Brand Battle of Blocs: Why the SCO Just Outshone BRICS in Shanghai

Battle of the BLOCS

When Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi stood together at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, the optics were hard to miss. Three of the world’s most powerful non-Western leaders were united on stage, pushing for a “new global order” free from what Xi called Western “bullying behaviour.”

Absent were Brazil and South Africa — the Southern anchors of BRICS. The moment highlighted a quiet but significant shift: while BRICS has captured headlines as the voice of the Global South, the SCO is beginning to look like the bloc with sharper institutional tools and greater cohesion. In this emerging brand battle of blocs, BRICS risks being reduced to a symbolic banner, while the SCO builds the machinery of an alternative order.

Two Brands, Two Histories

BRICS was born in the early 2000s as a Goldman Sachs acronym, transformed into a diplomatic coalition of emerging markets, and eventually expanded to include new members from Africa and the Middle East. Its promise has always been economic: a collective counterweight to the West, with the New Development Bank as its flagship institution.

The SCO, by contrast, has its roots in regional security. Founded in 2001 by China, Russia and Central Asian states, it was designed to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. Over time it has expanded — now including India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus — and evolved into a broad political, economic and security organisation. Unlike BRICS, it has a permanent Secretariat and standing counter-terrorism centres.

In brand terms: BRICS is the megaphone of the Global South; the SCO is the operating

system of Eurasia.

Shanghai 2025: Xi and Putin’s Stagecraft

The 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin provided a textbook example of how bloc politics doubles as global theatre.

• Xi’s Message: China framed the SCO as the platform for building a “fairer multilateral order,” pledging new aid and floating the idea of an SCO development bank.

• Putin’s Narrative: Russia used the stage to reinforce its defiance of Western sanctions, portraying the SCO as proof Moscow isn’t isolated.

• Modi’s Balancing Act: India joined the conversations but skipped the military parade, a subtle reminder of its reluctance to be locked into a Sino-Russian orbit.

The headline wasn’t just the communiqués. It was the visual — the re-emergence of the Russia–India–China (RIC) troika. For Western audiences, it felt like a throwback to Cold War-style bloc politics, but with new Eurasian contours.

Why SCO Looks Sharper than BRICS

Several contrasts explain why the SCO moment resonated more strongly than recent BRICS summits:

1. Institutional Depth: SCO has a Secretariat, regional offices, and long-running security exercises. BRICS still functions primarily through annual summits and rotating chairs.

2. Concrete Proposals: Xi’s pitch for an SCO bank gave the sense of movement. BRICS’ New Development Bank has struggled with disbursement delays and governance questions.

3. Strategic Geography: SCO spans the Eurasian landmass, with critical stakes in energy corridors, transport routes and border security. BRICS stretches further geographically but lacks the same strategic coherence.

4. Narrative Control: At SCO, the stage belonged to Xi and Putin. In BRICS, Brazil and South Africa complicate the messaging, often softening the anti-Western tone.

The result: SCO projected itself as functional and focused, while BRICS risks being seen as aspirational and diffuse.

The Overlap Problem

The challenge, of course, is membership overlap. China, Russia and India sit at the core of both blocs. For them, SCO and BRICS aren’t competitors but complementary tools: SCO for Eurasian security and governance, BRICS for economic diplomacy with the Global South.

Yet for Brazil and South Africa, the Shanghai summit was a sobering reminder that they aren’t central to the Eurasian story. If SCO gains momentum as the bloc of action, BRICS could look increasingly like a talking shop — useful for optics but less so for implementation.

India’s Tightrope

Modi’s choreography in Tianjin captured India’s dilemma. By participating, India reinforced its SCO membership and Eurasian partnerships. By skipping the parade, it signalled unease about drifting too close to China and Russia, especially with ongoing border disputes and its desire to maintain ties with the U.S. and Europe.

This balancing act is crucial. India doesn’t want BRICS to fade, because BRICS — unlike SCO — includes Brazil and South Africa, helping broaden India’s partnerships beyond its Asian rivals.

Brand Battle or Dual Strategy?

So is the SCO a replacement for BRICS? Not quite. Instead, what we may be seeing is a dual structure of non-Western power:

• SCO as the hard bloc — security, governance, energy corridors, regional stability.

• BRICS as the soft bloc — economics, finance, Global South identity.

Together they represent two sides of a single strategy: offering alternatives to Western-led institutions. But in branding terms, SCO currently feels sharper, while BRICS risks being perceived as the looser, symbolic label.

The Future of the Blocs

For BRICS, the challenge is to avoid being eclipsed. That means:

• Institutionalising beyond summits.

• Expanding the mandate of the New Development Bank.

• Delivering tangible wins for Africa and Latin America, where Western influence still runs deep.

For the SCO, the challenge is internal cohesion. India and China remain locked in territorial disputes; Russia’s economic fragility raises questions about long-term capacity; Central Asian states may tire of being overshadowed by their giant neighbours.

In the end, the brand battle of blocs may not produce a clear winner. Instead, both will coexist, carving out complementary spheres of influence. But if the Shanghai summit is any guide, it is the SCO — not BRICS — that is currently dictating the tempo of this new world order.