Farhat Kasenov . “The SCO is a Club of Compromises, BRICS is Not an Anti-Western Bloc”

Farhat Kasenov, political analyst, head of an analytical center (Kazakhstan)

Vitalii Barvynenko (V.B.):
Hello, dear friends! This is our geopolitical project at the Institute of Danube Studies. Today my guest is a well-known expert from Kazakhstan, head of one of the country’s analytical centers — Farhat Kasenov. Thank you for joining us.

Farhat Kasenov (F.K.):
Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation.

The SCO Summit: Achievements and Limits of Expansion

V.B.:
Let us begin with the recent SCO summit. How do you assess its outcomes?

F.K.:
The anniversary summit drew a line under a certain stage of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s evolution. Initially, the SCO was conceived as a regional economic platform where China would expand its influence across the post-Soviet space. Over time, the organization broadened its membership and agenda. But now we have reached what I would call the limit of expansion: the more members you add, the harder it becomes to preserve substantive content.

Countries like China, India, Russia, and Iran have diverging interests. China depends on global markets; India is both partner and competitor; Russia is consumed by sanctions and war; Iran follows its own long-standing path of isolation. Reconciling such vectors under one roof is extremely difficult. As a result, outside of economic cooperation, the SCO often produces little more than declarative compromises.

SCO vs BRICS: Overlap, Differences, and the Myth of an “Anti-West Bloc”

V.B.:
How does the SCO differ from BRICS, given that many countries participate in both?

F.K.:
There is indeed significant overlap, but BRICS has a wider geography. While the SCO is rooted in Asia and Central Asia, BRICS also brings in South America and Africa.

BRICS itself originated not as a treaty but as an intellectual construct — a grouping of major developing economies identified by an economist, later institutionalized into a forum. It remains primarily an economic and political consultation platform, not a structured alliance.

Most importantly, neither BRICS nor the SCO form an anti-Western bloc. Both China and India are deeply tied to Western markets and technologies. They cannot afford a systemic confrontation with the West. Claims of an “anti-West front” are largely propaganda narratives, particularly in Russia, for domestic consumption.

The SCO’s Political Effectiveness

V.B.:
So can the SCO influence major political decisions?

F.K.:
Its influence is limited. The SCO is valuable as a dialogue platform for regional security, counter-terrorism, and economic or ecological cooperation. But when it comes to decisive political alignment, contradictions prevail.

Take the war in Ukraine: China speaks of dialogue and ceasefire, while Russia insists on addressing “root causes.” These are fundamentally different positions. That divergence shows why the SCO struggles to be more than a forum of discussion.

The UN: Weakness and Indispensability

V.B.:
Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev often appeals to the UN, even while acknowledging its weakness. Why?

F.K.:
Yes, the UN has lost much of its effectiveness because of its post-1945 architecture and the veto system in the Security Council. But it remains the only global universal institution.

For middle powers like Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and others, the UN Charter is the foundation of their sovereign borders and legitimacy. Remove the UN, and what remains? Bilateral treaties, which experience shows can be broken.

Therefore, Kazakhstan insists on strengthening the UN, because — despite its flaws — it is the only forum where the voices of smaller and mid-sized states can be heard and where international law still formally applies.

The Caspian Knot: Ecology, Security, and the Middle Corridor

V.B.:
President Tokayev has called the Caspian issue critical and has even suggested international structures under the UN. Why is this so important?

F.K.:
Because the Caspian is a knot of overlapping issues:

• Ecology: the sea is shrinking, pollution is worsening, and mass deaths of the endangered Caspian seal show a systemic environmental crisis.
• Security: the Caspian has been used for missile launches, including against Ukraine — a stark violation of the idea of the “Caspian Sea of friendship.”
• Logistics: the Middle Corridor (Trans-Caspian route) is becoming a strategic alternative for Asia–Europe trade if maritime routes are blocked.

For Kazakhstan, raising the Caspian issue at the UN and SCO is both pragmatic and existential: it is about protecting ecosystems, securing borders, and diversifying transport routes.

Russia–China–India: An Anti-Western Alliance or a Mirage?

V.B.:
Some Russian commentators claim that Russia, China, and India are building a new “anti-Western bloc.” Is that realistic?

F.K.:
Frankly, no. China and India are not suicidal — their growth depends on Western markets and Western technologies. Moreover, they are strategic competitors in Asia.

The “anti-West bloc” narrative is a domestic propaganda product in Russia, meant to reassure its population that Russia is part of a “new world order.” But structurally, such a bloc has no firm foundation. At best, rhetoric might align temporarily — but it is not sustainable.

Turkey: Observer in the SCO, Core of the Turkic World

V.B.:
What about Turkey? Why does it remain an observer in the SCO rather than pursuing full membership?

F.K.:
Because Turkey has its own multi-vector agenda. Ankara sees itself as the core of the Turkic world, centered on the Organization of Turkic States. It expands influence through defense cooperation (drones), infrastructure, energy, and education, aligning with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.

Turkey wants the collective voice of Turkic states to resonate globally — in the UN, in Europe, and beyond. Remaining an observer in the SCO gives Ankara maximum flexibility without being bound by compromises.

onclusions: What Do These Formats Really Deliver?

V.B.:
If you sum it all up — SCO, BRICS, UN, the Caspian, Turkey — what is the real takeaway?

F.K.:
These are all useful platforms for dialogue, but one should not overestimate them.

• The SCO is a club of compromises.
• BRICS is a forum for articulating Global South interests, not an anti-Western alliance.
• The UN is weak but indispensable as a global framework for legitimacy.
• The Caspian is both a danger and an opportunity — an ecological crisis, a security hotspot, and a logistic gateway.
• Turkey is playing its own long game, building influence through the Turkic world.

That is the reality: cooperation, but within limits defined by diverging national interests.

V.B.:
Thank you, Mr. Kasenov, for such a comprehensive discussion.

F.K.:
Thank you. It was a pleasure to exchange views on issues that truly shape the regional and global agenda.