plan. Middle powers do this best when they offer something others need quickly, whether that’s market access, a trade route, a diplomatic channel, or a reliable supply of food and energy.

The rise of middle powers is also a story about timing. When Washington and Beijing compete, they often create space for others to bargain. That space grows when allies disagree, when budgets tighten, or when domestic politics make foreign policy jumpy. Middle powers step in, not as referees above the fight, but as players who can move between camps without signing away their freedom.

A more split world creates space for flexible partners

In today’s politics, alliances still matter, but permanent bloc thinking often doesn’t fit. Many countries want trade with one side, investment from another, and security ties with a third. It’s less like joining a single club, more like keeping several memberships, each with different rules.

This flexibility shows up in practical coalitions built for one job. Food security groups form when grain prices spike. Maritime co-operation tightens when shipping lanes look unsafe. Migration deals appear when borders come under pressure. Climate talks need odd pairings too, because the countries with the biggest emissions aren’t always the ones with the strongest incentives to act first.

Flexible partnership can look untidy, but it can also be effective. A middle power might support sanctions in one case, refuse them in another, and still keep diplomatic channels open. That can frustrate purists. It can also keep doors open when doors are the only thing that matters.

Institutions still matter, and middle powers know how to use them

A crowded world doesn’t mean institutions are useless. It often means the opposite. When the biggest players can’t agree, forums become a place to gather votes, draft language, and create a sense of direction.

Middle powers are usually skilled at turning meetings into outcomes. They know that a communiqué can set expectations, that a voting bloc can slow or speed a decision, and that hosting rights can shape the agenda. The G20, regional bodies, and groupings like BRICS can amplify a country’s voice, especially when it arrives with a clear plan and a steady message.

That’s why “credibility” becomes its own kind of currency. A country that switches stories every month loses trust, even if it has a strong case. A country that shows up prepared, follows through, and can bring others along starts to feel larger than it is. For a good grounding in how scholars frame this idea, see the Belfer Center’s overview of middle power thinking.

Turkey’s playbook: geography, security, and hard bargaining

Turkey sits where maps stop being simple. It faces the Black Sea, looks into the Eastern Mediterranean, borders the Middle East, and stands close to the Caucasus. That location brings pressure, but it also brings choices. Turkey can offer access, block passage, host talks, or set terms that others must at least consider.

In 2026, this matters because security worries are spreading across regions at once. Ukraine’s war keeps reshaping European defence thinking. The Middle East remains unstable. Energy routes and migration routes keep politics hot, even when leaders promise calm. Turkey’s influence comes from being in the middle of these currents, not watching them from a safe distance.

Real-world signals back this up. Turkey is set to host a NATO summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July 2026, a moment likely to focus attention on defence spending, Ukraine support, and alliance cohesion. Hosting doesn’t guarantee control, but it does guarantee relevance. It’s hard to ignore the country holding the room key.

For a longer take on Ankara’s style in a more fragmented world, this analysis on Turkey as a diplomatic hub is useful context, even if readers may not agree with every emphasis.

A country at the crossroads can slow things down or speed them up

Think of Turkey as holding a key to a busy gate. When the gate is open, trade and security co-operation flow more easily. When it narrows, everyone feels the squeeze.

Turkey’s position connects to several concrete issues:

• Black Sea access and security, which affects grain shipments and regional stability.
• Eastern Mediterranean energy and sea routes, where tensions can rise quickly.
• Migration routes into Europe, which bring both humanitarian needs and political fights.
• Links between Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, shaping transport corridors and partnerships.

This “gatekeeper” role gives Turkey bargaining power inside alliances too. When a country can say yes or no at the right moment, it can ask for support in return, whether that’s aid, policy changes, or a stronger voice in decisions.

Balancing acts come with costs at home and abroad

Turkey’s approach also creates trade-offs. Partners can struggle to predict Ankara’s next move, and trust is slow to rebuild once it’s damaged. Economic strain can tighten the space for big foreign policy bets, especially when inflation or currency worries hit daily life. Domestic politics can push leaders towards tough messaging abroad, because it plays well at home.

There’s also a reputational cost to constant balancing. If every stance looks transactional, others may start to doubt long-term commitments. That can raise the price of future deals.

The takeaway is simple: Turkey’s strength is agility, but agility can look like unpredictability to partners. In a tense year, that can either increase Turkey’s pull, or narrow it.

India’s playbook: scale, multi-alignment, and setting the agenda

India’s influence begins with a basic fact: it’s large. A large population, a growing market, a global diaspora, and a strategic location in the Indo-Pacific combine into a presence that other states plan around, even when relations are tense.

India also shows how a middle power can be a rule-shaper, not just a rule-taker. It doesn’t need to match a superpower ship for ship or dollar for dollar. It needs to set priorities that others must respond to, whether on trade, technology norms, or global development finance.

Early 2026 offers a fresh example. India took over the BRICS presidency on 1 January 2026, after Brazil’s term ended. That baton pass matters because BRICS has expanded, and because the Global South has become a louder voice in many negotiations. If you want a broad argument for why this trend is strengthening, Dani Rodrik’s essay on middle powers and multipolarity lays out the logic clearly.

Big market, big voice: trade, tech, and the pull of investment

When a market is huge, other countries court it. That courting can turn into diplomatic weight.

India’s pull is strongest where economic needs meet strategic fears. Many firms want alternatives to single-country supply chains. Governments want trusted partners for critical goods. Investors chase growth, but they also chase stability and clear rules.

India’s strengths here are fairly plain:

• Manufacturing growth potential, as companies spread production across more countries.
• Digital services and talent, which shape how global firms build and hire.
• Energy demand, which makes India central to future fuel, minerals, and climate choices.

This economic gravity often turns into political influence. Trade talks become harder to ignore. Standards on data and technology become more contested. And when India speaks, it’s not only about itself, it’s about what a large part of global demand might do next.

Saying “we’ll decide” in a world that wants sides

India’s foreign policy style is often described as strategic autonomy, which is a simple idea in practice: India wants the freedom to choose partner by partner, issue by issue. It joins many tables, but doesn’t sign up to be anyone’s junior.

That means working with Western states in some security or technology areas, while also staying active in groupings that include rivals. It means insisting that national interest comes first, even when pressure rises.

There are upsides. Refusing to be pushed can earn respect, because it signals independence and staying power. There are downsides too. Critics watch India more closely, and any inconsistency gets punished in headlines. In a world hungry for clear camps, a country that won’t pick a side can be accused of sitting on the fence, even when it sees itself as holding the centre.

Brazil’s playbook: regional weight, food and energy strength, and moral voice

Brazil is often underestimated because it’s far from many flashpoints. But distance can be a form of stability, and stability becomes valuable when the rest of the world feels jumpy.

Brazil’s influence starts at home in South America, where it acts as a natural anchor. It then reaches outward through what Brazil sells and what it protects. When the world worries about food prices, Brazil matters. When the world argues about climate, Brazil matters. And when global groups want legitimacy in the Global South, Brazil is frequently at the table.

Brazil also spent 2025 chairing BRICS, before handing the presidency to India at the start of 2026. That handover fits a wider pattern of middle powers using big forums to amplify their priorities.

For a wider view of why 2025 was framed as a turning point for these states, see the Policy Center brief on the “year of the middle powers”.

Food, fuel, and minerals can move diplomacy faster than speeches

In hard times, supply talks often beat speeches. If a country helps keep prices down, or prevents shortages, it gains a quiet form of pull.

Brazil’s exports of agricultural goods and its role in energy and minerals mean it can’t be treated as background noise. When importers fear inflation, they listen more closely to exporters. When sanctions and trade barriers spread, buyers look for reliable suppliers, and sellers gain room to negotiate.

This doesn’t mean Brazil can dictate terms. It means Brazil gets heard earlier, more often, and sometimes with more patience from partners who need what it has.

Climate leadership is influence when others need solutions

Brazil’s biggest long-term card is the climate file. The Amazon is not only Brazil’s responsibility, but Brazil’s choices shape the world’s trust in climate promises.

Climate leadership can translate into real gains:

• attracting funding tied to forest protection,
• shaping the rules for carbon markets and nature finance,
• building goodwill that carries into trade and diplomacy.

But the tension is real. Brazil must grow its economy and create jobs, and that can clash with strict environmental limits. If Brazil promises big action and then fails to deliver, credibility suffers. If it shows steady progress, it can become a broker between rich states demanding faster cuts and developing states demanding fairness.

Conclusion: three playbooks for a crowded junction

Turkey, India, and Brazil show three distinct ways middle powers punch above their weight. Turkey uses position and security deals, India uses scale and agenda-setting, Brazil uses resources and climate diplomacy. None is a superpower, but each can change the angle of a negotiation.

A quick watch list for the next year is straightforward: new coalition-building, trade and energy bargains, mediation attempts, and moments when these states refuse to be boxed into one camp.

Global power now looks less like a two-lane road, and more like a crowded junction. The countries that can control traffic for even a few minutes will keep shaping where the world goes next, whether the giants like it or not. Middle powers are learning that timing matters as much as size.