Professor Richard Pomfret’s latest monograph “Connecting Europe and China, Prospects for the Middle Corridor”, published by Elgar Publishing, constitutes a milestone in the international strategic infrastructures debate.
The fall of the International Liberal Order that nowadays we are experiencing consists of multiple crises or disruptions. One of the key features that shaped the world since the end of World War II has been the integrity of international trade. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 made clear the principle of free international trade as a pillar of the future international order after the war against the Axis. Over the past fifteen years, this pillar is facing structural changes in its nature. Since February 24, 2022, trade has faced many challenges. First came the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent Western (both from the European Union and the United States) sanctions against Russia. This caused a clean cut in land transportation between People’s Republic of China and Europe, which benefitted from the Northern Route mostly. The Northern Route transited mainly through the territory of the Russian Federation and the application of sanctions on Russian railway authority made it riskier for firms to keep doing business as it was before the invasion. Then, the great chaos that started in the Middle East since October 7, 2023, had multiple consequences. The Red Sea crisis showed the fragility of the passage in front of the Houthi’s attacks and the Persian Gulf blockade during the US-Iran war pointed out the dependence on key chokepoints. These represent some examples of the disruption of a precedent liberal trade order.
In this wide international scenario, the necessity to find and develop new trade routes seemed indefeasible. Particularly, in the Eurasian landmass, new frontiers of trade are developing. As a matter of fact, since 2022 a growing interest showed up in European governments for the Trans-Caspian Route, also known as Middle Corridor. It is a multimodal transport land corridor that connects the Western China with Europe, passing through Central Asia, the South Caucasus and Türkiye. Its renewed interest is testified by the publication of relevant papers by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank. Notwithstanding the relevance of these works, a unified academic assessment remains absent.
Indeed, a structural, coherent and unitary view was lacking until this year. In the first half of 2026, Professor Richard Pomfret’s[1] latest work “Connecting Europe and China, Prospects for the Middle Corridor”, published by Elgar Publishing, constitutes a turning point in the analysis of the Middle Corridor and international transport route. The book’s aim is to analyse the rail connection between China and Europe since the decade of 2010s. Once a multiple attempt in promoting new land routes, the effort is concentrated in fostering the Middle Corridor, as mentioned earlier. The coherent intuition of the book is the fact that the Middle Corridor is not perceived as an isolated infrastructural and connectivity project, but it has the potential to be the “Landbridge” between Europe and China. The concept is interesting, due to the international conjuncture. The war in Ukraine marked a watershed in China-EU relations. Beijing’s renewal of no limits partnership with Moscow enforced a Sino-Russian cooperations, while the Brussels’ definition of China as a systemic rival put a concrete distance between both parties. The thesis brought up by the book consists in assessing the Middle Corridor as a cooperation project that connects China and Europe instead of increasing the distance.
See also:
The book is coherently structured in eight chapters across two main thematic sections. From Chapter 1 to 3, it focuses on the structural components of the corridor. It assesses what has been made since the end of Soviet Union and it points out the need to create land connection – mostly by train – between Europe and China. Chapters from 4 to 7 characterize themselves as the in-depth analysis of all the international actors involved in the wide project. Indeed, they provide a wide outlook of Türkiye, South Caucasus and Central Asian Countries (from Chapter 4 to 5). They are not considered as merely passive transit actors, rather they represent the main pillar in constructing the Landbridge. Successively, the remaining two chapters focus on the Middle Corridor extremes, both the People’s Republic of China and the European Union.
The author stresses that the Middle Corridor acts as an example of market-driven international cooperation, even in front of international relations turmoil. The advantage of the book is leading edge nature. Connecting Europe and China places itself as the first coherent handbook about the Middle Corridor and the challenge of connectivity in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, offering an essential framework to develop a further analysis about Eurasian political economy.
In your book, you argue that the Middle Corridor could serve as a true Landbridge between Europe and China. However, given that its projected share of trade volume remains relatively small (around 4%), how can it realistically assume such a pivotal strategic role?
«The Middle Corridor’s share of trade volume is small, but the share of trade value is larger because MC freight is time-sensitive higher-value/weight components and final products. The traffic is also increasing. My book argues that, although the Middle Corridor’s two ends may be portrayed as Europe and China, it also connects Central Asia, the Caucasus and Türkiye to wider markets.
I am unsure how important cooperation on the MC is for overall EU-China relations, but it is a counter-weight to the media emphasis on competition and conflict».
In the event of an end to the war in Ukraine, should we anticipate a partial recovery of the Northern Route, or has the disruption permanently shifted trade preferences toward the Middle Corridor?
«A partial recovery is to be expected because the northern route is more efficient than routes crossing the Caspian Sea. However, the actual outcome will depend on Russia’s postwar situation.
The Middle Corridor will remain important for southwest China, the four southern Central Asian countries, the Caucasus and Türkiye».
In the closing pages, you express a positive outlook regarding the potential of the Zangezur Corridor. Do you see it as a viable new route that could complement – or even bypass – the established Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway?
«Yes. I am optimistic about the reintegration of Armenia into Eurasian corridors, and expect Baku’s role as a trade hub to increase, but clearly there are political uncertainties in the Caucasus».
To what extent can the Middle Corridor serve as an instrument for Central Asian states to enhance their economic autonomy, reducing their structural dependence on both Russia and China?
«East-west transport links are an important component of the multivector diplomacy of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the smaller Central Asian countries as they look beyond Russia and China, for good relations with the EU, Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Japan, Korea, etc.
There could be variations. Kazakhstan must always be aware of its long and indefensible border with Russia. Tajikistan is heavily indebted to China. Domestic politics can be unpredictable.
Nevertheless, the Central Asian countries, led by the cooperative stance of the two largest countries, are gradually establishing a stronger independent space, e.g. through their annual regional summits and generally shared position in other international fora».
Note
[1] Prof. Richard Pomfret is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Adelaide, Australia and Adjunct Professor, the John Hopkins University Bologna Center, Italy.
Photo: Middle Corridor
