CHATHAM HOUSE China and Russia’s strategic duo endures – but its limits are clear This week’s summit shows the relationship is resilient, rooted in shared interests. But China remains wary of commitments on various fronts. Expert comment Published 21 May 2026 —

 CHATHAM HOUSE

China and Russia’s strategic duo endures – but its limits are clear

This week’s summit shows the relationship is resilient, rooted in shared interests. But China remains wary of commitments on various fronts.

Expert comment

Published 21 May 2026 —

4 minute READ

Image — President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping at a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People on 20 May 2026 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Maxim Shemetov - China Pool/Getty Images)

Dr Yu Jie

Senior Research Fellow on China, Asia-Pacific Programme

In the past six months, Beijing has emerged as a diplomatic crossroads for all permanent members of the UN Security Council. The latest arrival was a familiar figure to his Chinese host: Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom President Xi Jinping has met more than 40 times since 2012. 

Like the Xi–Trump summit last week, international media focused on the apparent personal chemistry between the leaders, dissecting every detail of the diplomatic theatre surrounding the meetings. 

In reality, however, geopolitics is rarely driven by personal warmth or political ‘bromance’. It is shaped by strategic interests, calculations of power, and national priorities.

This latest meeting between Xi and Putin was designed to send a message to the world: Beijing and Moscow remain strategically aligned in their effort to reshape the international order. A joint summit declaration, advocating a ‘multipolar world’ and a ‘new type of international relations’, underscored the durability of the China–Russia partnership at a moment of mounting global fragmentation.

Yet beneath the appearance of unity lies a more complicated reality. China and Russia remain bound together by geography, by shared opposition to Western dominance, and by a partially overlapping strategic agenda. But the partnership is not limitless. Beijing is concerned over excessive dependence on Russian energy. And its broader global ambitions continue to place boundaries around how far the relationship can evolve.

The Xi–Putin summit therefore revealed two truths simultaneously: China and Russia continue to operate as a consistent strategic duo on the world stage. But their partnership remains one of pragmatic alignment rather than full alliance.

Ties that bind

Geography is the first and most enduring factor binding China and Russia together. The two countries share one of the world’s longest land borders (at 4300 kms it is around the width of the European continent) and they inhabit the same Eurasian strategic space. Neither can afford sustained hostility with the other.

For Beijing, stable relations with Moscow secure its northern frontier and reduce the risk of encirclement by hostile powers from the south. Indeed, part of the purpose of Putin’s visit this week is to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the ‘Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation’ agreed by Putin and Xi’s predecessor, President Jiang Zemin.

For Russia, partnership with China offers economic resilience and geopolitical relevance at a time when Moscow’s relations with the West remain deeply damaged.

This geographic logic has become even more pertinent as the international system grows more polarized. Beijing and Moscow both see value in coordinating against what they describe as Western ‘hegemony’ and unilateralism. Their new communiqué on multipolarity reflects this shared worldview. The language of a ‘more just and equitable’ international order is not simply rhetorical flourish; it reflects a long-standing Chinese and Russian effort to weaken the dominance of US-led institutions and create greater room for alternative centres of power.

Related work

The Trump-Xi summit: What does the US want from China and will Trump get it? Independent Thinking podcast

That multipolarity serves different but complementary purposes. Russia views it as a pathway out of isolation and as recognition that it remains a major power, despite Western sanctions and diplomatic pressure. China sees multipolarity as a transition toward a world less centred on American strategic primacy and more accommodating to Beijing’s growing economic and political influence.

This convergence has produced a durable strategic partnership. China has provided Russia with crucial economic lifelines since the war in Ukraine began. It has expanded bilateral trade, increased purchases of Russian oil and gas, and sustained technology and industrial exchanges – straining its ties with Europe in the process.

Russia, in turn, has offered China discounted energy supplies, military cooperation, and diplomatic backing on issues ranging from Taiwan to critiques of NATO’s intentions in Asia.

Alignment, not trust

But strategic alignment does not erase asymmetry or mistrust. And it will not override Beijing’s core pursuit of economic self-reliance.

Beijing continues to hesitate over deeper energy dependence on Russia. Although energy cooperation remains a pillar of bilateral ties, China has avoided placing itself in a position where Russian supplies become indispensable.

This explains why long-discussed projects such as the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline continue to move slowly despite repeated rhetorical endorsements. For Moscow, the project is economically urgent: Europe’s reduction of Russian energy imports has made China the Kremlin’s most important prospective long-term energy customer. 

But Beijing has approached negotiations cautiously, leveraging Russia’s weakened bargaining position to demand favourable pricing and supply terms. That hesitation is strategic rather than commercial alone. Beijing understands that overreliance on any single supplier creates vulnerabilities. 

The relationship is resilient because it is pragmatic, transactional, and rooted in shared interests – rather than treaty obligations or deep mutual trust.

Chinese policymakers have spent years diversifying energy sources across the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and global LNG markets precisely to avoid geopolitical dependence. Becoming excessively tied to Russian energy would reduce China’s flexibility and expose Beijing to unnecessary strategic risk.

Moreover, China does not share all of Russia’s geopolitical priorities. While both oppose American dominance, Beijing remains more deeply integrated into the global economy than Moscow and has far more to lose from sustained instability. China seeks systemic influence through controlled interdependence with its trade partners and rivals; Russia often seeks leverage through the disruption of global flashpoints.

This distinction matters. Beijing supports Moscow politically to a point but has also been careful not to fully embrace Russia’s confrontation with the West. Chinese leaders continue to preserve economic ties with Europe. They have maintained access to global markets. And they have avoided triggering secondary sanctions severe enough to jeopardize China’s already weakened domestic growth.

The latest Xi–Putin summit therefore showcased a relationship defined less by ideology than by calibrated strategic utility. Both sides benefit from appearing united. Russia gains the appearance of having a powerful partner despite Western efforts at isolation. China maintains a reliable geopolitical counterweight to the US and an important partner in promoting alternative visions of global governance.

Topics

China’s foreign relations

Article 2nd half

Still, neither side is willing to subordinate its national interests fully to the other.

That reality is precisely why predictions of a formal China–Russia alliance continue to miss the point. The relationship is resilient because it is pragmatic, transactional, and rooted in shared interests – rather than treaty obligations or deep mutual trust. It is strong enough to endure external pressure, yet limited enough to avoid becoming a true military bloc.

The latest joint ‘declaration on multipolarity’ captures this balance. China and Russia are united in seeking to dilute US-led dominance and reshape global governance. They will continue coordinating diplomatically and strategically in pursuit of that objective. Geography, shared grievances, and converging interests ensure that.

But the meeting also highlighted the limits that continue to define the partnership. China’s caution over energy dependence, its desire for strategic autonomy, and its broader global ambitions mean Beijing will continue to carefully weigh if and how it chooses to cooperate with Moscow.

The Xi–Putin relationship remains one of the most consequential strategic partnerships in the world. Yet its durability lies not in limitless friendship, but in carefully managed limits.