WASHINGTON DC – The final declaration of this week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, which notably omitted any reference to Russia’s war in Ukraine, has been lambasted by Kyiv. But a former State Department and CIA analyst, Paul Goble, argues the opposite: that this silence is not a show of support for Moscow, but rather a sign of its diplomatic failure.
“The fact that the SCO final declaration did not mention the war in Ukraine does not mean that all SCO countries support Moscow. Just the reverse,” Goble told Kyiv Post.
Putin’s Diplomatic Failure
The analyst believes the event, which concluded this week in Tianjin, was a significant diplomatic stumble for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Goble said the silence on Ukraine underscores Moscow’s inability to garner the support it sought from its partners.
“Putin couldn’t get the language he wanted and so there was no language at all,” he said. “It would have been good if the SCO had denounced Russian aggression; but the failure to say anything highlights Russia’s weakness on this issue, not its strength,” Goble added.
This lack of a statement is a direct result of Putin’s inability to secure the language he wanted, signaling a profound lack of agreement within the bloc.
While Ukraine has criticized the silence as a form of support for Russian aggression, Goble’s analysis suggests the reality is quite different: the silence exposes Moscow’s isolation on the issue, even among its supposed allies.
Not a Unified Front
The notion of the SCO as a unified, anti-Western alliance is also being questioned. Goble argues that while Putin may wish to transform the organization into an authoritarian bloc, the diverse political systems of its members prevent this from happening.
“Putin wants to make the SCO into an authoritarian alliance. But some countries in it aren’t authoritarian and others outside it are,” he said. “Consequently, the SCO is not in a position to challenge the Western democracies and support Russian aggression despite Putin’s hopes in that regard,” he added.
Limited Practical Implications
Looking beyond the official statements, the summit’s practical impact on the war in Ukraine is minimal.
Putin failed to secure commitments from members to aid his war effort. “If Putin had gotten what he wanted, the members would have committed themselves to helping him in Ukraine. He didn’t and so there is no clear meaning of this meeting in that regard,” Goble said.
“Some SCO members will help; others won’t. One shouldn’t be alarmed by the meeting as such because it did not firm up support for Putin and Russian aggression,” the analyst emphasized.
Multipolar World: Empty Rhetoric?
Finally, the SCO summit’s focus on a “multipolar world” is dismissed by Goble as little more than a platitude. Such language is standard for rising powers and lacks any substantive meaning on its own.
“Calling for a multipolar world is standard language for rising powers and for those who feel they aren’t given enough attention,” the analyst explained.
“Again, such declarations sound nice to those pushing them, but they don’t in and of themselves mean all that much,” he concluded. The post-Cold War liberal order, while challenged, is not being dismantled by this rhetoric.