Authors

Xin Zhang¹;  ¹ East China Normal University (ECNU), China

Discussion

The recent geoeconomics literature focuses on inter-state competition evolving around transnational infrastructure among actors with pre-determined, stable spatial and geographic boundaries. It tends to disregard both the “trans-national” features of infrastructure and the “geo” nature of geoeconomic relations. Against this backdrop, I argue that that transnational infrastructure is inherently geographical, through shaping the spatial and geographic contour/profile of interstate and international competition and cooperation, as well as the political connotation of geoeconomic relations between states. The “trans”-national nature also implies that transborder infrastructure inherently requires certain international cooperation to materialize, thus holding direct bearing as to how geoeconomic relations, not only competition, are constructed and managed. Taking three transnational bridges between Russia and its neighbors as empirical cases, I demonstrate that trans-border bridges are taken by both state,sub-national state and non-state actors as multi-scale mechanisms of delineating and utilizing boundaries and identity for possible geoeconomic competition as well as cooperation. Meanwhile, the connotation of such geoeconomic relations through transnational infrastructures, such as border bridges, are further determined by domestic political economy of neighboring states, including its subnational level. Each of the three border bridges (Tuman, Heihe-Blagoveshchensk and Kerch Bridges) between Russia and its neighbors (Ukraine, China, and North Korea) exhibits a unique feature and function in shaping the spatial and geographic notion of transborder economic relations with divergent economic and political consequences. For long, the Tumen bridge separates more than connects the China-Korea-Russia trilateral interface, while the Heihe-Blagoveshchensk bridge transforms the region through its connectivity effects. The most recently finished Kerch Bridge from its very beginning was meant to be a connecting project to cut Crimea’s ties with Ukraine and bring Crimea back to its “motherland”, recreating both the physical and psychological meaning of Russia as a unified entity. In each bridge’s construction, non-construction and maintenance as well as possible demolition, all of them are also up for potential significant changes as the result of geopolitical conflicts on the larger scale.