• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Alexander Gabuev"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Central Asia",
    "Russia",
    "Caucasus"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Trade",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Eurasian Silk Road Union: Towards a Russia-China Consensus?

If China and Russia manage to coordinate the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt, the change will mean not only a more genuine partnership between Moscow and Beijing, but China’s arrival, with Russia’s support, as a truly Eurasian power.

Link Copied
By Alexander Gabuev
Published on Jun 5, 2015
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: Diplomat

More than a year after the annexation of Crimea triggered a major rupture in the relationship between the West and Russia, Moscow’s attempts to build new partnerships in Asia are no longer surprising. Since the announcement of a $400 billion gas deal with China in May 2014, the Kremlin has tried to portray an emerging partnership with the world’s number two global economic powerhouse as an antidote to Western sanctions.

Grand summits between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, with dozens of agreements and triumphant declarations, have been met with skepticism in Western capitals. Russia-China rapprochement is frequently brushed off as spin doctoring, which both an isolated Russian regime and an assertive Chinese party-state try to sell for domestic consumption. It is widely believed that the two countries remain deeply suspicious of each other, and internal rifts will prevent them from forming a meaningful partnership.

One of the realms where Moscow and Beijing are strategic competitors is Central Asia. China’s economic and political clout in this resource-rich region is growing, sometimes at Russia’s expense. Many see China’s “Silk Road Economic Belt” initiative, first unveiled by Xi on a 2013 trip to Kazakhstan, as an attempt to drive Russia out of the region, where Moscow is trying to promote its own integration project, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). It’s widely believed that it’s just a matter of time before clashes occur between the two integration projects.

But after the May 8 Putin-Xi summit in Moscow, maybe it’s time to change that perspective. The two leaders signed a joint declaration “on cooperation in coordinating development of EEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt.” Moscow and Beijing declared a goal to coordinate the two projects in order to build a “common economic space” in Eurasia, including a Free Trade Agreement between the EEU and China. Though still equivocal in language, the document signifies major departure from the previous collision course.

In private conversations Chinese officials acknowledge that, since unveiling “One Belt, One Road,” Russia was their major concern. Since the 2013 announcement that the Kremlin was reluctant to engage in any meaningful negotiation on how Xi’s initiative will coexist with the EEU, Putin’s pet project. Beijing’s fear was that Moscow, anxious about its own fading status as a regional superpower, will regard “One Belt, One Road” as an intrusion into Russia’s sphere of influence and therefore pressure Central Asian states to block their participation in the Chinese project. Beijing was surprised and relieved when Igor Shuvalov, Russia’s first deputy prime minister and Putin’s troubleshooter for economic problems, first announced at the Boao Forum that the EEU is ready to cooperate with “One Belt, One Road,” and then personally embarked on negotiating a framework document with Chinese leaders on Putin’s behalf.

For the Russian leadership, the agreement with China was a result of painful internal discussions, in which its economic team had to win Putin’s support even with the security community’s concerns. In the end, the Kremlin concluded that the benefits of coordinating the EEU with the Chinese initiative outweighed the risks. It is now understood that it is inevitable that China will become the major investor in Central Asia and the major market for the region’s vast natural resources. The only way Russia can maintain its influence is to recalibrate its role in the region to accommodate its own ambitions, Beijing’s quest for raw materials, and the region’s appetite for Chinese money. The document signed by Putin and Xi outlines the possible formula.

First, China has recognized the EEU and is ready to deal with this structure and not only talk to separate member-states. On May 8 the Eurasian Economic Commission, the supranational body of the EEU, was mandated by the presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia to start negotiations on a trade and investment agreement with China. At the same time Moscow will look for Chinese infrastructure investment and secure access to the $40 billion “Silk Road Fund” for upgrading Russia’s infrastructure. The question of a free trade agreement with China, which is a problem for both Russia and Central Asian states given their high protectionism, was declared a distant goal and effectively put off for the future.

What the Kremlin is hoping for is a division of labor between Moscow and Beijing in Central Asia. China, with its deep pockets and resource hunger, will be the major driver for economic development in the region, while Moscow will remain the dominant hard security provider through its Collective Security Treaty Organization. This formula satisfies both China, which is still uncomfortable deploying troops beyond its borders, and also the Central Asian states – given their anxiety about a rising China and habitude to Russia’s military presence.

Of course, the Russian-Chinese consensus is just the first step on a road that may be bumpy as the two powers try to navigate it. The imperial syndrome of Russia’s ruling class, particularly in the security community, may prevent Moscow from fully embracing a pragmatic strategy of accommodating China’s growing influence in what used to be exclusively Russia’s backyard. At the same time, the Russian bureaucracy’s track record of executing such bold strategies toward its neighbors is ambiguous at best. For China it will be very hard to abandon the old habit of doing business with “the Stans” one-on-one, without informing the Kremlin. But if China and Russia manage to deliver, the change will be significant. It will mean not only a more genuine partnership between Moscow and Beijing, but China’s arrival, with Russia’s support, as a truly Eurasian power.

This article originally appeared in the Diplomat.

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

      Alexander Gabuev

  • Commentary
    Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?
      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov

Alexander Gabuev
Director, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Alexander Gabuev
EconomyTradeForeign PolicyEast AsiaChinaCentral AsiaRussiaCaucasus

Carnegie India 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 India

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • Article
    India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

    On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

      Konark Bhandari

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.