When the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was first announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, the grand vision was economic: build railways, ports, highways, and digital networks that would weave together Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. For more than a decade, most headlines about the BRI focused on billions of dollars in infrastructure financing, debt diplomacy debates, or the economic opportunities flowing into developing countries. But in 2025, geopolitics seized the driver’s seat. An in-depth, human-centered look at how geopolitics tensions in 2025 reshaped the BRI security posture — focusing on Pakistan’s CPEC and beyond — and what’s next for 2026.
The BRI today is no longer just about cranes, roads, or power plants. It is about the safety of the people building them, the political bargains underpinning them, and the security guarantees that keep investments alive. After several attacks targeting Chinese workers—especially in Pakistan, the heart of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—Beijing began to press host countries harder than ever to enhance protections. Security, once a background condition, became a headline priority.
The year 2025 saw Beijing articulate a new kind of partnership with BRI participants: one that combines financial cooperation with security responsibilities. Xi Jinping’s calls at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit for a “new model of collective security” echoed across Asia. At the same time, behind closed doors, Chinese diplomats and partner governments debated how to protect critical infrastructure without trampling on sovereignty.
Looking ahead, 2026 promises to be the year when those debates crystallize into concrete agreements. Expect formal memoranda of understanding on joint security, the rise of private and hybrid security arrangements, and a wave of political debate in host countries wary of foreign boots on their soil.
BRI Geopolitics 2025: The Year Security Became Central
Xi Jinping’s Message to Partners
At the SCO summit in September 2025, Xi Jinping departed from the usual development rhetoric and delivered a stern request: partner nations must step up to protect Chinese workers and assets. His comments were pointing at Pakistan, where attacks against Chinese engineers and contractors had rattled project timelines.
Reuters reporting confirms that Xi’s intervention was not symbolic; it reflected months of frustration inside Beijing. “There had been an improvement in security … but overall the situation is bad and their projects are not going anywhere,” one senior Pakistani official admitted privately.
Beijing’s shift was pragmatic. Billions of dollars were tied up in corridors like CPEC, and frequent militant attacks jeopardized both progress and confidence. For China, securing its people and investments was not only about economics but also about credibility: the BRI’s success story could not be told if flagship projects were constantly delayed or under threat.
Why Security Matters for BRI’s Economics
Infrastructure projects operate on long time horizons, often 10–20 years. A dam or a highway is not built overnight; it requires predictable timelines, supply chains, and financing. Attacks, blockades, or unrest translate into delays, which in turn inflate costs. For projects backed by loans, every delay increases interest burdens.
In Pakistan, Chinese companies have invested over $25 billion under CPEC since 2015, largely in power generation and transport infrastructure. Delays caused by insecurity are not just political headaches—they are financial black holes. A stalled project means no revenue stream to repay loans, creating both economic and diplomatic friction.
This is why 2025 marked a shift: Beijing realized that no amount of financing can substitute for on-the-ground safety.
Case Study: Pakistan’s CPEC — Promise and Peril
The Scale of CPEC
Launched in 2015, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor was valued at $62 billion at its peak. It promised to transform Pakistan’s economy through roads, ports, energy plants, and special economic zones. Gwadar Port was to be the jewel of the project—a deep-water gateway connecting China to the Arabian Sea.
By 2025, much of the energy sector had been built, easing Pakistan’s chronic electricity shortages. But the transport and industrial components lagged. Security was the Achilles heel.
The Attacks and Their Impact
- In 2021, a bus carrying Chinese engineers in Dasu was bombed, killing 13.
- In 2022, a suicide attack in Karachi targeted teachers at the Confucius Institute.
- In late 2024 and early 2025, fresh attacks renewed concerns, leading to diplomatic tensions.
By mid-2025, Chinese contractors demanded armored vehicles, fortified camps, and enhanced convoy security. Some companies even threatened to pull staff unless stronger measures were introduced.
The attacks had real economic consequences: projects worth billions were delaying, and Pakistan’s hopes of industrial corridor growth were set back.
Beijing’s Proposals vs. Islamabad’s Resistance
China’s proposals included deploying Chinese private or state security personnel to guard workers, a suggestion that Islamabad met with hesitation. Sovereignty is a deeply sensitive issue in Pakistan, and public opinion was wary of foreign forces.
Yet the Pakistani government acknowledged the urgency. Islamabad agreed to tighter coordination, joint intelligence efforts, and possibly hybrid security models combining local forces with Chinese technical assistance.
As one Pakistani diplomat put it: “We can’t afford to lose the investment, but we also can’t appear to surrender sovereignty. The answer must be somewhere in between.”
2026 Outlook: What’s Next for Security and BRI Geopolitics
Stronger On-Site Security Protocols
Expect 2026 to bring hardened infrastructure protection. Workers’ camps will be relocating within secure zones, transport routes will be militarizing, and crisis-response units will set up to deal with emergencies. These measures will increase project costs but are considering essential.
More Formal MOUs on Security
Where 2025 was about informal requests, 2026 will likely see formalized memoranda of understanding (MOUs). These agreements will spell out:
- How intelligence is shared.
- Who responds first in a crisis.
- What liabilities host governments accept.
- Which security standards contractors must meet.
This marks a step toward institutionalizing security in the BRI framework.
Hybrid Models: Private and Public
To avoid sovereignty controversies, China may turn to private security firms—often joint ventures with local companies—that can enforce standards while keeping host governments nominally in control. This approach is already visible in parts of Africa, where local security firms train under Chinese protocols.
Rising Political Backlash
Not every host country will accept these shifts quietly. Civil society groups, opposition parties, and local media are likely to frame expanded security as a surrender of sovereignty. In democracies, such as Kenya or Sri Lanka, BRI projects could face new scrutiny in 2026 elections.
Institution-Building Beyond Bilateral Deals
Finally, China is expected to use platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to create regional security frameworks explicitly linked to BRI. These would normalize the idea of multilateral protection without requiring overt Chinese boots on the ground—presenting the security question as part of a broader, collective order.xzwds
Conclusion
The story of the BRI geopolitics in 2025 is not just about money or geopolitics—it’s about the fragile bond between development and trust.
China’s urgent calls for stronger security measures reflect a hard truth: infrastructure cannot thrive without stability. Yet the path forward is complex. Every added layer of security raises questions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and public acceptance.
In 2026, we will likely see the institutionalization of BRI security through MOUs, private-public partnerships, and multilateral frameworks. The success of this pivot will depend on whether China and host countries can reassure their citizens that security is not a foreign imposition but a shared responsibility.
Here, insights from Mattias Knutsson, a seasoned strategic leader in global procurement and business development, resonate deeply. Knutsson notes that true resilience comes not from walls or guards alone but from embedding security within transparent procurement, local workforce engagement, and trust-based partnerships. A project that wins local legitimacy is a project that will not only be protecting, but also cherished.
The BRI geopolitics will be defined not by the size of its loans, but by the strength of the trust it can build—trust between investors, governments, and the people who live along its roads, rails, and ports. In 2026, that trust will be tested like never before.
