Unpacking Russia's Geopolitical Strategy: Why the World Asks 'How Can Russia?'

Nov 7, 2025 by miodeya.com 49 views

Understanding Russia’s Actions: A Deep Dive into Geopolitical Realities

Why Russia acts the way it does is a question that consistently captures global attention, fueling intense debate and analysis across continents. The phrase “kok bisa rusia” (how can Russia) reflects a widespread desire to comprehend the complex interplay of historical grievances, perceived security threats, economic imperatives, and internal political dynamics that shape Moscow’s foreign policy. Far from a simplistic narrative, Russia’s actions are deeply rooted in a unique historical consciousness and a pragmatic, often assertive, pursuit of national interests. To truly grasp the how and why, one must peel back layers of geopolitical strategy, historical memory, and contemporary challenges that define its posture on the international stage. This comprehensive examination seeks to illuminate the multifaceted drivers behind Russia’s decisions, offering valuable insights into one of the most significant geopolitical actors of our time. Understanding these intricacies is not just an academic exercise; it’s essential for navigating an increasingly complex global landscape where Russia’s influence is undeniable. From its energy policies to its military interventions, Russia’s geopolitical strategy is a tapestry woven from centuries of experience, marked by both resilience and a deep-seated suspicion of external encroachment. This article aims to provide a clear, informed perspective, helping to demystify the often-perplexing actions of the Russian Federation and provide context for why Russia continues to be a central figure in world affairs.

The Historical Tapestry: Roots of Russian Foreign Policy

The fundamental question, “kok bisa rusia,” regarding Russia’s current geopolitical stance cannot be answered without a thorough understanding of its profound historical tapestry. Russia’s foreign policy is not merely a reaction to contemporary events; it is a cumulative product of centuries of invasions, imperial expansion, and ideological struggles. From the Mongol Yoke to the Napoleonic Wars and the devastating World Wars, Russia has historically experienced profound existential threats originating from its Western borders. This consistent vulnerability has deeply ingrained a “fortress mentality” within the Russian strategic psyche, emphasizing strong centralized power, a robust military, and the necessity of buffer zones to protect its vast, open plains. The legacy of the Russian Empire and, subsequently, the Soviet Union further complicates this picture, fostering a strong sense of a unique civilizational mission and a historical right to influence its near abroad.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 represented a cataclysmic event for Russia, akin to a major national trauma. It led to a precipitous decline in geopolitical standing, economic instability, and a perceived betrayal by the West. The subsequent expansion of NATO eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries and even some former Soviet republics, was viewed by Moscow not as a defensive alliance but as a direct encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence and a violation of unwritten post-Cold War understandings. This NATO expansion, particularly the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining the alliance, became a significant driver of Russian apprehension. Many Russian strategists and policymakers genuinely perceived this as a direct threat to their national security, drawing parallels to historical invasions. The loss of Ukraine, in particular, a historical and cultural heartland, is seen by many in Russia as an unacceptable strategic loss, potentially placing hostile military infrastructure on its doorstep. Furthermore, the memory of the “Smuta” or Time of Troubles in the early 17th century, when Russia nearly collapsed, underscores a deep-seated fear of internal chaos and external manipulation, reinforcing the need for a strong, decisive state capable of projecting power and maintaining order both domestically and abroad. Understanding these historical currents is absolutely crucial to comprehending why Russia often pursues assertive and sometimes controversial foreign policy decisions, seeing them through a lens of defensive necessity and historical destiny, rather than purely offensive ambition. The historical narrative provides the essential backdrop to how Russia defines its place in the world and its interactions with other major powers.

Geopolitical Imperatives: Security and Spheres of Influence

To fully grasp why Russia takes the actions it does, one must delve into its core geopolitical imperatives: security and the concept of spheres of influence. For Moscow, national security is paramount and inextricably linked to maintaining a degree of control or significant influence over its immediate periphery, often referred to as its “near abroad.” This belief stems from the vast, largely indefensible Western border, historically a corridor for invasions. The aspiration for a robust security buffer is not merely a strategic preference; it is considered an existential necessity. The perception that the West, particularly NATO, has systematically eroded this buffer through successive enlargements has been a primary driver of Russia’s assertive posture. Moscow views NATO expansion not as the spread of democracy but as a hostile military alliance encroaching on its vital security interests, deploying infrastructure closer to its borders, and potentially threatening its strategic deterrent capabilities. From Russia’s perspective, the deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, even if declared defensive, is interpreted as undermining its strategic parity.

Furthermore, Russia harbors a strong conviction in the legitimacy of spheres of influence in international relations. It posits that great powers inherently possess security zones where their influence should be acknowledged and respected by others. For Russia, this sphere undeniably includes countries like Ukraine, Belarus, and other post-Soviet states, which it considers integral to its historical and strategic identity. The idea that these countries could align unequivocally with Western institutions, effectively becoming outposts for rival powers, is seen as an intolerable breach of this geopolitical understanding. This perspective explains Russia’s interventions in Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014, 2022), and its support for certain regimes in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These actions, while condemned by many as violations of sovereignty, are framed by Moscow as legitimate responses to protect its vital interests and prevent hostile encirclement. The belief is that a stable, friendly periphery is essential for Russia’s long-term security and economic prosperity. The concept of a multipolar world order, strongly advocated by Russia, is also rooted in this imperative, seeking to diminish what it perceives as unchallenged Western hegemony and re-establish a balance of power where Russia is recognized as an equal and indispensable global player. This complex web of security anxieties and traditional power politics forms the bedrock of how Russia operates on the world stage, making it a crucial lens through which to interpret its often-controversial decisions and understand why Russia continues to challenge the prevailing international norms.

Economic Underpinnings: Resources, Sanctions, and Resilience

The economic underpinnings are profoundly instrumental in understanding why Russia navigates the global stage as it does. Russia’s economy is heavily reliant on its vast natural resources, primarily oil and natural gas. These commodities not only serve as the backbone of its state budget but also as powerful instruments of foreign policy. The ability to supply crucial energy to Europe and other regions has historically given Moscow considerable leverage and influence. However, this dependence also creates vulnerabilities, particularly to fluctuations in global energy prices and the imposition of international sanctions. The question of “kok bisa rusia” sustain its actions despite concerted economic pressure is often met with an analysis of its resource wealth and the strategic financial measures it has undertaken.

Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Western nations imposed unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia, targeting its financial sector, key industries, and elite individuals. These sanctions were designed to cripple the Russian economy, diminish its capacity to fund military operations, and ultimately compel a change in policy. Yet, how Russia has managed to withstand, and to some extent mitigate, the immediate catastrophic effects of these measures is a testament to its strategic economic planning and resilience. Moscow has meticulously built substantial foreign currency reserves, de-dollarized significant portions of its economy, and forged stronger trade ties with non-Western countries, particularly China and India. This pivot to the East has provided alternative markets for its energy exports and sources for imports, gradually lessening its dependence on traditional European partners. Furthermore, the Russian government has demonstrated a willingness to impose strict capital controls and implement domestic policies to stabilize the ruble and support local industries, even at the cost of long-term economic growth.

The energy sector remains critical, and Russia has explored new infrastructure projects, such as pipelines to China, to diversify its export routes away from Europe. While sanctions have undeniably inflicted pain, impacting technology access, investment, and certain sectors, they have also spurred a drive for import substitution and a reinforcement of national economic sovereignty. The ability of the Russian economy to adapt, albeit with significant structural challenges, demonstrates a strategic determination to maintain economic independence and fund its geopolitical ambitions, regardless of external pressure. This economic resilience, coupled with a willingness to absorb short-to-medium term hardships for perceived national security gains, is a crucial factor in comprehending why Russia persists with policies that invite severe international condemnation and economic isolation, ultimately shaping how Russia continues to assert its presence in a changing global economic order.

Internal Dynamics: Public Opinion and Leadership’s Vision

Examining Russia’s internal dynamics is paramount to fully answering “kok bisa rusia” in its foreign policy. The interplay between public opinion, state media narratives, and the vision of its leadership, particularly President Vladimir Putin, forms a cohesive framework that often legitimizes and sustains Russia’s assertive geopolitical stance. Unlike Western democracies, where public dissent can significantly alter policy, Russia’s political system prioritizes stability and state control, shaping public perception to align with strategic objectives.

Public opinion in Russia, while not monolithic, has generally shown considerable support for the government’s foreign policy, especially concerning issues perceived as defending Russian national interests or restoring its historical prestige. This support is largely cultivated through a powerful and pervasive state-controlled media apparatus. Major television channels, newspapers, and increasingly online platforms actively promote narratives that portray Russia as a victim of Western aggression, a protector of traditional values, and a defender of its compatriots abroad. These narratives often emphasize historical grievances, highlight the perceived moral decay of the West, and frame military actions as defensive necessities or liberation efforts. For instance, the events in Ukraine are frequently depicted not as an invasion but as a “special military operation” aimed at demilitarization and denazification, protecting Russian speakers, and preventing NATO expansion. Such messaging resonates with a significant portion of the population, particularly older generations and those in less urbanized areas, who remember Russia’s past glory and feel a strong sense of national pride and resentment towards perceived Western condescension. This carefully constructed information environment helps to consolidate public backing, even for policies that entail significant economic or human costs.

At the heart of these internal dynamics lies President Putin’s long-term vision for Russia. His leadership, now spanning over two decades, has been characterized by a consistent drive to restore Russia as a great power, rebuild its military strength, and challenge what he views as a unipolar world order dominated by the United States. Putin’s worldview is deeply influenced by his background in the KGB, his understanding of Russian history, and his belief that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical catastrophe. He sees Russia as a distinct civilization, a bulwark against perceived Western liberal encroachment, and a champion of a multipolar international system where Russia’s voice carries significant weight. This vision shapes strategic decisions, from energy policy to military engagements, and is communicated to the public through a highly centralized state apparatus. How Russia can maintain a consistent and often defiant foreign policy stance, despite international isolation, is largely attributable to this robust internal consensus, nurtured by state narratives and spearheaded by a leadership deeply committed to a specific geopolitical trajectory. Understanding these internal dynamics provides invaluable context for why Russia continues to pursue its chosen path, irrespective of external pressures.

The Global Repercussions: A Shifting World Order

The ripple effects of Russia’s actions have resonated far beyond its immediate borders, fundamentally contributing to a shifting world order. The question, “kok bisa rusia” trigger such widespread global upheaval, underscores the interconnectedness of modern geopolitics. Russia’s assertiveness has not only reshaped regional security landscapes but also profoundly impacted international relations, energy markets, food security, and the future of global alliances, demonstrating how Russia’s influence is truly global.

One of the most immediate and significant repercussions has been the destabilization of European security. The large-scale conflict in Ukraine has revitalized NATO, prompting member states to increase defense spending and strengthen their collective deterrence. Countries like Sweden and Finland, long committed to neutrality, have sought NATO membership, indicating a profound re-evaluation of national security in light of Russian aggression. This has inadvertently led to a more militarized and potentially confrontational European continent, challenging decades of post-Cold War peace dividends. Simultaneously, the conflict has exposed deep divisions and, at times, newfound unity within the European Union, forcing member states to grapple with energy dependence on Russia and formulate coordinated responses.

Globally, energy markets have experienced unprecedented volatility. Russia, as a major producer of oil and natural gas, has utilized its energy resources as a geopolitical tool, leading to significant price surges and prompting countries to frantically diversify their energy supplies. This has accelerated the push towards renewable energy for some, while others have explored new fossil fuel sources or reactivated old ones. Furthermore, Russia and Ukraine are major global suppliers of agricultural products, particularly wheat and fertilizers. The disruption of these supplies due to conflict and sanctions has exacerbated existing food insecurity, especially in developing nations, raising concerns about potential humanitarian crises. This intricate web of economic dependencies and disruptions highlights why Russia’s actions have such a disproportionate impact on global stability.

Beyond immediate economic and security impacts, Russia’s strategy has also challenged the rules-based international order that has largely prevailed since World War II. Its actions are often seen as a direct challenge to principles of territorial integrity, national sovereignty, and the prohibition of aggressive force. This has forced countries worldwide to reconsider their alliances and positions, leading to a realignment of geopolitical blocs. While Western nations have largely condemned Russia, many countries in the Global South have adopted more nuanced or neutral stances, often prioritizing economic ties or non-alignment. This has demonstrated the limits of Western influence and the emergence of a more truly multipolar world, with significant implications for international institutions like the UN. The comprehensive global repercussions underscore that how Russia chooses to act has far-reaching consequences that ripple through every facet of international life, necessitating a thorough understanding of why Russia is a critical player in shaping the future world order.

Looking Ahead: Pathways and Uncertainties

As the world continues to grapple with the implications of Russia’s geopolitical stance, the path forward is fraught with both challenging pathways and profound uncertainties. The question of “kok bisa rusia” maintain its current trajectory, and what consequences this might entail, remains central to international discourse. Forecasting Russia’s future actions and their global impact requires careful consideration of various scenarios, each carrying its own set of potential outcomes and risks. Understanding how Russia might evolve in the coming years is critical for global stability.

One potential pathway involves a prolonged period of geopolitical confrontation with the West. In this scenario, Russia could further deepen its strategic alignment with non-Western powers, particularly China, forming a more robust counterweight to the U.S.-led order. This would entail continued economic decoupling from the West, increased self-sufficiency, and a sustained military buildup. Such a trajectory suggests an enduring period of high tensions, proxy conflicts, and an intensified ideological struggle, where diplomacy might take a backseat to power projection. The economic consequences for Russia would likely be sustained lower growth, but potentially greater national resilience and a reorientation of its economic structure away from traditional dependencies. This scenario also implies a continued challenge to existing international norms and institutions, as Russia seeks to reshape global governance to reflect a multipolar world.

Alternatively, there could be a gradual de-escalation and a search for diplomatic solutions, albeit under new terms. While immediate reconciliation appears unlikely, long-term geopolitical realities might compel all parties to seek some form of modus vivendi. This could involve complex negotiations over security guarantees, spheres of influence, and economic cooperation, potentially leading to a new, albeit strained, European security architecture. However, any such pathway would likely require significant shifts in policy and perception from all sides, including a re-evaluation of historical grievances and current strategic imperatives. The role of third-party mediation, or the emergence of new geopolitical dynamics, could also play a crucial role in facilitating such a shift.

Another significant uncertainty lies in Russia’s internal political and economic stability. While the regime has demonstrated resilience, the long-term impact of sanctions, demographic challenges, and potential internal dissent cannot be entirely discounted. A change in leadership or a significant economic downturn could alter Russia’s foreign policy calculus, leading to either more aggressive or more conciliatory approaches. The integration of advanced technologies, the diversification of the economy beyond hydrocarbons, and the ability to attract and retain skilled labor will also be crucial factors shaping Russia’s long-term strength and influence.

Ultimately, why Russia will choose one pathway over another will depend on a complex interplay of internal political dynamics, economic realities, and the evolving international landscape. The future of Russia’s role in the world remains one of the most significant and uncertain variables in international relations, making continued vigilance and nuanced analysis absolutely essential. How Russia adapts to these challenges will define not only its own destiny but also significantly impact the trajectory of the 21st century global order.