When the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) gathered in Bishkek on September 1 to mark its 25th anniversary, the stage was set for a display of unity. Twenty-one heads of state and government posed for the ceremonial family photo, signed a two-page declaration, and approved 28 agreements, including one on strengthening multilateral cooperation in nuclear safety. On paper, the SCO speaks for roughly a quarter of humanity and represents about a quarter of global GDP.
Yet beneath the surface, the summit revealed a bloc that remains less a cohesive body than a convenient venue for bilateral encounters. A quarter-century on, the SCO has never developed the capacity to adjudicate disputes among its members—let alone the conflicts they wage beyond its meeting rooms. What it does offer is a stage where powerful leaders can strike deals, deliver pointed messages, and burnish their domestic credentials.
Modi’s pointed remarks
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi used his plenary address to deliver a thinly veiled rebuke to Pakistan, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif seated at the same table. “There can be no place for double standards” in dealing with terrorism, Modi declared, adding that “terrorism can never be a strategic asset for anyone.” He called for dismantling “the entire ecosystem of terrorist financing, recruitment, radicalization and safe havens.” The target was unmistakable, and the message was aimed as much at voters back home as at the assembled leaders.
Modi also stressed the need to “respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries”—a phrase that, without naming names, served as a critique of Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s Belt and Road corridor through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Pakistan’s territorial claims. The statement allowed Modi to project strength to Indian audiences while signaling to Western partners that India remains critical of Moscow’s aggression. It also reinforced India’s self-image as a champion of the Global South, a role that implicitly challenges Chinese and Russian ambitions in that sphere.
In a more direct exchange, Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin, in person and on the record, that “every day spent in war pushes humanity backwards.” He urged a move “from an endless war towards an end to the war.” The remark, delivered after the customary embrace, was notably pointed—especially within a bloc that has often framed itself as offering unconditional solidarity against the West. It was not the first time Modi has publicly pressed Putin on the conflict; he had earlier condemned Russian missile strikes that killed Ukrainian children.
Putin’s constrained diplomacy
Putin arrived in Bishkek with the busiest bilateral schedule of any leader, meeting Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian, and the presidents of Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, as well as non-SCO attendees Turkey and Armenia. But this flurry of meetings is less a sign of strength than of necessity. Because of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against him, Putin’s travel options are limited to forums like the SCO and BRICS. For a leader of a would-be great power that has seen its influence wane from Syria to Venezuela to Mali, that is hardly an enviable position.
Xi’s selective engagement
China’s Xi Jinping, by contrast, kept a strikingly low profile. His only confirmed bilateral meeting was with Putin—a signal that Beijing may view the SCO as less valuable than its own direct channels with individual capitals or other groupings like BRICS. After Bishkek, Xi flew directly to Cairo for his first state visit to Egypt in a decade, a country that joined the expanded BRICS in 2024. That bloc’s summit begins in New Delhi on September 12.
Each of the SCO’s “big three” leaders thus extracted something different from the summit. Modi used it to criticize Pakistan and nudge Russia toward peace. Putin sought to project relevance despite his diplomatic isolation. Xi treated it as a side event to more consequential engagements. None of these outcomes depended on the SCO functioning as a collective voice.
This does not mean the SCO is meaningless. Its summits generate bilateral agreements and provide a platform for non-Western solidarity that resonates with domestic audiences. But the real anniversary message from Bishkek was not the declaration on the table. It was the way three dominant leaders pursued three entirely separate agendas—and left without resolving any of the issues that divide them. As the organization enters its next quarter-century, its members may find that the SCO’s greatest value lies not in what it says, but in what it allows them to do quietly on the sidelines.
