• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Alexander Gabuev"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Pax Sinica"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Russia",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Pax Sinica: Europe’s Dilemma in Facing the Sino-Russian Axis

Europe’s policy should start with a clear identification of those elements of Sino-Russian cooperation that are detrimental for EU’s interests and that whose direction it can influence.

Link Copied
By Alexander Gabuev
Published on Nov 24, 2020

Source: Berlin Pulse

As the transatlantic community enters a new political cycle following the US presidential election, rivalry among great powers looms increasingly large. Two players stand out as the most problematic for Europe. First, there is the familiar challenge of dealing with a belligerent Russia. Second, there is an increasingly assertive China. What is new is that these two challenges get ever more conflated. Beijing and Moscow are entering into a relationship that is also increasingly asymmetric, with the latter gradually becoming the junior partner. The emergence of a Sino-Russian axis as the backbone of Beijing-centred order in Eurasia – a Pax Sinica – has profound security and economic implications for Europe and Germany.

China and Russia have gradually deepened their ties over the last three decades. Since solving their territorial dispute in 2004, they share a need for peace along their 4,200 kilometres border – the alternative is too risky and too costly for two nuclear states. Then there is the natural economic complementarity between commodities-exporting Russia and a resources-hungry China. In addition, the two authoritarian regimes do not criticize each other for illiberalism at home, and they share a common agenda in global for a on issues like internet governance.

On top of that, both Beijing and Moscow are in confrontation with the West. Following the war in Ukraine and the introduction of western sanctions, Russia is increasingly looking to China for markets, technology and money. Meanwhile, Beijing taps Moscow’s support for the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army, and it looks at the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) as a testing ground for a geo-economic order dominated by Chinese technical standards. Chinese economic inroads into Russia are driven by the western sanctions. Ironically, they come at the expense of European, particularly German, businesses. For example, in 2016 China surpassed Germany as a major source of equipment and technology-related products in the Russian market, and in 2019 Russia imported nearly 2.5 times more in hi-tech products (US$30.8 billion) from China than from Germany.

The strengthening of the Sino-Russian axis is against western interests. First, resources provided by Russia to China, like the newest arms or help in fundamental research, boost Beijing’s assertive-ness. Second, with Moscow becoming increasingly dependent on Beijing, there is a risk of the two capitals starting to work in tandem in regions like eastern Europe or the Arctic, as well as to coordinate closely on matters affecting the global commons. Finally, Russia and the EEU becoming firmly embedded into Pax Sinica will help Beijing to extend its sphere of influence into continental Eurasia – and it will reduce Russia’s ability to maintain strategic autonomy and thus decrease its chances for a gradual political transformation in the future.

The European and German approach to the Pax Sinica challenge needs to be rooted in a clear-eyed look at Sino-Russian relations. Despite the growing asymmetry of these and rising concerns about it in the Russian elite and society, it is unrealistic to expect the Kremlin to turn its back on China in order to reset relations with the West. A pragmatic and friendly relationship with China is far too important for Russia’s security to trade it for some elusive gains with the West. At the same time, Russia’s disagreements with Europe are profound and there are no quick fixes for them on either side. Finally, Europe has a problem with regard to incentives since most of the sanctions against Russia are likely to remain for the foreseeable future. Still, in the Sino-Russian axis it is the Kremlin that wants to maintain strategic autonomy and independence from China, and that is why the West should direct its policy at Moscow.

Europe’s policy should start with a clear identification of those elements of Sino-Russian cooperation that are detrimental for EU’s interests and that whose direction it can influence. An honest internal discussion on the side effects of the sanctions is long overdue, and there should be careful consideration of future sanctions that could undermine western interests and push Russia deeper into China’s embrace at the same time (for example, a potential ban on selling European 5G equipment). Finally, Germany should play a leading role in keeping channels of communication with the Kremlin open, including on China. This dialogue, properly communicated to and supported by Germany’s allies, such as those in eastern Europe, is a tool of diplomacy, not a reward. Unfortunately, Russia’s counterproductive behaviour makes this strategy very difficult to execute, even with a transatlantic consensus appearing on the horizon.

This article was originally published in The Berlin Pulse, 2020

About the Author

Alexander Gabuev
Alexander Gabuev

Director, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Alexander Gabuev is director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. Gabuev’s research is focused on Russian foreign policy with particular focus on the impact of the war in Ukraine and the Sino-Russia relationship. Since joining Carnegie in 2015, Gabuev has contributed commentary and analysis to a wide range of publications, including the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Iran War Fallout Gifts Putin Diplomatic Victory at ASEAN Summit
      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev

  • Commentary
    Did Putin Return From China Empty-Handed?
      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev

Alexander Gabuev
Director, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Alexander Gabuev
Foreign PolicyEast AsiaChinaRussiaWestern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    The Plaza Accord and Its Relevance for China

    The Plaza Accord was not an externally imposed punishment of Japan but part of a broader restructuring that Japanese economists and policymakers themselves recognized was necessary. Its effects were undermined, however, when Tokyo responded to the resulting slowdown with policies that exacerbated investment, credit expansion, and the very imbalances the adjustment was intended to resolve.

      Michael Pettis

  • The nuclear missile formation passes through Tian'anmen Square during a military parade on September 3, 2025 in Beijing, China.
    Paper
    Untangling the Nuclear Knot: A Constructive Agenda for Managing China’s Nuclear Relations with the United States and Its Allies

    The nuclear relationship between China and the United States is increasingly shaped by widening perception gaps rather than deliberate strategic design.

      Tong Zhao

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

    China’s banking crisis in the 2000s was resolved by transferring the costs to households through financial repression—a decision that recapitalized the banks while exacerbating the structural imbalances that continue to shape the Chinese economy today.

      Michael Pettis

  • Robot arm with disposable test tube virus sampling in laboratory
    Commentary
    Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. Sanctions

    Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.

      Xue Gong

  • An aerial drone photo taken on June 4, 2026 shows a wind-photovoltaic power storage station of Huadian Inner Mongolia New Energy Co., Ltd. as part of the Horinger data center cluster green energy supply demonstration project, in Hohhot, north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
    Commentary
    Are Data Centers the Solution to China’s Renewables Excess Capacity?

    China’s latest energy plan explicitly calls for integrating data centers into the electricity system, particularly connecting them to green energy. It appears Beijing wants to use compute as a source of domestic demand to absorb renewables excess capacity.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.