264Received 25.02.2021.
Acknowledgements. The work on this article was financially supported by MGIMO University, project No. 1921-01-04.
Abstract. The article analyses Eurasian international transport corridors from three perspectives: historical patterns and contemporary geopolitical struggle in Eurasia, post-Soviet political transformations and Eurasian integration. On the one hand, the development of transport infrastructure contributes to the power of Russia as the main continental power. On the other hand, it provides access for players from outside of Eurasia and helps peoples and nations of Eurasia to engage in the world system, thus disrupting the continental power’s monopoly on the region’s resources. After the dissolution of the USSR Russia’s strategic shift to openness resonated with globalization. This gave an impetus to the development of the continental transport system. The West anticipated to underpin political sovereignty of post-Soviet states with their greater economic independence from Russia by trade diversification and avoiding transit through Russia. However, the EU was also interested in creating a transport corridor to Asian states through Russia. Post-soviet states wanted to be integrated into the world trade system, and saw close ties with Russia as an obstacle. Thus, trade system diversification became one of their foreign policy main objectives, they supported both transcontinental and transregional infrastructure projects, viewing themselves as belts, connecting Europe and Asia. The “One belt, One road” initiative was most welcomed in the post-Soviet space as another tool for increased connectivity with the outside world. Although the EAEU and China have a common goal of developing Eurasian transport infrastructure, they may have political differences in the future. The EAEU states act as transit countries, while China is the main client of the infrastructure and will be interested in lower transit fees. Russia is ultimately interested in integrating and consolidating the post-Soviet space as an economic entity. Although connected to the outside world it is also deemed as substantially autonomous in strategic terms. At the same time, other international players, the West and China alike, as well post-Soviet states themselves, are more focused on connecting to the outside as an alternative to Russia’s influence in the region.
Keywords: Eurasia, Russia, international transport corridors, post-Soviet states, geopolitics, USA, EU, China, EAEU, “One belt, one road”
REFERENCES
1. Varnavskii V. Global Transport & Logistics Infrastructure. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2020, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 5-14. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-1-5-14
2. Vinokurov E.Yu. et al. Transport Corridors of the Silk Road: Potential for Transit Turnover Growth in the EAEU: Report 49. St. Petersburg, Eurasian Development Bank: Center for integration studies, 2018. 71 p. (In Russ.)
3. Quium A.S.M. The Asian Highway and Trans-Asian Railway networks. Routledge Handbook of Transport in Asia. Zhang J., Feng C. M., eds. New York, Routledge, 2018, pp. 44-60.
4. Shcherbanin Yu.A. How Profitable is Transit for Russia? Transport Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2007, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 54-56. (In Russ.)
5. Podberezkina O.A. Transport Corridors in the Russian Integration Projects, the Case of the Eurasian Economic Union. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2015, vol. 1, no. 40, pp. 57-65. (In Russ.)
6. Mekhdiev E.T. Euro-Asian Transport Corridors and the Eurasian Economic Union. Journal of International Analytics, 2018, no. 2, pp. 47-56. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2018-0-2-47-56
7. Sushentsov À. Russia’s Foreign Policy and Strategic Culture: A Dialogue with William Wohlforth about the Research Paradigm. Quaestio Rossica, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 369-381. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.15826/qr.2020.2.468
8. Safranchuk I.A. M–Messianism. Russia in Global Affairs, 2020, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 105-107. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2020-18-1-105-107
9. Brzezinski Z. The grand chessboard. New York, Basic Books, 1997. 223 p.
10. Cornell S.E. Geopolitics and strategic alignments in the Caucasus and Central Asia Perceptions. Journal of International Affairs, 1999, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100-125.
11. Hill F. A Not-So-Grand Strategy: U.S. Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia Since 1991. Brookings. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-not-so-grand-strategy-u-s-policy-in-the-caucasus-and-central-asia-since-1991/ (accessed 20.02.2021).
12. Jaffe A.M. Unlocking the Assets: Energy and the Future of Central Asia and the Caucasus: Main Study. Houston, The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, 1988. 42 p.
13. Byrd W. Economic Activity and Financing in the Regional Context Exploiting the New Opportunities. Tehran, Iran, The Tripartite Ministerial Meeting of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan on Cooperation for Development, 2002. 6 p.
14. Linke P., Naumkin V.V. The Transformation and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Moscow, Institute of Oriental Studies Russian Academy of Science, 2013. 216 p. (In Russ.)
15. Zviagelskaya I. The Middle East and Central Asia: Global Trends in Regional Dimension. Moscow, Aspekt-Press, 2018. 224 p. (In Russ.)
16. Kazantsev A.A., Rutland P., Medvedeva S.M., Safranchuk I.A. Russia’s Policy in the “Frozen Conflicts” of the Post-Soviet Space: From Ethno-Politics to Geopolitics. Caucasus Survey, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 142-162. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2020.1728499
17. Markedonov S.M., Suchkov M.A. Russia and the United States in the Caucasus: Cooperation and Competition. Caucasus Survey, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 179-195. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2020.1732101
18. Sushentsov A., Neklyudov N. The Caucasus in Russian Foreign Policy Strategy. Caucasus Survey, 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 127-141. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2020.1759888
19. Safranchuk I. Alternative Options of the U.S. Policy in Afghanistan. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2017, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 5-12. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-2-5-12
20. Safranchuk I. Military Force in Obama’s Policy: the Case of Afghanistan. International Trends, 2017, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 89-98. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17994/IT.2017.15.2.49.6
21. Safranchuk I. Afghanistan’s Political Future and Its Role in Eurasian Cooperation. India Quarterly, 2019, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 15-28. DOI: 10.1177/0974928418821467
22. Blinken A.J. An Enduring Vision for Central Asia. Official website of U.S. Department of State, 2015. Available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/2015/240013.htm (accessed 20.02.2021).
23. Analysis of Existing Transit Transport Corridors in Member States. Analytical Report, Department of transport and infrastructure, Eurasian Economic Union. Moscow, 2019. 23 p. (In Russ.)
24. Lukin A.A Russian Perspective on the Sino-Russian Rapprochement. Asia Policy, 2018, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19-25. DOI: 10.1353/asp.2018.0004
25. Lukin A. The US–China Trade War and China’s Strategic Future. Survival, 2019, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 23-50. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2019.1568045
26. Grinberg R.S. Single Economic Space as a Way to Diversify our Economies. First Integration Forum “Single Economic Space of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine: Knowledge, Opportunities and Prospects”. Moscow, 2005, pp. 73-74. (In Russ.)
27. Putin V.V. New Integration Project for Eurasia: Future is Created Today. Izvestia, 04.11.2011. (In Russ.)
28. Nazarbaev N. Eurasian Union: from Idea to History of the Future. Izvestia, 25.11.2011. (In Russ.) Available at: https://iz.ru/news/504908 (accessed 20.02.2021).
29. Arapova E. China: Trends of International Interaction amid Contemporary Challenges. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2018, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 77-85. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-6-77-85
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX
No comments