China and Russia share a long and complex historical trajectory, marked by cycles of cooperation and deep geopolitical rivalry. Rather than a linear trajectory of convergence, the bilateral relationship has been shaped by shifting balances of power, ideological divergences, and competing strategic priorities that have periodically brought the two neighbours into tension.
Historically, bilateral relations have been repeatedly strained not only by ideological disputes between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic during the Cold War era but also by the geopolitical weight of their shared border (approximately 4,200 kilometres in length), which has functioned simultaneously as a zone of contact and a persistent source of strategic sensitivity. For decades, this frontier embodied unresolved disputes and mutual suspicion, particularly in the context of competing regional influence in Eurasia.
The contested partnership since the early 2000s
A turning point emerged in the early 2000s, when Moscow and Beijing formally closed a series of long-standing territorial disagreements, including the final demarcation agreements that followed the 2004 complementary border settlement, which resolved remaining disputes over islands and riverine territories along the Amur and Ussuri rivers. This diplomatic normalization paved the way for a broader stabilization of bilateral relations and the gradual institutionalization of security cooperation. Over time, this has materialized in regular joint military exercises, such as the “Vostok” drills every four years, and in an increasingly structured exchange of defence technologies and capabilities.
At the same time, the economic dimension of the relationship has deepened significantly. In particular, the impact of Western sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014, and dramatically expanded after 2022, has accelerated Moscow’s strategic pivot toward Asia. This shift has reinforced energy and trade flows with China, from hydrocarbons to infrastructure and payments systems, and has contributed to a broader reconfiguration of Russia’s external economic architecture, increasingly oriented toward the Asian continent.
However, behind the rhetoric of a “no-limits partnership” lie structural fragilities and diverging interests. The relationship between China and Russia remains marked by profound asymmetries of power, silent competition, and lingering mutual suspicion, visible, for instance, in Moscow’s growing unease over China’s expanding influence in the Arctic and Central Asia, as well as in Beijing’s cautious reluctance to become excessively dependent on Russian energy supplies. These factors make the strategic axis far more complex and potentially more unstable than it often appears.
The China-Russia relationship after the second invasion of Ukraine
China’s approach to Russia can be better understood through a logic of strategic self-restraint rather than confrontation. As Dale Carnegie once suggested in How to Win Friends and Influence People, there is limited value in insisting on proving others wrong for the sake of “winning” an argument or demonstrating superiority. In geopolitical terms, this translates into a preference for managing asymmetries quietly, without publicly voicing disagreements or unnecessary friction. This logic is particularly visible and politically useful in the case of Russia: while Moscow occupies a junior position within the broader Sino-Russian relationship, it remains highly sensitive to status, perception, and symbolic hierarchy.
Following the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent wave of Western sanctions, Russia’s primary economic outlet shifted decisively toward China. Energy exports were rapidly reoriented eastward, with oil and gas flows increasingly redirected to Chinese markets. Pipeline deliveries and seaborne exports surged, with bilateral energy trade reaching record levels in the post-2022 period, particularly in crude oil and natural gas volumes.
Read also: The unlearned lessons of war: Four years since the invasion of Ukraine
At the same time, Beijing has continued to resist deeper structural energy dependence on Russia, as on anyone else. Despite energy remaining a central pillar of bilateral ties, China has carefully avoided locking itself into long-term arrangements that could transform Russian supplies into an indispensable component of its energy security. This is one of the reasons why long-discussed projects such as the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline continue to advance slowly, despite repeated political signaling. For Moscow, however, the project remains strategically urgent: the collapse of Europe as its primary energy market has made China its most important long-term customer, but not a guaranteed one.
Over time, Western sanctions have gradually deepened Russia’s economic reliance on China, creating a structural asymmetry in which Beijing holds the upper hand. China is now Russia’s largest trading partner, while Russia accounts for only a small fraction of China’s total external trade flows (4%).
In the military-technical domain, cooperation has historically been significant, with the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation supplying China with advanced systems such as fighter aircraft, engines, air defence platforms, and assistance in developing early warning capabilities for missile attacks. Some of these technologies are strategically sensitive, as they enhance China’s ability to detect and respond to potential US missile activity and reflect a level of cooperation once limited to a narrow circle of advanced military powers.
However, the balance has gradually shifted. Russia’s military-industrial base has come under increasing strain during the war in Ukraine, exposing shortages in certain platforms and components. This reversal has even raised the possibility that Moscow could, in the future, rely on Chinese systems, including transport aircraft or airborne early warning platforms, originally developed through Soviet-era technological lineages.
China has emerged as a crucial enabler of Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. While avoiding direct military involvement, Beijing provides Russia with industrial capacity, dual-use goods, and technological inputs that help sustain its defense production and broader wartime resilience. This support has included the supply of microelectronics and critical components essential for military manufacturing, which are believed to have helped Moscow overcome key production constraints during critical phases of the war, particularly throughout 2023.
Anyway, despite the growing asymmetry between the two countries, Beijing has remained careful not to translate its stronger position into overt political pressure. Chinese leadership appears acutely aware that excessive assertiveness toward Moscow could generate resentment within Russian political and strategic circles, ultimately weakening the very partnership China seeks to preserve. For this reason, Beijing’s approach has largely been characterised by restraint and calibrated management rather than open domination. At the same time, Russia retains a political culture and strategic identity deeply resistant to external pressure. As one scholar argued, “even if China was to try to force Russia’s hand, it is not exactly the kind of country to immediately accept it”. The more interesting question, therefore, is under which circumstances Beijing could eventually decide to test those limits, whether on Arctic governance, energy pricing, access to strategic infrastructure, or broader alignment on issues linked to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
Geopolitical constraints and strategic asymmetry
Russia’s growing reliance on China becomes particularly evident when viewed against the backdrop of Moscow’s increasingly constrained diplomatic space. The limited attendance of key global actors at the 9 May Victory Day commemorations, including leaders such as Belarus’ Aleksandr Lukashenko and a small number of partners from the post-Soviet and Global South space, underscores the extent of Russia’s shrinking circle of active international allies.
Yet this growing dependence should not be mistaken for full strategic convergence. China does not entirely share Russia’s geopolitical priorities. Although both share an interest in constraining US dominance, Beijing remains far more deeply embedded in the global economy and therefore more exposed to the costs of systemic instability. Its strategy relies on shaping interdependence to expand influence, while Russia has often relied on disruption as a form of leverage. In any case, the relationship does not require strict alignment or mutual obedience, precisely because it is not structured as a formal alliance.
Read also: China’s networking foreign policy versus Trump’s disruptive challenge
What ultimately prevents Moscow from being fully shaped by Beijing’s preferences is its capacity to assert its own constraints – a form of strategic rigidity within an otherwise flexible partnership –which still grants Russia limited room for manoeuvre inside an increasingly asymmetric relationship.
More broadly, the Sino-Russian relationship is sustained more by reciprocal strategic utility than by ideological affinity. For Russia, China represents an economic lifeline and a source of geopolitical legitimacy at a time of growing international isolation. For China, Russia remains a useful counterweight to the United States and a partner in challenging aspects of the Western-led international order, without requiring Beijing to fully embrace Moscow’s confrontational posture.
It is precisely within this selective convergence that the limits of the partnership emerge. China’s exposure to global markets, its dependence on economic stability, and its long-term geopolitical ambitions all require a degree of flexibility that Russia’s revisionist behaviour can complicate. As a result, cooperation between the two powers continues to evolve through calibrated pragmatism rather than unconditional alignment.
The future stress points
Precisely because the China–Russia relationship is driven by pragmatism rather than ideology, its trajectory remains inherently adjustable. Understanding its future evolution therefore requires tracking a number of strategic pressure points that are likely to shape its direction. Without any claim to exhaustiveness, a few stand out as particularly consequential.
The first is the United States, and in particular the evolution of communication and signaling around the Taiwan Strait. For both Beijing and Moscow, the American posture in the Indo-Pacific functions as a structural reference point. Any shift in US deterrence credibility, alliance signalling, or escalation management in the region directly affects China’s strategic horizon and indirectly reshapes the value Beijing assigns to its partnership with Russia. In this sense, the China-Russia relationship remains partially derivative of the broader US-China strategic equilibrium. For example, the recent escalation involving Iran has further reinforced Beijing’s sensitivity to how US power is projected across multiple theatres simultaneously. This, in turn, could strengthen China’s preference for flexibility and strategic optionality in its external alignments, including its relationship with Russia.
The second is the Arctic. Here the asymmetry is reversed. Russia retains clear territorial and strategic primacy: roughly half of the Arctic littoral is Russian, and Moscow continues to view the region as an extension of its sovereign security space and national identity. China, by contrast, has positioned itself as a “near-Arctic state”, gradually expanding its presence through scientific missions, infrastructure investments, and participation in joint exercises with Russia. Beyond its commercial logic – shorter shipping routes and access to resources – China’s Arctic engagement reflects a longer-term ambition to become a maritime great power.
This creates a subtle but growing tension: Russia remains the status quo power in the region, while China increasingly behaves as a long-horizon revisionist actor. So far, Moscow has allowed limited Chinese entry through controlled cooperation formats. Over time, however, climate change, infrastructure investments, and expanding Chinese capabilities are likely to increase Beijing’s demands for influence, testing the boundaries of Russian strategic patience and sovereignty narratives in the Far North.
The third variable is economic asymmetry, and in particular the evolution of China’s pricing power over Russian exports. Since 2022, China has benefited from a consistent discount rate on Russian crude and energy exports: a function of sanctions, limited market access, and Moscow’s constrained bargaining position. This pricing gap has become a practical indicator of Russia’s dependence on Chinese demand, as well as a structural subsidy sustaining parts of the Russian economy under wartime pressure.
Fluctuations in global sanctions regimes, shifts in Middle Eastern supply conditions, and changes in Western enforcement intensity can all alter China’s leverage. For this reason, the “China discount” on Russian oil should be read not only as an economic variable, but also as a geopolitical proxy: it reflects both the health of Russian external dependence and the degree to which Beijing perceives constraints from potential secondary sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe.