OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 15, N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025

247

ASYMMETRIC DEPENDENCE AND BARGAINING POWER IN SINO-

RUSSIAN ENERGY RELATIONS

ANIL ÇAĞLAR ERKAN

acerken@mehmetakif.edu.tr

Associate Professor, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur (Turkey).

AYÇA EMINOGLU

aeminoglu@ktu.edu.tr

Associate Professor at Karadeniz Technical University, International Relations Department,

Trabzon (Turkey). She received her BA in the Department of International Relations, Near East

University, TRNC. She received her MA and Ph.D. in the Department of International Relations, at

Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. Her main fields of specialization and research

interests include security studies, conflict resolution, peace studies, and foreign policy analysis.

Abstract

Considered from the realist perspective, strategic energy resources, which are among the

elements of power, make cooperation possible for liberals. The concept of interdependence

brings together two extreme theoretical approaches that locate strategic energy resources in

different places. According to Keohane and Nye, the relations based on strategic energy

resources should be considered within the scope of interdependence. In the context of the

interdependence approach, Keohane and Nye explain this situation within the framework of

sensitivity, vulnerability, and bargaining power. At this point, the concept of bargaining power

is particularly important because the interdependence relationship based on energy has the

potential to be manipulated at any time. Undoubtedly, the asymmetries between the parties

are the basis of the manipulation. This also brings bargaining power to the fore. In the light

of all these, the study analyses the effects of asymmetric interdependence in energy relations

on bargaining power in the example of the Sino-Russian relations.

Keywords

Asymmetric Dependence, Russia, China, Energy Relations, Bargaining Power.

Resumo

Considerados na perspetiva realista, os recursos energéticos estratégicos, que se encontram

entre os elementos de poder, tornam a cooperação possível para os liberais. O conceito de

interdependência reúne duas abordagens teóricas extremas que situam os recursos

estratégicos energéticos em lugares diferentes. Segundo Keohane e Nye, as relações

baseadas nos recursos energéticos estratégicos devem ser consideradas no âmbito da

interdependência. No contexto da abordagem da interdependência, Keohane e Nye explicam

esta situação no quadro da sensibilidade, da vulnerabilidade e do poder de negociação. Neste

ponto, o conceito de poder de negociação é particularmente importante porque a relação de

interdependência baseada na energia tem o potencial de ser manipulada a qualquer momento.

Sem dúvida, as assimetrias entre as partes são a base da manipulação. Este facto coloca

igualmente em evidência o poder de negociação. À luz de tudo isto, o estudo analisa os efeitos

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262

Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in Sino-Russian Energy Relations

Anil Çağlar Erkan, Ayça Eminoglu

248

da interdependência assimétrica nas relações energéticas sobre o poder de negociação no

exemplo das relações sino-russas.

Palavras-chave

Dependência Assimétrica, Rússia, China, Relações Energéticas, Poder de Negociação.

How to cite this article

Erkan, Anil Çağlar & Eminoglu, Ayça (2024). Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in

Sino-Russian Energy Relations. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL 15 N.º 2,

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.15.2.10.

Article received on 12 December 2023 and accepted for publication on 19 September

2024.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262

Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in Sino-Russian Energy Relations

Anil Çağlar Erkan, Ayça Eminoglu

249

ASYMMETRIC DEPENDENCE AND BARGAINING POWER IN SINO-

RUSSIAN ENERGY RELATIONS

ANIL ÇAĞLAR ERKAN

AYÇA EMINOGLU

Introduction

Although it is shaped within the framework of interdependence, the value attributed to

the concept of power is still undisputed. It is possible to explain the effects of strategic

energy resources under the conditions of interdependency in two concepts. First, energy

relations directly reflect the modern form of interdependency. Second, strategic energy

sources are tied to modern and traditional forms of power. In short, strategic energy

sources are directly related to power’s hard and soft dimensions, something like economic

and bargaining power in energy diplomacy. It is possible to observe this in the

asymmetries in relationship in recent periods when hard power began to be considered

in the background, and other elements of power began to come to the fore. This concept

of asymmetry in relationships, which can be characterized as an element of power, is

that one party needs the gains in relationships more than the other. Particularly, we often

observe that asymmetries turn into power elements in energy interdependence. It is the

bargaining power in energy diplomacy expressed by the transformation of asymmetries

into power elements within the scope of energy interdependence. Hence, energy

diplomacy and bargaining power become significantly important in international relations.

However, it should be discussed which side benefits from the bargaining power provided

by strategic energy resources. In this context, the common belief in the literature is that

the bargaining power favours actors like Russia, which possess strategic energy resource

reserves. The primary objective of this study, which contests the prevailing belief, is to

examine the impact of shifts in the dynamics of energy diplomacy on the bargaining

power of the involved parties, specifically within the context of Sino-Russian energy

relations.

The study employs a qualitative case analysis approach. To this end, both primary and

secondary data have been collected using documentary research methods. Initially, a

comprehensive catalogue search was conducted, primarily in university libraries, in

alignment with the subject, objectives, and aims of the research. Relevant academic

This study is derived from the Anıl Çağlar ERKAN’s PhD thesis titled "Asymmetric Dependency and

Bargaining Power: New Balances in China-Russia Energy Relations".

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262

Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in Sino-Russian Energy Relations

Anil Çağlar Erkan, Ayça Eminoglu

250

materials, including scientific books and peer-reviewed articles in academic databases

are accessed. Additionally, key resources, such as significant academic books, available

either in libraries or through publishers are also examined. Data were also sourced from

like organizations specializing in energy research and think-tanks. Furthermore, relevant

developments were closely monitored through state institutions’ websites and news

agencies, as well as through written and visual media of academic relevance to the

subject matter.

The study is organized around two central research questions. The first question: “How

has asymmetric interdependence in energy relations between China and Russia been

shaped, and which party has benefited from this interdependence?” In addressing this

question, the study explores the asymmetry in energy relations and its implications for

both parties. The second research question is: “How have tensions with Europe influenced

Russia's bargaining power in its energy relations with China?”. This question focuses on

assessing the impact of strained with Europe (also Western countries) on Russia’s

bargaining power on China.

The study's main hypothesis posits that “The asymmetric interdependence in energy

relations between Beijing and Moscow strengthens Russia’s bargaining power. However,

rising tensions between Europe and Russia, coupled with China's efforts to diversify its

energy sources, are progressively undermining Russia’s bargaining power in this

relationship.” Within the framework of this hypothesis, the study seeks to analyse the

influence of energy dependence on the bargaining positions of both parties, while also

explores how external factors -such as further Russia’s deteriorating relations with

Europe especially by Annexation of Crimea- alter the bargaining power dynamics between

China and Russia.

Considering all of these, our paper examines interdependency and modern types of

strategic energy sources. In the first part of the study, the adequacy of the concept of

interdependence in explaining the characteristics of today’s energy relations is discussed,

and the bargaining power created by asymmetries is emphasized. Then, the effects of

bargaining power arising from asymmetries in the interdependence are analysed using

the example of Sino-Russian energy relations.

Energy Interdependence and Bargaining Power

The theory of interdependence formulated by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye is

expressed in many platforms that the concept of interdependence reflects the

characteristics of today’s interstate energy relations (Binhack and Tichy, 2012: 54).

Jeffrey D. Wilson (2021: 1) states that “Interdependence explains the characteristic

features of today’s modern energy systems” because energy resources are both the most

basic input of modern economies and wealth that is commodified for the states that have

reserves (Goure, 1995: 123). Energy interdependence is directly related to the

dimensions of vulnerability and sensitivity. Vulnerability can be defined simply as the

acute reaction costs or liabilities that arise when a sudden event in a country affects other

stakeholders (Crescenzi, 2005: 28). It is possible to associate the sensitivity dimension

with immediate costs and short-term effects since the affected country does not have

time to react to an effective policy change. Relevantly, the sensitivity of importers can

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262

Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in Sino-Russian Energy Relations

Anil Çağlar Erkan, Ayça Eminoglu

251

be measured by the higher costs of foreign oil and the total amount or rate of oil they

import (Keohane and Nye, 2012: 10). However, focusing solely on the sensitivity aspect

of energy interdependence obscures a comprehensive understanding of key issues arising

from shifts in the political framework, as for instance the significance of oil is not limited

to the proportion of imported needs. The burden and costs of strategic moves to be made

with alternatives to imported energy are also important. In this context, the sensitivity

and vulnerability dimensions of energy interdependence need to be analysed together.

Sensitivity and vulnerability are extremely important in determining which side benefits

from the asymmetries in energy relations because, in this way, the party that holds the

power to manipulate energy relations is determined. Indeed, Keohane and Nye (2012:

10) state that asymmetric interdependence can be a source of power that provides the

potential to influence others. Asymmetry at the core of the policy of interdependence,

which is the basis of interdependence, has a remarkable structure, especially in political

issues such as foreign policy and security policy (Neuss, 2009: 115; Nye and Welch,

2018: 418). Interdependence can create an asymmetry between states and this, in turn,

serves as a source of power. Herewith, the actor in the gaining position in the

asymmetrical relationship, for example, an energy exporter, will directly impact the

preferences of the dependent actors. In the light of all these, it is possible to state that

asymmetric interdependence appears both as a structural dynamic that shapes the

balance of power in the long term and as a phenomenon that can be instrumentalized in

the short term (Demiryol, 2018: 1439). However, the power that asymmetries create

should not be perceived directly as hard power. The power that emerges here is the

bargaining power in energy diplomacy.

The degree of importance of the relationship for one of the parties in the conditions of

interdependency reveals the bargaining power of the other party because the highest

degrees of vulnerability and sensitivity mean having a weakness as bargaining power in

energy diplomacy. Hence, bargaining power differs according to the sensitivity and

vulnerability of the parties to the relationship according to the conditions of

interdependency. In this context, it can be said that the power which emerges because

of the asymmetries in the relations between the two parties in the conditions of

interdependency is on a political basis, and the size of this effect can be observed most

clearly in the bargaining power (Wagner, 1988: 461).

Interdependence and Changing Balances in Sino-Russian Energy

Relations

It is possible to consider the transformation of China-Russia energy relations into an

asymmetrical one in three periods within the scope of sensitivity and fragility elements.

The first of these periods was the years when the balances were in favour of Russia, the

second period was the years when the balance was established, and China emerged as

an element of sensitivity. The last period was when the balances started to be

asymmetrical in favour of China.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2

November 2024-April 2025, pp. 247-262

Asymmetric Dependence and Bargaining Power in Sino-Russian Energy Relations

Anil Çağlar Erkan, Ayça Eminoglu

252

Moscow’s Supremacy in Bilateral Energy Relations (1999-2008)

About Russia’s relative superiority over China, until the beginning of the 2000s, with the

amount of oil in energy trade, Akçadağ Alagöz (2019: 58) underlines that Russia was

more advantageous than that of the West and China in energy relations for a while, when

Yukos started to sell 500 thousand tons of oil annually by the railroad. However, Russia

became even more advantageous with the signing of a 5-year oil delivery contract

between Rosneft and CNPC in 2004 for 48.4 million tons of oil to be transported by rail

(Shadrina, 2016: 29). So much so that, China, which paid $14 per barrel for around 500

thousand tons of oil annually in the late 1990s, started to import 292 thousand barrels

of oil per day at $72 in 2007. So, this factor put Russia in a more advantageous position

over China which was experiencing external dependence at those years (Lubina, 2017:

289).

In March 2006, the parties signed a series of cooperative agreements covering joint

projects in the fields of energy. Among these the most important were the agreement

signed with Gazprom for the natural gas pipeline, as well as a protocol between Transneft

and CNPC on the construction of the oil pipeline (Jakobson et al., 2011: 29). However,

initiatives for projects, which were formalized with the preliminary protocol and

memorandum of understanding signed at that time, were subject to delays due to several

reasons. The delays were caused by Russian part. Russia attributed the delay of the oil

pipeline project to the concerns that there may be price disputes regarding natural gas

appear as one of the important factors. Considered in the context of Russia’s pricing

policy, the ongoing negotiations between the parties regarding the purchase of natural

gas stalled because in 2007, the CNPC offered Gazprom a figure well below 60 percent

of the unit price of gas sold to Europe. So much so that the figure suggested by the CNPC

for the natural gas that Gazprom sold to Europe at 13-14 dollars per unit in 2007 was

$5.28, and such a demand was undoubtedly not accepted by Moscow (Downs, 2010:

156). It is evident that Russia's dominance during this period granted it significant

bargaining power in the field of energy diplomacy.

Sensitivity and Its Impact on Bilateral Energy Relations (2008-2013)

During this period, Russia's sensitivities increased, and bilateral relations were affected.

In this direction, 2008 was an important turning point in bilateral relations. From this

year Russia started to see the Asian market as an opportunity and included in its energy

strategy to direct 20-25 percent of its total energy exports to this region until 2030. This

was largely due to Russia’s emergence from military conflict and the fact that it had

suffered great losses from the economic crisis. These losses for Russia are as serious as

the lack of capital required for a pipeline project to the east (Røseth, 2017: 36). So much

so that the problem in those years was serious enough to limit Russia's capabilities. The

solution to the problem came with the signing of the oil loan agreement in February 2009,

which was one of the most important tools of China’s energy security policies. With the

signed agreement, Rosneft and Transneft, which received $25 billion loan from the China

Development Bank, committed to exporting 15 million tons of oil to China annually for

20 years, starting in 2011, starting pipeline works, and cooperating with CNPC on the

development of oil fields. This development is extremely important in terms of the