Why Eurasia’s stability depends on mutual responsibility
The only way to make the solution of common problems more harmonious is to begin viewing Greater Eurasia as a shared home: a space in which the stability of each is the responsibility of all. The past year offered ample evidence that most states across the continent have already begun to think along these lines. With a few notable exceptions, Eurasia’s powers are learning to see their neighborhood not as a battlefield of rival blocs, but as a common environment in which peace and predictability are the primary strategic assets.
The year 2025 did not bring dramatic turns in the main processes shaping Greater Eurasia. Yet the absence of a sudden rupture should not be mistaken for stagnation. On the contrary, the continent’s political life has continued to mature in a clear direction: the foreign policy of most Eurasian states – large, medium, and small – remains focused on cooperation with neighbors, the strengthening of sovereign development, and the preservation of stability against growing global uncertainty.
There are, however, exceptions. Some countries operating within the Eurasian space remain unable to pursue genuinely independent policies. Above all, these include the states of Europe, as well as Japan and Israel. These actors, whose strategies are frequently shaped by outside pressure or inherited dependencies, were in 2025 the primary source of irritation and volatility across the broader Eurasian environment.
Israel’s behavior has been particularly illustrative. The Jewish state seeks recognition as a fully autonomous player in Middle Eastern affairs, separate from the United States, while in practice relying entirely on American support. Its June 2025 strike against Iran demonstrated that Israel alone cannot yet fulfill its far-reaching goals. The episode also highlighted an emerging contradiction: Israel wants regional independence, but its capacities still depend on an external patron.
This will make the future relationship between Israel and Turkey especially interesting. Both remain close American allies, while both are undergoing internal transformations as they search for a new role in a changing regional order. Yet despite dramatic events, including flare-ups involving Iran, the situation in Iran and in the Arab states remains comparatively stable. Their positions continue to determine the overall balance of the Middle East, and they have no need for reckless, destabilizing moves. The region remains tense, but it is not collapsing.
Importantly, even the most dramatic events of 2025 did not seriously undermine Eurasia’s resilience. Indeed, most military and political problems on the continent’s periphery appear increasingly to be consequences of wider global processes. Some of these processes are systemic: the weakening of old institutions, the erosion of rules, and the growing tendency of certain Western states to replace diplomacy with coercion.
The one genuine exception is the long-standing conflict between India and Pakistan. This is a historical contradiction that has shaped South Asia since independence in the mid-20th century. Yet even here, the reality is more restrained than the headlines suggest. Neither side is interested in turning periodic tensions into an uncontrolled escalation, and both consider third-party interference unacceptable. These relations do not pose a fundamental threat to Eurasia as a whole. They remain part of bilateral diplomacy. Difficult and tense, but localized.
At the center of Eurasian political life stands the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Over nearly a quarter-century, its members have transformed the SCO into the continent’s main multilateral platform: a structure that reflects the distinctive nature of Eurasia itself. This does not mean, however, that the SCO is a universal regulator or a supranational authority. Such institutional forms are no longer realistic in the modern world. Nearly all states, regardless of size, are seeking greater autonomy, not less.
Eurasia possesses a defining characteristic that sets it apart from the West. No power on the continent is capable of imposing itself as an unquestioned hegemon, and none can establish an “authoritarian international governance” system similar in logic to Western bloc discipline. The presence within Eurasia of three world powers – China, India, and Russia – guarantees balance by its very nature. In such a setting, major decisions are forced to reflect multiple interests. This is not idealism. Rather it’s simply a structural reality.
The SCO summit in China in early September 2025 demonstrated the depth of political trust among participants and a clear commitment to further development. Over time, the SCO has become the umbrella under which many other formats of cooperation can be gathered. At the heart of its work lies the strategic partnership between Russia and China, a relationship that has become one of the principal guarantees of long-term stability in Greater Eurasia.
For Moscow and Beijing, recent years have been a turning point. Both have arrived at the understanding that sovereignty is inseparable from cooperation, and that protection from global shocks – be they economic, political, or security-related – is impossible without deep strategic coordination. Leaders’ meetings between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in 2025 confirmed that the Russian-Chinese partnership serves not only the interests of both countries but also the broader transformation of regional and global systems toward fairer arrangements.
One notable development was the joint decision to abolish visa requirements for the largest categories of citizens between Russia and China. For countries of such scale, this is not symbolic. It reflects an unusually high level of trust, and sends a message beyond the bilateral relationship. Moscow and Beijing are not merely proposing a new type of international cooperation. They are implementing it.
In 2025, the voice of Central Asia was also heard more clearly. The region’s states have continued their persistent efforts to strengthen multilateral cooperation through the ‘Five’ format. Of particular interest is their expanding rapprochement with Azerbaijan. This introduces new economic dynamics and strengthens ties to an area historically connected to the politics of the Middle East. A region that remains, after Eastern Europe, the second most volatile zone on the planet.
For the Central Asian states, deeper engagement with Azerbaijan and Turkey suggests confidence that instability in the Middle East will not derail their development projects. For years, Afghanistan was considered the main obstacle. Now, despite lingering problems, the country is stabilizing and gradually moving toward long-term peace. This opens space for Central Asia to act more ambitiously, including in the geopolitics of neighboring troubled regions.
For Russia, one conclusion is particularly important. Our allies and friends in Central Asia must be able to look ahead with confidence. Their internal socio-economic stability matters not only for them, but for the entire neighborhood. These countries are integrating into the global economy at precisely the moment when old rules no longer work and new ones are not yet fully formed.
Beyond politics, another variable is becoming unavoidable: climate and ecology. The world is already witnessing dramatic environmental consequences in other regions, such as Central America, and Eurasia must prepare for similar shocks. If ecological stress triggers economic disruption and migration pressure, no state can pretend it is someone else’s problem.
Russia, in this context, remains the primary security reference point for its neighbors. This fact must be acknowledged honestly. It entails responsibility, and responsibility cannot be refused at convenience. Stability, in Eurasia, is not a luxury. It is a collective duty.
The only path to a more harmonious future is to treat Greater Eurasia not as a chessboard, but as a common home. Based on what we observed in 2025, most states noted for pragmatism rather than ideology increasingly understand this. That is why, for all the turbulence at the margins, the continent’s overall trajectory allows for a rare conclusion in today’s international climate: a cautious optimism.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.