I don't think you are being "ironic".
After I was accused in narrow-mindedness I was not. Statement about being ironic belonged to a different part of a post and something can be said about you quoting out of context.
I think a powerful central asian state could oppose Russian expansion, but it would require some first millennia AD differences that might also preclude the development of Russia as we know it.
Which is pretty much what I wrote. Of course, the "Russian state" was not created in a meaningful form until late XV so there would be few options after the 1st millenium: either sustainable Mongolian Empire or
surviving GH (preferably uniting White and Blue Hordes). But after these candidates were gone there was no
realistic alternative capable of preventing the Muscovite/Russian expansion to the East. It is an open question if the surviving GH is a realistic option.
Personally, I'm fond of a very moral Tocharian Greek Buddhist Christian syncretic Bactrian state quickly developing a proficiency in firearms and metal working, but that's a stretch of the imagination.
Even this hardly would help (unless this imaginable state is extremely strong and sustainable in a long run). 1st, as I understand the Tokharian state belongs to a much earlier period (so, no firearms and no Russian state). 2nd, how would it prevent expansion into Siberia? 3rd, if this state is created early enough, you'd have to re-write history of the Mongolian conquests with the obvious consequences all over Eurasia (which can be fun but too far removed from OTL).
Perhaps a state in Crimea, and/or the Caucuses could exert power on the southern Urals and Siberia.
If we stick to some semblance of the OTL, the Crimean option is not going to work: the Khanate (prior to which, IIRC, there was no meaningful state in the Crimea since the Goths ) was not powerful enough to extend its sphere of influence beyond Caspian sea (Nogay Horde being its vassal) and as far as Caucasus is involved, at its greatest expansion Kingdom of Georgia was capable to unite most of the region but not too much beyond it. For Iran Ural and Siberia were not a realistic sustainable conquest and for the Ottomans even less so: a conqueror would have to conquer and hold a big chunk of the modern Kazakhstan and then Bashkirian lands.
A very prosperous Timurid or Safavid Empire could also exert opposing influence to the north. Keeping a division between Novgorod and Muscovy could also assist in your goal.
Timur successfully raided Western Siberia (part of the GH) and looted the GH Volga cities. But he did not stay in the area. An idea of his state being sustainable is an interesting one but I'm not sure if it could be more sustainable than the Mongolian Empire: he was too much into the looting and good plain destruction and it does not look like he was creating meaningful administrative structures outside his "native" area. Of course, at his
realistic best he could do little or nothing to keep division "between Novgorod and Muscovy": 1st, he was too early for that and 2nd he was too far away and too busy pretty much everywhere else. His empire would have to exist for at least an extra century and incorporate the European territory of the GH to be able to get involved into the Russian affairs. As a side note, Timur (perhaps following the Mongolian tradition) did consider himself ruler of the world. For example, in his diplomatic exchange with Henry III of Castile Timur declared that he regards Henry "as his very own son" which in the regional diplomatic lingo meant "vassal" (Genghis did the same toward Khwaresmshah Mohammed when they exchanged the embassies). However, there is a big distance between wishing something and having it occurred.
The problem is that it is anything but clear how the Timurid empire could be sustainable in a long run short of having an uninterrupted line of the military geniuses as its rulers: it did not have any natural "ethnic center" strong enough to keep it together and we have to assume rather untypical for OTL technological development of the Central Asia.
But getting back to where it started, premise that Russia became European/World power only thanks to its possession of the territories in Asia is highly questionable. As I pointed out, Russian Empire became European power as a result of the 7YW by which time most of its Asiatic possessions and especially Siberia & Far East had been contributing nothing noticeable to that status (no economy worthy of mentioning, no population to talk about, no communications, expenses) and this situation prevailed until at least mid-XIX when Russia was one of the Great Powers for quite a while: real exploration of Siberia started only in 1826 when the Crown started granting licences to the private enterprises searching for gold.