Can the Middle Corridor become Europe’s backup trade route?
The Middle Corridor is growing fast as Europe and China seek trade routes that bypass Russia. While these developments are important one must recognize proportions and the relative size of this route in the total volume of China-Europe trade. A new policy brief by Jesper Roine explains what we can learn from the history of energy transit conflicts and what this means for policy.
A promising route faces the reality of scale
Geoeconomic concerns have made routes that avoid Russia a priority. The Middle Corridor – the land route connecting China to Europe while bypassing Russia – is the main land example. The history of energy transit shows both why such projects attract support and why many struggle. The recent interest in the Middle Corridor is due to the recent growth in traffic; freight has grown five- to tenfold since 2021. But this is from a very small base. Russia-transit rail still carries about 90% of China–EU rail freight, and sea carries the great majority of the total trade. Because of physical and institutional limits, the corridor is likely to remain a small share of total China–EU trade, even if its role were to continue to grow. It deserves targeted support as insurance against disruptions, and to increase connectivity and development in the South Caucasus and Central Asian region. But it is important to keep in perspective the role it can play in aggregate trade between China and Europe. More important changes are more likely to come at sea.
Key highlights from the FREE Network policy brief
- The Middle Corridor is growing quickly but remains small: Freight volumes have risen five- to tenfold since 2021, yet around 90 percent of China–EU rail freight still uses the route through Belarus and Poland, while maritime shipping carries more than 90 percent of overall China–EU trade by volume.
- Its greatest value is resilience rather than replacement: The corridor can give businesses and governments an alternative when established trade routes are disrupted, but limited capacity, repeated border crossings, port constraints and high investment costs mean it cannot currently absorb anything close to the traffic carried by the main routes.
- Policy should focus on practical bottlenecks instead of headline projects: The analysis recommends prioritising customs improvements, rail capacity and Caspian and Georgian ports while ensuring major investments have a genuine commercial reason to exist, rather than assuming political support alone will generate enough traffic.
Read the full policy brief to learn more.
Meet the author
Jesper Roine, Deputy Director of the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE) and Adjunct Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE)
Photo: Shutterstock
