By 2030 the GDP of the SCO countries will overtake that of the G7 countries.

Let one try to compare everything hidden behind the acronyms in the title of this article. Who’s winning, so to speak? Who’s the clear leader in all respects, and who’s the underdog, putting on a brave face when things are going badly. But first, let’s decipher these acronyms.

SCO stands for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Created in 2001, this regional organization currently unites 10 states: Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Together with observers and partners, it includes 27 countries. Currently, the SCO countries occupy one-quarter of the globe’s territory, or 35 million square kilometers, or 65% of the area of ​​Eurasia, the planet’s largest continent. The combined population of the SCO member states is over 3.5 billion people (almost 40% of the world’s population), accounting for approximately 25% (in 2025, $24.6 trillion) of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

According to experts, if the share of global GDP is adjusted for actual purchasing power, the share of GDP of the SCO member states is close to soon surpassing that of the seven developed countries. Given the resources and higher growth rates of the SCO member states’ economies, this will likely happen by 2030. The main economic advantages of the SCO member states stem from the potential for developing transport and logistics infrastructure, industrial cooperation, financial mechanisms, the digital and green economy, energy, and agriculture.

The G7 is an informal international club uniting the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, the United States, France, and Japan, with a population of approximately 780 million people (4.5 times smaller than the SCO). The combined GDP of the G7 member states as of 2024 is $40.27 trillion, which at that time constituted 40% of the global total. The G7’s areas of work include economic policy (coordinating macroeconomic strategies, regulating financial markets), international trade (supporting free trade, combating protectionism), and others. Since almost all of the G7’s countries are developed economies from Europe and North America, and the only Asian country in the G7 is Japan, the group is often criticized, and rightly so, for its lack of representativeness and “elitist” nature.

Thus, as we see, the SCO is focused primarily on regional cooperation, while the G7 is focused on discussing and coordinating the economic policies of the world’s leading economically developed countries. However, this is not the only difference between these two organizations. The SCO has every potential to become the world’s richest and most influential organization, even taking into account the UN, which is losing its authority and influence with each passing year.

The SCO countries do not create political blocs; they are constantly expanding their membership, strengthening economic, cultural, and security ties, and are ready for mutual integration, cooperation, and joint resolution of global problems. This fact is noted by both Russian and Western experts. It is also important to note that the SCO is not a counterweight to the G7 alliance, a point Moscow has repeatedly emphasized. For example, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the Russian president, previously stated: “This is not about being friends against anyone. It is about being friends in the name of higher ideals and for the benefit of the peoples of the countries that participate in the SCO.”

Today, the G7 is no longer a global leader or role model for other countries, giving way to such groups as the G20, the SCO, and BRICS. This is clearly demonstrated by the events of recent years. Suffice it to say, there is currently no unity even within the G7. This has become especially evident since Donald Trump became president of the United States. He, to put it mildly, “ignores and disregards” his G7 colleagues, and at the summits of this informal group, he behaves like a true dictator.

A clear example is the last G7 summit, which took place last July in the Canadian village of Kananaskis, Alberta. Due to obvious disagreements among the group’s members on key international issues, such as the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, the summit ended rather strangely with the early departure of US President Trump. Most Western experts assessed this summit not as a G7 meeting, as it had been previously, but as a “6+1” format. The Washington Post even called it “the six against Trump,” and this was the key outcome of the recent Canadian summit. And although G7 officials claimed the summit was a success, this was merely putting on a brave face.

In contrast, the most recent SCO summit in Tianjin, China, held from August 31 to September 1, 2025, provided a clear example of this shared purpose and focus. Even on the eve of this forum, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow and Beijing were ready to take the SCO to a level “infinitely upward.” A little earlier, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China was ready to cooperate with Russia in planning the main directions of the SCO’s future development and advancing the organization’s construction to a new level. Given that Moscow and Beijing are the driving forces behind the SCO, the prospects for this association can safely be described as bright.

By and large, the SCO summit in Tianjin confirmed these predictions and was a great success, as clearly demonstrated by its results. Summit participants summarized the SCO’s work over the past year and outlined its goals for the next 10 years, as well as approaches to developing cooperation in various areas. I would especially like to emphasize that the SCO summit held in Tianjin contributed to the further rapprochement between the two neighboring states – China and India – something that was unimaginable just recently due to the border conflict in the Himalayas in 2020. This fact demonstrates that the SCO not only unites but sometimes reconciles its member countries.

Here, it’s perhaps worth noting that the SCO and the G7 are a striking example of the differences between proponents of a multipolar world order based on equality and mutual respect and advocates of a unipolar world built on the rule of force. The unjustified ambitions of some Western countries prevent them from admitting their own mistakes and reversing the trend from confrontation to cooperation. Such policies harm the economies of all G7 countries, negatively impact the well-being of their own citizens, and undermine the international security system.

To summarize, it should be noted that, amidst the large-scale transformations in the global geopolitical system, the SCO, unlike the G7, is demonstrating a significant strengthening of its position as one of the key integration mechanisms of a multipolar world, and its voice is becoming increasingly persuasive on the international stage with each passing year. SCO Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev made this statement on February 3 in Beijing at a seminar on “Challenges to Resolute and Effective Humanitarian Efforts.”

“Overall, in the face of serious global upheavals, the voice of the SCO, as a leading player in international cooperation and the Global South, is becoming increasingly persuasive in support of the formation of a more representative, democratic, equitable, and multipolar world order,” Yermekbayev said. He also emphasized that “the SCO’s philosophy is based on purely constructive and creative principles.”

Sergey Saenko, international observer

 

 

A source