Andrey Sushentsov
Since Russia’s key possibilities for development lie within the country, its main foreign policy goal is to block external negative influences and avoid being drawn into confrontation with opponents. Today Russia becomes a strategic balancer which should be interested in remaining independent in pursuing its own policy and assessing international events.
ПРЕМИУМ
19 september 2016 | 10:30

Hierarchy of threats to Russia

Russia is the largest country in the world, with very low population density and an intricate interplay of neighbors. Its vast territory makes Russia a self-sufficient universe containing everything it might need for development. On the other hand, low population density and permeability of borders make it internally fragile and heavily exposed to the influence of its neighbors.

Since Russia’s key possibilities for development lie within the country, its main foreign policy goal is to block external negative influences and avoid being drawn into confrontation with opponents. Historically, the outside world and internal political stability, which are closely interrelated, have always been the principal condition for utilizing Russia’s advantages.

Russia has existed within its present borders (excluding the North Caucasus and Khabarovsk Territory) for more than three centuries since the time of Peter the Great. Creating and preserving the world’s largest state amid fierce competition is undoubtedly an achievement of the Russian people.

But the Russian state has a number of vulnerabilities. Historically, Russia has been known for large distances between towns, the absence of natural defenses against external invasions, exposed lines of communication, a harsh northern climate and a short growing season. Many regions of the country are not suitable for farming, and the main industrial centers are far away from energy sources. The government has to ensure security and maintain uniform health service and education standards across 11 time zones from Magadan to Kaliningrad.

All of the above makes the country fragile, value-added production complicated and social changes slow. Keeping the large Russian state running is a monumental and truly unprecedented task. That is why internal weakening and social implosion always were and remain the main threat for Russia. In most cases internal implosions threw countries back decades in their development and sometimes jeopardized their very survival.

Russian authorities try to address the country’s fragility and permeability by strengthening military security and stimulating steady population growth. By so doing, they try to increase the vitality of the state and make it more resilient to external and internal stresses.

Russia’s foreign policy is a direct continuation of the domestic one. Over the past three centuries, Moscow has been the dynamic core of Eurasia and a major attraction for its neighbors. Russia was among the first to have brought the fruits of European culture to the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Far East. But in the 21st century the future of Eurasia will not be shaped entirely by Russia, which will have to compete with China, the European Union, the United States, Turkey and Iran. Russia should secure its place among great powers at the negotiating table in order not to become an item on their menu.

Key external threats to Russia come from Islamic extremism in Syria and Iraq, drug trafficking from Afghanistan, a possible escalation of conflicts in post-Soviet countries around North Korea or Iran and the civil war in Ukraine. The imperative of maintaining strategic stability with the United States requires that Moscow modernize its armed forces, military-industrial complex and global navigation and space communication systems. Unresolved problems in Europe’s security and bloc-based approaches to it leave Russia no choice but view NATO as a potential military adversary.

Of all the post-Soviet states, it is Russia that benefited the most from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But Russia lost critical infrastructure facilities (pipelines, railroads, seaports, military bases, spaceports and production capacities) which remained in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. For 20 years, the main purpose of Russia’s policy was to remove major Soviet infrastructure facilities from under the influence of hostile neighbors, while building preferential relations and alliances with friendly states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia. Russia also tried to reduce its dependence on Ukraine by laying alternative pipelines bypassing Ukraine, building a new base for the Black Sea Fleet in Novorossiysk and relocating defense contracts from Ukrainian enterprises to Russian ones. Following the reincorporation of Crimea, Russia has no more vital interests left outside its borders: neither the rocket launch site in Kazakhstan, nor cargo ports in the Baltic States, nor the railroads in Belarus can serve as a pretext for Moscow’s claims. Russia will have to interfere in the internal affairs of post-Soviet states only if ethnic Russians living there are subjected to repression. In all other instances, Russia will avoid getting involved in conflicts along its borders.

Russia seeks to become a leading world power along with the United States and China, but with no success so far. By waiting and building up its strength, Russia becomes a strategic balancer which should be interested in remaining independent in pursuing its own policy and assessing international events. A key international threat to Russia will stem from the need to stray from the role of balancer and join one of the centers of global competition in the 21st century — the U.S. or China.

The text was originally published at The Washington Times

READ MORE ON THE TOPIC «Security»

16 october 2014 | 21:00

Limits of normalization between Russia and Georgia

Waning of the Ukrainian crisis may recreate conditions favourable for the meeting between the Russian and Georgian leaders. However, normalization in relations of the two countries has distinctly set limits, for the global strategy of the Georgian leadership remains unchanged.

4 march 2014 | 23:00

What does Russia want in Ukraine?

Meanwhile, Western politicians have interpreted the authorization vote and the action in Crimea somewhat differently than Russian experts. So far, however, Russian authorities have been unmoved by threats of sanctions and visa bans, possibly because the stakes of backing down on Ukraine at the request of Western governments are higher than staying the course, as long as a full-scale war can be avoided.

26 september 2014 | 23:00

U.S, Russia find common ground on ISIS while agreeing to disagree on Syria

On Wednesday, Sept. 24, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a forceful speech at the UN calling for action against Islamic extremists. Russia voted in favor of U.S.-backed UN Security Council Resolution 2170, which condemns the action of extremist groups and takes steps to restrict the flow of money and fighters to them. Russian experts say that Russia’s support of the resolution should not be taken as an indication that Moscow has altered its position on U.S. action in the Middle East.

16 may 2018 | 11:34

Russia and America’s Withdrawal from the Iran Deal

Russia is acting deeply disappointed in public. In response to Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement blaming the United States for “intractable” actions based on “narrow and opportunistic interests.” But Moscow was the least vocal among the dissatisfied—since no Russian vital interests are at stake and some actual benefits emerge. 

What′s your opinion on this?

Dossier
19 september 2016 | 10:30
7 april 2016 | 20:00
10 april 2015 | 21:00
10 april 2015 | 21:00
23 march 2015 | 21:00
18 december 2014 | 21:00
10 november 2014 | 23:00
9 december 2013 | 23:00
Next page Previous page
 
Get access to our free content
Do not show again