CONTEMPORARY EURASIA VOLUME VIII (1) ContemporaryEurasia81 | Page 46

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: WHAT IS BISHKEK’S HEDGING STRATAGEM?
order in which Russia has been obliged to re-bargain social contracts with
the post-Soviet satellite states in order to maintain its authority. 2 Despite a
certain degree of Russian leverage over the Central Asian Republics, the
aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the simultaneous rise
of China has caused a geopolitical shift in the region, resulting in the
question whether China is currently challenging Russia in its traditional
stomping ground. The initial synopsis hints at a potential clash of
hierarchies, in which the Kremlin-centric order is being undermined by a
new rival Chinese political order, which can provide a better range of net
benefits to the various actors in the region, primarily based on economic
development assistance under the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI). 3
Although China’s substantial economic power is driving its potential as a
geopolitical contender, it arguably lacks both security deployment capability
and willingness, as Russia retains a degree of security leadership in the
region. 4 Considering these assumptions, it appears that various Central Asian
republics are seeking Chinese engagement whilst simultaneously incurring
the outcome of regional power hedging between Moscow and Beijing, in
order to address politically volatile instabilities i.e. ethnic separatism,
transnational terrorism and economic underdevelopment. 5
Concordantly, Russia and China’s advances for the dominant position
in Central Asia necessitate deliberation. Russia has traditionally put
emphasis on political supremacy - in other words, domination - over its
subordinates, being committed to, as Gvosdev puts it, “reconstituting a
Russian-led Eurasian zone” by incorporating the latter and compelling it to
acknowledge Moscow’s authority. 6 This has been evident throughout the
historical scope of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, the Russian Empire and
the Soviet Union. Historically, the Chinese Empire, by contrast, had
orchestrated a tributary system that upheld China as a regional hegemon and
afforded a defensive insulation mechanism to the core imperial territory,
further providing a regional conflict management apparatus and expanding
Globalization (Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center, 2002), 110.
2
David A. Lake, Hierarchy in international Relations (Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press, 2009), 44.
3
Stephen Blank, “Russia's Failure in Asia”, UNISCI Discussion Papers No. 24 (October
2010).
4
Dmitri Trenin, Post-Imperium: Evraziyskaya Istoriya [Post-Imperium: A Eurasian History]
(Moscow: Carnegie Center, 2012), 15; Dmitri Trenin, Mir Bezuslovniy: Evro-Atlantika XXI.
Veka kak soobshchestvo bezopasnosti [Unconditional Peace: The 21 st Century Euro-Atlantic
as Security Community] (Moscow: Carnegie Center, 2013), 223.
5
Alexander Korolev, “Systemic Balancing and Regional Hedging: China-Russia Relations”,
The Chinese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2016): 376-384, 391.
6
Nikolas Gvosdev, “The Sources of Russian Conduct”, The National Interest, No. 75 (Spring
2004), 29-38, here 34. & Dmitri Trenin, “Russia Reborn: Reimagining Moscow's Foreign
Policy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 6 (November/December 2009): 64-78.
46