The ongoing discussions about the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, which would channel Russian natural gas through Mongolia to China, are likely to be extended. A Financial Times report, drawing on expert interviews, notes that no binding accord was reached during the most recent high-level visit by Russia’s Prime Minister to China. The article suggests that Beijing has a pattern of delaying final commitments while it seeks more favorable terms.
Analysts quoted by the FT emphasize that China often uses extended negotiations to secure a better deal. They point out that the timing of any formal agreement is connected to broader strategic considerations, including the pace of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. With Russia’s options for gas export constrained by current circumstances, Beijing may keep negotiating leverage instead of rushing a decision.
From the perspective of Moscow, the lack of a quick commitment keeps room for favorable terms, while Moscow continues to position gas exports as a dependable option for future supply routes. Experts argue that Russia still holds leverage because alternative export paths are limited, particularly if Russia seeks to diversify its pipeline network and maintain market share in Asia.
In early April, a number of industry researchers weighed in on the potential dynamics. Maria Belova, Research Director at a regional consultancy, suggested that gas transported via Power of Siberia 2 could be seen by China as a more attractive option than gas sourced from adversarial markets. Belova also highlighted that tensions around Taiwan might spur a faster push to finalize the project, as political and security concerns could drive a search for stable energy supplies at a time of regional volatility. The conversation underscores how energy security and political stability are increasingly intertwined for both nations.
Other experts interviewed for the report noted that the project’s appeal hinges on long-term affordability, reliable delivery timelines, and the ability to integrate with China’s evolving energy infrastructure. The negotiations are framed as a test of how China balances its immediate needs with strategic aims the longer term, including diversification of energy sources and the potential for new transit corridors that could reshape regional energy flows.
For observers in North America, the situation highlights how major energy projects are shaped by geopolitical signaling. Analysts caution that while Power of Siberia 2 may promise steady gas supplies to China, the ultimate decision will depend on a complex calculus that weighs market price, political risk, and the desire to secure predictable energy access in exchange for concessions on price or terms of delivery. The outcome could influence not just China-Russia energy ties but also the broader pattern of energy cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.
This evolving scenario illustrates a broader trend in energy diplomacy: countries frequently pursue phased negotiations, using strategic pauses to assess interest from various stakeholders and to align project economics with geopolitical realities. In the case of Power of Siberia 2, the potential benefits for China include a more diversified supply chain and enhanced energy security, while Russia may gain from a larger and more stable customer base if the project advances. The interplay of these incentives continues to shape the pace and depth of talks as both sides weigh immediate needs against longer-term strategic objectives. A careful reading of these negotiations suggests that while concrete agreements may take time, the strategic value of the pipeline remains a central factor in future energy planning for both nations. Attribution: Financial Times report based on expert interviews.