The New Silk Road and Eurasian Economic Union - cooperation or competition?

Stephen Blank, a seasoned observer of Russian-Chinese relations, argued recently that Moscow and Beijing are building an alliance, only without naming it as such. Blank focuses his attention on recent developments in East Asia, citing Russia's gradual adoption of Chinese positions with regard to territorial disputes in the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear programme, and the development of the American missile defence system in South Korea.

Given China's upper hand in the region, such adaptation on the part of Russia is understandable. This is why we have to look to other places to understand the developments in the two states’ relationship. Central Asia, where the two powers enjoy comparable positions, offers a good insight into the future of Sino-Russian relations. In an analysis prepared for the Centre for Eastern Studies, together with Witold Rodkiewicz, we explore how Moscow and Beijing attempt to reconcile their two regional-order concepts, the Greater Eurasia and the New Silk Road:



The Russian vision of Greater Eurasia is not an attempt to block the Chinese New Silk Road project. On the contrary, the Russian project represents indirect consent to the Chinese vision of economic cooperation in Eurasia, one in which specific economic blocs do not pursue a protectionist and limited policy. At the same time, this vision enables the Kremlin to maintain an appearance that it retains the political initiative in its neighbourhood and is shaping the policy together with Beijing.

The whole piece can be found here.

The asymmetric partnership?

In an article published in the latest issue of International Politics (Issue 53 Vol. 3), I look at self-restraint and adaptation as strategies deployed by China and Russia in their mutual dealings. I ask how these strategies worked against the background of Russia’s engagement in the Ukrainian crisis:

Despite growing asymmetry in material capabilities, Russia has not decided to hedge against China. On the contrary, as has been particularly visible in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, Russia turned to China not only for political but also economic support. This article argues that Moscow’s adaptation to China’s pre-eminence has its roots in the 2008–2009 global economic crisis and has been accompanied by Beijing’s self-restraint in its dealings with Russia. The ever-growing power imbalance did not prevent Moscow from closer co-operation with Beijing. Both states forged an energy partnership and deepened their security collaboration encompassing a revival of Russian arms export to China. Self-restraint, on the one side, and adaptation, on the other, made it possible to avoid conflict in Central Asia, where both actors have potentially incompatible interests and pursue competing projects. In the global realm, the strategies of both states towards the US converged.

Please e-mail me at marcin.kaczmarski@gmail.com if you would like to read the full text of the article.

The West's dual challenge

Does increasing co-operation between Russia and China constitute a challenge to the West? In the recent piece for The Diplomat, I argue that

closer ties between Russia and China do not mean that the two constitute a common challenge to the West. Russia and China have different takes on international politics. The Chinese Communist Party needs a conducive external environment in order to continue selling its whole range of goods (from low- to high-end, such as high-speed trains), exporting the overcapacity of its industry, and offering loans from its overflowing coffers of U.S. dollars. Moscow has shown itself able to thrive on insecurity and instability – although it ultimately threatens Russia itself, the current “new world disorder” is regarded by the masters of the Kremlin as the West’s problem rather than its own. Consequently, Moscow and Beijing aspire to change the existing international order in different directions. China needs another wave of globalization; the New Silk Road concept’s ultimate goal is to secure this. The One Belt, One Road is a Chinese version of the late-19th century American open door policy, one that aims to prevent other states from locking themselves up in forms of regional economic integration. Russia acts to the contrary, striving to build a fence around its post-Soviet peripheries and isolating it from the outside world. The U.S. and Europe face two challenges of different natures that need to be tackled simultaneously.

You can read the whole piece here: Russia-China: The West’s Dual Challenge. 

Russian-Chinese energy co-operation

For the Centre for Eastern Studies, together with Szymon Kardaś, we discuss the current state of and prospects for Russian-Chinese energy co-operation: 

The oil sector has been the major element of Russian-Chinese energy cooperation. The years 2013–2015 saw a significant increase in the volume of crude oil exported by Russia. In 2015, China became the main importer of Russian oil; Russia became the second largest supplier of oil to the Chinese market, after Saudi Arabia. From Beijing’s perspective, supplies of Russian oil are of strategic importance because the main supply routes are overland routes. Russia, for its part, is interested in boosting its export because of its deteriorating position on the European market, which hitherto has been considered a strategic market. 

Cooperation in the field of natural gas has been less advanced; so far Russia has exported only insignificant amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China. China is less dependent on the import of gas (its own production covers around 70% of the demand). Beijing has been dynamically developing its LNG infrastructure, and has at its disposal gas pipelines which connect China with producer countries in Central Asia. Additionally, all the projects carried out within the framework of Russian-Chinese gas cooperation are being hampered by the financial problems Moscow is experiencing.  

Energy cooperation is and will remain the most important component of Russian-Chinese economic relations. In the present form of this cooperation, Russia has mainly played the role of China’s oil base. The process of Chinese companies investing in oil production in Russia is progressing more slowly than before; most of the agreements made regarding this matter are still framework agreements. In the mid-term perspective, however, a qualitative change to the present model should be expected. It is very likely that Chinese companies will enter the Russian upstream sector, especially taking into account the financial standing of the Russian energy sector and China’s interest in gaining direct access to oil fields.

Read the whole analysis here: 'The oil friendship'

China on Russia's intervention in Syria

For the Centre for Eastern Studies, I analysed how Chinese officials, experts and journalists commented on Russia's intervention in Syria:

China has reacted positively to Russia’s military intervention in Syria. The Chinese government perceives it as an element of the global fight against terrorism, and has emphasised the fact that Russia was acting in response to a request by the Syrian government. At the same time, Beijing has argued that the Syrian conflict cannot be resolved by military means and that a political compromise is necessary. 

Reports and comments in the Chinese media have been dominated by several major issues. The Russian operation was presented as a strategic failure of the West, and a fiasco of the unilateral policy pursued by the US. Numerous Chinese observers have considered Russia’s intervention an adequate response to what they saw as a policy of ‘double standards’ pursued by the West. In their view, under this policy the Western states themselves contributed to the emergence of so-called Islamic State. Chinese media have emphasised the fact that Russia has benefited from the operation in Syria in many ways: it has defended its interests in the Middle East, boosted its prestige in the international arena and overcome its partial isolation in relations with the West, which has been ongoing since the war with Ukraine began. At the same time, Chinese commentators disagree as to their assessment of the impact of the Russian intervention on relations between Russia and the West. Some of them view the prospect of Russia’s rapprochement with the West as likely, whereas others point to the risk that the tensions could be aggravated. 

Beijing’s position on Russia’s intervention is motivated by China’s global and regional interests. In a situation of increased tension in Chinese-American relations, Russia has shouldered the burden of open rivalry with the United States. In the context of China’s interests in the Middle East, Russia’s intervention makes it possible for Beijing to place itself in the position of the only neutral actor in the Syrian conflict, as well as being a possible intermediary. For Beijing, another motive to assess the Russian intervention positively has been the Chinese vision of the global fight against terrorism. China has promoted the need for unity over this issue, by which it intends to legitimise the policy it has pursued in Xinjiang.

Read the whole article here: China on Russia's intervention in Syria

A ‘responsible’ or ‘indispensable’ power? Two approaches to global governance

The end of September saw two major non-Western powers, Russia and China, provide interesting answers to questions on how they perceive their contribution to global governance. Beijing promised to establish a 10-year, US$1 billion China-UN peace and development fund, offered US$ 100 million to the African Union for the purpose of establishing a rapid reaction force, and committed itself to the creation of a special police unit of up to 8,000 troops for UN peacekeeping operations. Moscow, in turn, vowed to forge an anti-Islamic State coalition and, without waiting long for others to reply, embarked upon its first military intervention outside the post-Soviet area. Targeting anti-Assad forces in Syria, Russia directed its activity towards upholding the Assad regime rather than suppressing Islamic State. This evident contrast between Moscow and Beijing's actions calls for broader reflection as these two states have been increasingly regarded as posing the same kind of revisionist challenge to what has been termed the Western-led order. 

The moves by Russia and China outlined above could be dismissed as purely tactical. Xi Jinping, visiting the UN General Assembly, aspired to present China as a ‘benign’ or ‘responsible’ rising power and aimed at diluting the negative fallout of its assertive moves in the South China Sea. Vladimir Putin aimed to demonstrate to the West that Russia will not be isolated from key international security affairs and remains an indispensable player to be reckoned with. Yet, the difference in Russian and Chinese responses suggests that more than mere tactics is at stake. These recent moves reveal fundamental differences in how the two states see their contribution to solving global problems and what kind of global order they are looking for.

The drive to gain recognition and respect - in other words, to elevate their status in international politics - is common to Russia and China. The elites of both states feel underestimated by the West, which, they believe, ignores their fundamental interests. However, the paths they have taken to boost their international status differ substantially. 

Russia has now overtly demonstrated to the West that it cannot be squeezed out of the game and retains significant potential to spoil Western endeavours. If it does not become part of the solution, it will be part of the problem. The Russian elite is afraid of external disorder but for the last two decades it has turned out to be more than able to thrive on instability. For this reason Moscow could afford to play a double game with regard to international crises, without fully committing to finding a solution. The Iranian case provides insight into the thinking of Russian elites - as much as Russia does not want Iran to get the bomb, it is nevertheless prepared to live with it.

China’s perspective on world affairs and its own role within the global order differs strongly from that of Moscow and prompts Beijing to employ different means. China has become entangled in the web of economic ties throughout the world. As a result it requires certain international rules to work to its advantage. Contrary to Russia, China has a lot to lose from instability and change. The Libyan or Yemeni crises forced Beijing to evacuate its citizens from war-torn places and exposed China’s vulnerability that comes with growing interdependence with the outside world. Although Chinese elites may dislike the US-constructed global order, they have no other alternative in sight, at least in the short- to medium-term perspective.

Russia and China tend to stress that they share an approach to the international order and global governance, using their annual summits for regular Western-bashing. But when it comes to details, Moscow and Beijing part ways. China reaches for the cheque book, propping up global multilateralism. Russia resorts to arms, reinforcing its own beliefs in self-reliance on the one hand and multipolarity on the other.

China, Russia and BRICS: a leader and an outlier

BRICS is a perfect illustration of the asymmetry that characterises the Sino-Russian relationship. China – number two in international affairs – is the natural leader of the non-Western world. Russia – a power whose economic decline became conspicuous in the aftermath of the falling oil prices and Western sanctions – does not fit into the Global South. Paradoxically, however, China still needs Russia and no other ‘brick’ can replace it.

From the very beginning of BRICS, scholars and commentators, especially in the West, pointed to a large number of differences between participants, first and foremost between Russia and the remaining states. Russia does not regard itself as a developing state and part of the global South – nor is it perceived as such externally. Despite all its shortcomings, the Russian economy is much closer to those of developed Western countries. In political terms, Russia tends to identify with Europe and the Global North. The living memory of the Soviet Union’s superpower status does not allow the Russian elites to consider themselves part of what used to be depicted as the ‘Third World’. Even Russian commentators tend to stress that Russia is an ‘outlier’ in the BRICS group.

China, in turn, looks like the natural leader of BRICS. It remains part of the Global South and faces similar political and socio-economical challenges. While it is plausible for BRICS to function as a forum for non-Western emerging powers without Russia – which was the case during negotiations on climate change, it seems impossible for BRICS to exist without China.

BRICS took shape in the midst of the global economic crisis. Consequently, the bulk of its member states’ attention was focused on issues related to the global economic and financial system, global trade, sustainable development and climate change. BRICS summits served to press for the reform of international financial institutions, the IMF in particular, and focused on the Millennium Development Goals. BRICS’ members consistently upheld the G20 as the most suitable forum for global economic governance. All these issues are close to the hearts of Chinese elites, who are centred on economic development, but they remain alien to the geopolitical mind-set prevailing in the Kremlin. The regional focus of BRICS – on Africa in 2013 and Latin America in 2014 – is in line with China’s goals, especially given its large economic presence in both continents.

The institutional development of BRICS has followed China’s rather than Russia’s interests in the international order. Regular meetings take place at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors, trade ministers, ministers of science, technology and innovation, trade councils, business and financial forums. Foreign ministers tend to meet at the fringes of other global events, such as the G20. The most recent decision to establish the first two fully-fledged institutions – a reserve fund and a development bank – has only confirmed China’s potential for creating a parallel global governance structure. This impression was only reinforced by Beijing’s successful establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), readily joined by China’s partners from BRICS.

But there is a paradox. Despite having the potential to take on the role of BRICS leader, China continues to need Russia. As an economic and developmental outlier, Russia remains the only state in the grouping with which China shares not only a non-democratic political system, but – more importantly – a great-power identity. Neither India, Brazil nor South Africa are able to offer substantial political support to China on the international stage. These states fall behind Russia in terms of material capabilities (military potential) and institutional arrangements (a permanent seat on the UN Security Council). Moreover, they lack the determination to challenge or resist the US primacy.

BRICS illustrates the extent of shifts that have been taking place in the Russo-Chinese relationship since the global economic crisis. Both states play different roles in this forum. China shapes the overall agenda of BRICS, and co-operation with other developing states fits Beijing’s foreign policy interests. Russia, for its part, influences the political agenda and attempts to present BRICS as an alternative to the Western institutional order. Beijing invests in tangible economic arrangements, such as the new development bank. Moscow cares much more about appearances by making sure that BRICS summit communiqués fit the vision of the international order preferred by Russia and China. Notwithstanding the power asymmetry between the two, Russia and China still need each other.