• 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": [
    "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 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

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • 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

  • 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, …

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.