The international system is undergoing a metamorphosis. It is experiencing its most consequential redistribution of power since the end of the Cold War. This transformation does not necessarily signify the imminent collapse of the Western-led international order, nor does it imply that a cohesive Anti-Western alliance has emerged. What is happening is subtle but potentially more enduring shift from unilateralism to multilateralism. There is a gradual erosion of the West’s exclusive ability to determine the rules, institutions and strategic choices of the international system. At the centre of this transformation lies Eurasia, and the two organisations the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS. Both these organisations are increasingly becoming institutional expressions of this changing balance.
The significance of the SCO Summit in Bishkek in August 2026 and the BRICS Summit in New Delhi in September 2026, lies in the changing balance of power equation in the world. If studied individually, they could be regarded as another series of multilateral summits accompanied by declarations, speeches, diplomatic protocols and photo ops. If read together, however, they reveal a coherent strategic framework. Eurasian powers, particularly Russia, India and China, alongside Iran, Central Asian states and an expanding constituency across the Global South are seeking greater geopolitical self-reliance, a greater foot print in global rule-making process and mechanisms that reduces their vulnerability to financial coercion (SCO Secretariat, 2026; BRICS, 2026).
This is not yet a new world order. It is, however, unmistakably the negotiation of one.
Eurasia is marking its return to the centre of world politics. The first driver of this transformation is structural as the global economic weight has progressively shifted eastward. The IMF reported in March 2026 that Asia today generates approximately two-thirds of global GDP growth and nearly 40 percent of world trade, concluding that the future of the global economy can no longer be discussed without discussing Asia (IMF, 2026). China has become the world’s foremost manufacturing power; India is one of the largest and fastest-growing economies; Russia retains immense energy, mineral, nuclear, technological and military capabilities; Central Asia occupies the geographical junction between China, Russia, South Asia, West Asia and Europe; and Iran controls access to strategically important energy and transportation corridors. This concentration of population, markets, manufacturing, resources, technology and strategic geography, gives Eurasia a weight that was not adequately reflected in the institutions inherited from the twentieth century.
The New Delhi Declaration makes this argument forcefully. BRICS leaders called for an international system that is more representative, equitable and responsive to contemporary realities. They demanded greater participation of emerging and developing economies in global decision-making and reform of the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and WTO. Significantly for India, China and Russia reiterated their support for the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the United Nations, including its Security Council (BRICS, 2026). The fundamental contradiction is therefore increasingly between where the global material power is located and where institutional authority remains concentrated.
Why is this change accelerating?
Several developments are accelerating this redistribution of power. The first is the return of great-power geopolitical competition. The Ukraine conflict, tensions surrounding Iran, wars and instability in West Asia, risks to global maritime routes, Sino-American competition and disputes over trade, technology and sanctions have weakened the assumption that economic globalisation would progressively depoliticise international relations.
The second is the increasing use of economic interdependence as an instrument of statecraft. Financial sanctions, secondary sanctions, asset freezes, technology restrictions, export controls and tariff measures have demonstrated that international finance and trade can be used coercively. The 2026 New Delhi Declaration directly reflects this anxiety. BRICS expressed concern about unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which are considered inconsistent with WTO rules and objected to unilateral economic and secondary sanctions, not authorised by the UN Security Council (BRICS, 2026). Russia and Iran view alternatives to Western financial channels as immediate strategic necessities. China views them increasingly as insurance against possible future restrictions. India’s motivation is somewhat different: New Delhi seeks strategic redundancy and autonomy rather than economic separation from the West. This distinction is essential as the common denominator among these states is not hostility towards Western economies; it is reluctance to allow dependence upon any single system to become a source of strategic vulnerability.
The third factor is the increasing unwillingness of the Global South to accept binary geopolitical choices. Many countries wish to trade with China, obtain energy from Russia or the Gulf, acquire technology from Europe and the United States, participate in BRICS and SCO, while simultaneously maintaining relations with Washington. India is perhaps the clearest example. It participates in BRICS and the SCO alongside Russia and China while simultaneously maintaining the Quad, deep strategic relations with the United States and France, extensive engagement with Europe and partnerships with Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel. This is less traditional non-alignment than multi-alignment based upon strategic autonomy.
SCO: Eurasia organising itself
The SCO is particularly important because of its geography. It brings together China, Russia, India, Iran, Pakistan, Belarus and the Central Asian republics within a single Eurasian political-security framework. The 26th SCO Council of Heads of State Summit, held in Bishkek on 1st September 2026, illustrated how far the organisation has developed. The leaders approved 28 documents, including the Bishkek Declaration, amendments to the SCO Charter and institutional provisions concerning a Universal Centre for Countering Challenges and Threats to Security and an SCO Anti-Drug Centre. Cooperation was also expanded with organisations including the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Eurasian Economic Commission, African Union and League of Arab States (SCO Secretariat, 2026a). This is noteworthy change as it indicates that the SCO is gradually evolving beyond summit diplomacy towards a denser Eurasian institutional network.
The summit also revealed a broader political message and continued to describe itself as a non- bloc while advocating for a multipolar international system. The call for an “equal and orderly multipolar world,” stronger representation for the Global South and international rules formulated through wider consultation rather than domination by a small number of powers was the crux of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech to the “SCO Plus” meeting. He also stressed on “partnership rather than alliance” and “dialogue rather than confrontation” (Xi, 2026). Thus, there is no attempt by SCO to create an Asian NATO but its existing challenge has a different dynamic viz developing Eurasia’s capacity to coordinate politically and strategically without Western sponsorship. PM Narendra Modi’s Bishkek speech highlighted India’s distinctive interpretation of this process. He mentioned that SCO’s next phase should rest upon three pillars of Security, Connectivity and Opportunity and called for the transformation of ‘shared geography into shared opportunities’. He emphasised that the need of the hour is to move from vision to outcomes and from government-driven cooperation towards broader civilization connect. (Modi, 2026a). India therefore treats the SCO not as an ideological coalition against the West, but as an instrument through which Eurasia can address connectivity, trade and issued impacting regional stability like terrorism, while safeguarding national sovereignty.
BRICS: From Representation to Institutional Operationality
If SCO provides a primarily Eurasian geopolitical-security framework, BRICS provides the changing order with a broader economic, financial and Global South dimension. The organisation has expanded far beyond its original Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa configuration. At the 2026 BRICS Business Forum, PM Modi stated that BRICS and its partners together now represent approximately half of the world’s population, around 40 per cent of global GDP and more than one-quarter of international trade (Modi, 2026b).
The New Delhi Summit is especially important because BRICS is gradually moving beyond demands for greater representation towards operationalising instruments that provide its members with additional strategic options. Finance offers the clearest example. Despite widespread speculations, the New Delhi Declaration did not create a common BRICS currency. In fact a, a euro-style unified currency remains highly improbable because member nations have very distinct financial systems, exchange-rate regimes, capital controls and strategic interests.
Alternatively, the declaration champions more pragmatic approach optimizing cross-border payment compatibility and messaging systems, settlement via local currencies and collaboration aimed at making international payments swifter, cost effective and more accessible. Importantly, BRICS itself acknowledges that there can be “no one-size-fits-all approach” (BRICS, 2026). This is more realistic than attempting immediately to replace the dollar.
The significance of “de-dollarisation” should therefore be properly understood. The probable evolution is not: Dollar disappears and the BRICS currency replaces it. Rather, Dollar remains a dominant currency along with alternative payment and settlement channels that progressively reduce compulsory dependence upon it.
In the long run, this may prove more consequential than a symbolic BRICS currency. The addition of New Development Bank (NDB) acts as a vital institutional layer. It currently serves as an alternative, non-Western source of development financing, while BRICS also explored the local-currency finance, guarantees, insurance cooperation and mechanisms to strengthen investment resilience. It is estimated that the NDB has financed approximately $43 billion in projects, demonstrating that the bloc now possesses at least one substantial operational financial institution rather than simply a diplomatic forum (Reuters, 2026a).
India, Russia and China: The Eurasian strategic triangle
At the centre of both SCO and BRICS lies an especially consequential strategic triangle: Russia, India and China (RIC). RIC should not be mistaken for an emerging alliance. India and China continue to have unresolved territorial disputes, competing strategic interests and considerable mistrust. Russia and China presently enjoy a closer strategic relationship with each other than maintains with India. India, meanwhile, possesses much deeper economic and technological engagement with Western countries than Russia does. Nevertheless, the strategic rationale behind the old RIC concept is becoming more relevant.
Russia seeks a multipolar Eurasia in which it does not become excessively dependent upon China. China favours a reduction of American strategic predominance and the strengthening of non-Western centres of influence. India seeks a genuinely multipolar order in which neither Western powers nor China alone can exercise overwhelming dominance. Their strategic objectives divulge but mutual interests allow for targeted collaboration. The gradual stabilisation of India-China relations is consequential for matters far beyond the bilateral relationship. September 2026 visit of Xi Jinping’s to New Delhi was his first visit to India in seven years. His meeting with PM Modi has underscored border stability, boosting trade, market access, connectivity and managing economic ties, while both the nations manoeuvre through notable strategic rifts. (Reuters, 2026b). If India and China can move from active hostility to regulated competition, the prospects of trilateral cooperation between Russia, India and China (RIC) with BRICS, SCO and other multilateral forums will expand significantly. The important formulation remains that RIC is not necessarily returning institutionally; its strategic logic is returning geopolitically. This message for United States and the West after the meet in Bishkek and New Delhi is reflected as follows.
First, Multipolarity is Acquiring Institutions. For decades, “multipolarity” remained the diplomatic buzz word. Today it is increasingly backed by institutional reality of development banks, payment systems, trade routes, security alliances, transportation corridors, technology partnerships and commodity networks. However, this falls short of fully realized alternative global world order but constitutes an expanding network of strategic alternatives.
Second, Economic Coercion Encourages Institutional Diversification. The joint takeaways from the meeting of both the organisations is that over leaning on extensive sanctions, tariffs and financial penalties will drive targeted and vulnerable nations to opt for alternatives. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s voiced much harsher criticism at the New Delhi BRICS meetings, criticising sanctions and Western economic pressure while imploring BRICS to fortify cooperation in payments, technology, investment and infrastructure (Reuters, 2026c). India does not fully share Moscow’s confrontational stance. Yet India supports diversification where it enhances national autonomy keeping national interest supreme. This produces an important paradox for the West, the more frequently weaponization of dominant financial systems, the stronger the incentive for others to reduce their dependence upon them.
Third, the Global South is Demanding Participation in Rule-Making. Arguably, India’s robust position came from PM Modi at the New Delhi Summit. He argued that the Global South should move from being a “rule-taker” to a “rule-shaper,” and called for transformation of what he described as a “pyramid of privilege” into a broader “platform of partnership” (Modi, 2026c). This constitutes the primary geopolitical objective of contemporary BRICS alliance. The argument is not that multilateral institutions will disappear. Rather, institutions will loose their credibility if their voting structures, leadership patterns and decision-making authority continue to be stuck in the post-World War II era rather than adopting the geopolitical realities of 2026.
Fourth, Much of The Global South does not Wish to Choose Geopolitical Camps. The BRICS Bloc clearly demonstrates this trend. Russia and Iran are openly adversarial towards United States; China is Washington’s principal strategic competitor; India maintains a strong alliance with the United States; and the UAE possesses deep defence and financial ties with the Western nations. Yet all are capable to function within the BRICS framework. The 2026 New Delhi Declaration was reached not withstanding the significant tensions involving Iran and the Gulf. This demonstrated that BRICS’ stems directly from letting countries with vastly different alliances work on cooperation on selected issues without demanding strategic conformity (Reuters, 2026d).
Fifth, the Western monopoly over coalition-building has weakened. Neither SCO nor BRICS needs to become an anti-Western alliance to affect the global balance.Their significance derives from enabling states to organise major areas of diplomatic, economic and security cooperation without Washington, Brussels or other Western capitals being indispensable participants. That represents a qualitative change from the immediate post-Cold War era.
Reform rather than replacement
The limits of this transformation must nevertheless be recognised. BRICS members differ over China, Ukraine, monetary arrangements, Western relations and regional conflicts. India and China remain strategic competitors. Iran and the UAE do not possess identical interests. Brazil and India would resist any attempt to transform BRICS into an anti-American alliance. SCO contains equally serious internal contradictions, including India-Pakistan tensions and India-China competition. India’s approach is therefore crucial. New Delhi has repeatedly emphasised that BRICS should seek reform rather than wholesale replacement of international institutions. The 2026 Declaration itself supports reform of the IMF, World Bank and WTO rather than their abandonment, and explicitly endorses the multilateral trading system centred upon the WTO (BRICS, 2026). India thus appears to favour what might be described as: Greater autonomy from the West without strategic separation from the West. This differentiates India’s approach substantially from that of Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
Conclusion
The deeper significance of the Bishkek SCO and New Delhi BRICS summits therefore lies beyond individual declarations. The SCO is helping organise Eurasian strategic space. BRICS is providing emerging powers with a wider platform for global governance reform and gradually developing financial, economic and technological instruments that provide greater strategic choice. In these organisations, China possesses immense manufacturing and economic influence, Russia provides energy, military power and strategic depth, while India introduces demographic scape, rapid economic growth and importantly, the crucial diplomatic ability to bridge and operate with Western and non-Western alignments. Combined they have not yet formed a cohesive Eurasian bloc. Instead, their importance lies in making the international system autonomous from single centre of power.
The joint message from Bishkek and New Delhi to Washington and Europe is therefore not that “the West is finished.” Western economies, technologies, financial markets and military capabilities remain extraordinarily powerful. The message is more nuanced and more consequential, “The era in which the West could assume an exclusive right to define the rules, institutions and acceptable strategic choices of the international system is gradually drawing to a close.” The emerging powers have no intent in dismantling the prevailing international order. They are advocating a greater influence in moulding it. Where restructuring occurs, they will participate in existing institutions. Where adaption is resisted, they are increasingly willing to create auxiliary frameworks and alternatives.
This is what makes the SCO and BRICS central to the changing world order. Their eventual importance will not be determined by whether they become an Eastern NATO or a substitute for the G7. It will be determined by whether they succeed in providing states with sufficient political, financial, technological and strategic alternatives to make multipolarity operational rather than rhetorical. The process remains uneven and contested. But the direction of travel is increasingly difficult to ignore.
References
BRICS. (2026). BRICS New Delhi Declaration: Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability. XVIII BRICS Summit, New Delhi, 12–13 September 2026. Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India, at https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents?dtl/41776
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2026). Shaping Asia’s Future. Speech, 5 March 2026. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, at https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2026/03/05/sp030526-shaping-asias-future
Modi, Narendra. (2026a). Statement at the 26th SCO Summit. Bishkek, 1 September 2026. Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India.
Modi, Narendra. (2026b). Prime Minister’s address at the BRICS Business Forum 2026. New Delhi, 11 September 2026. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, at https://www.mea.gov.in/speeches-statements?dtl/41768/Address_by_the_Prime_Minister_at_the_BRICS_Business_Forum_2026_September_11_2026
Modi, Narendra. (2026c). Opening Remarks at the 18th BRICS Summit Session: Inclusive Global Governance and Strengthening. New Delhi, 12 September 2026. Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India, at https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pms-opening-remarks-during-the-18th-brics-summit-session-inclusive-global-governance-and-strengthening/?comment=disable
Reuters. (2026a). “The Evolution of BRICS and Its Challenges Today.” 12 September 2026, at https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/evolution-brics-its-challenges-today-2026-09-12/
Reuters. (2026b). “India’s Modi and China’s Xi Push Business Links, Border Peace as Ties Revive.” 12 September 2026; and “India-China Relations, from Conflict to Cautious Thaw.” 12 September 2026, at https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-xi-lands-delhi-brics-summit-indian-tv-channels-report-2026-09-12/
Reuters. (2026c). “Modi, Putin Seek Stronger Ties as Russia Calls for BRICS to Counter West.” 11 September 2026, at https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/modi-putin-hold-talks-new-delhi-trade-defence-2026-09-11/
Reuters. (2026d). “Iran and UAE Back Joint BRICS Statement Urging Restraint in War.” 12 September 2026, at https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brics-agrees-joint-declaration-before-new-delhi-summit-sources-say-2026-09-12/
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Secretariat. (2026a). The 26th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO Member States and the “SCO Plus” Meeting Held in Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek, 1 September 2026, at https://eng.sectsco.org/20260901/2493609.html
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. (2026b). Statement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization regarding the Situation around the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2 March 2026, at https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/rso/sanhajskaa-organizacia-sotrudnicestva-sos/2083558/?TSPD_101_R0=08765fb817ab2000784674cad8e3af973b0a0429d048c209c2f9c7a9b20f5dbdcf9609bb84da920c083625de7f143000ac69353b216be46413a437ee7130a0958234ef353878c08462d479e8bccbef5345009c7bee1953523f00373041c37eb4
Xi Jinping. (2026).Jointly Advocating an Equal and Orderly Multipolar World and Making Global Governance More Just and Equitable: Statement by President Xi Jinping
at SCO Plus Meeting. Bishkek, 01 September 2026. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, at https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202609/t20260901_12014097.html
