Introduction: China and Russia, as key players in the evolving international System, are seeking to expand their influence by uniting against the current order. One of the most important forms of this expansion of influence is their influence in various regions to create coalitions and increase their ability to act. The aim of this study is to examine the nature of Chinese and Russian influence and the methods they use to achieve it. The research main question is: What forms of power and tools do China and Russia use to influence target regions? The research hypothesis is that differences in worldviews between China and Russia have led to different approaches to exerting influence. This difference is reflected in the different tools each country uses to expand its influence in target regions. The methodology of this qualitative research and its data include library sources. The findings suggest that China's influence is achieved primarily through a combination of structural and symbolic power. In line with this approach, Beijing uses a variety of tactics, including investment, normalization and institutional membership, to strenghten its influence. In contrast, Russia's influence is based on coercive power, exerted through military mechanisms, pressure, energy and media narratives.
Introduction: China and Russia, as two major global actors, seek to expand their spheres of influence based on a shared opposition to the Western-Centric international order. However, despite this convergence in strategic ambition, their underlying methods, tools and worldviews are fundamentally different. China’s approach to influence is rooted in its economic and cultural superiority, characterized by persuasion, institutional participation and long-term interdependence. In contrast, Russia continues to emphasize coercive power through military, political and energy-based means. Understanding the nature and mechanisms of their influence in target regions provides important insights into the reconfiguration of power in today's complex multipolar order. This study examines the nature of China's and Russia's influence strategies, identifying their underlying forms of power and the tools they employ to achieve influence.
     Research question: The main question guiding this study is: on what forms of power and through which means is Chinese and Russian influence in the target regions based?
Research hypothesis: The study assumes that the divergence between the Chinese and Russian worldviews, rooted in their respective strategic cultures, has led to distinct manifestations of power and consequently, different sets of influence tools.
Methodology: Adopting a qualitative comparative approach, combining descriptive and explanatory analysis, this study examines the similarities and differences between Chinese and Russian influence strategies. Data were collected through extensive document analysis, including academic journals, policy articles, international reports and official documents in both digital and printed forms. The comparative method employed here goes beyond simple description; it identifies causal relationships between cultural perceptions of power and the choice of instruments in each country’s foreign policy.
Results and discussion: Influenced by the principles of Tianxia and Confucian harmony, China’s worldview promotes coexistence, mutual benefit and multilateral cooperation. It rejects rigid divisions between “us” and “them” and instead envisions a shared global future based on balance and reciprocity. On the other hand, Russia’s worldview is rooted in historical insecurity and shaped by a long-standing sense of confrontation with the West. Moscow’s strategic culture prioritizes power, control and deterrence, interpreting international politics as a zero-sum arena in which security can only be maintained through dominance and resistance. This divergence in worldview explains why China’s influence strategy relies on absorption and integration, while Russia’s relies on coercion and pressure. China extends its influence primarily through institutional engagement and normative appeal rather than military coercion. It promotes the “Chinese model” of governance, which combines economic development and political stability, as an alternative to Western liberal democracy. Beijing is shaping positive perceptions of itself by investing in education, culture and international aid, presenting its rise as peaceful and mutually beneficial. Structurally, China is building long-term influence through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the establishment of new financial institutions and leadership roles in multilateral organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These mechanisms create enduring economic and political dependencies while embedding Chinese preferences within global norms. Together, these structural and symbolic strategies enable China to expand its sphere of influence not through dominance but through integration, legitimacy and institutional influence.
Russia’s approach is in stark contrast to this, relying heavily on hard and coercive means. The country’s use of military power is evident in its interventions in Ukraine, Syria and parts of Africa, where it seeks to maintain control and exert regional dominance. Energy serves as another key element of Moscow’s influence: Russia uses its oil and gas exports to exert political pressure on dependent countries by manipulating prices and controlling supply chains. In addition, Russia uses political and media operations as a means of influence, supporting sympathetic elites, exploiting internal divisions and spreading narratives through global outlets such as Sputnik. These channels challenge Western hegemony, justify Russian actions and present an image of Russia as a major player in a multipolar world. Collectively, these tools reveal a model of influence that focuses on control, deterrence and resistance, rather than persuasion or cooperation.
In comparison, several key distinctions emerge between the two strategies. In terms of the nature of power, China’s approach is developmental and participatory, while Russia’s is coercive and security-oriented. China operates with a long-term horizon, seeking to build gradual and sustained influence through economic and institutional engagement, while Russia seeks short-term geopolitical gains achieved through assertive or disruptive tactics. China promotes economic interdependence that connects others to its markets and infrastructure projects, while Russia enforces interdependence through security and energy mechanisms that maintain leverage over its partners.
Conclusion: China’s structural-symbolic model reflects a long-term, integrated strategy rooted in soft and institutional power. Its influence is enhanced through persuasion, economic interdependence and active participation in global governance. By embedding its values and standards in international institutions, China is gradually redefining the norms of the global order to align with its interests.
Russia’s instrumental model, by contrast, is shaped by an adversarial worldview and reliance on coercive means. Its influence depends on the projection of military power, the manipulation of energy markets and the construction of strategic narratives that challenge Western dominance. Ultimately, China seeks to reshape the global order from within through normalization and absorption, while Russia aims to challenge it from without through confrontation and resistance. These two paths - one participatory and structural, the other coercive and reactive - represent the dual trajectories of power in the emerging multipolar world. Understanding these dynamics is essential for anticipating future alignments and conflicts in an increasingly fragmented international landscape where power is no longer defined solely by force, but by the capacity to shape meaning, norms and institutions.