The Expansionist Tendencies of the Current Russian Regime and the Vision of a ‘Greater Russia’
Introduction
The resurgence of Russian assertiveness on the global stage, particularly since the early 2000s, has sparked widespread debate among scholars and policymakers regarding the geopolitical ambitions of the Kremlin. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy, marked by territorial interventions, political coercion, and strategic military deployments. This has led to the perception that Russia is seeking to re-establish its sphere of influence, reminiscent of its Soviet-era superpower status.
Central to this discourse is the idea of a ‘Greater Russia’, a concept that reflects both historical imperial legacies and contemporary nationalist aspirations. This essay critically examines the expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime, drawing on neorealist, constructivist, and historical institutionalist perspectives to assess whether these actions indeed signal a broader ambition to reconstruct a Soviet-style geopolitical sphere.
The Historical Context of Russian Expansionism
Russia’s expansionist tendencies have deep historical roots, dating back to the Tsarist Empire and the subsequent Soviet Union. As Geoffrey Hosking argues in Russia: People and Empire, 1552-1917 (1997), Russian imperialism has historically sought to secure its borders, project influence, and counter perceived external threats. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 significantly contracted Russia’s geopolitical reach, resulting in a loss of territory, population, and strategic depth.
The post-Soviet era brought a sharp decline in Russian influence, as former Soviet republics sought integration with Western political, economic, and military structures. The enlargement of NATO and the European Union into Eastern Europe and the Baltics further reduced Russia’s strategic buffer, challenging its traditional dominance in the region. This loss of influence has been perceived by Russian elites as a humiliation and a strategic vulnerability, motivating a revisionist foreign policy aimed at reversing the post-Cold War order.
Neorealist Explanations for Russian Expansionism
From a neorealist perspective, power politics and security concerns are central to understanding Russia’s assertive foreign policy. As John Mearsheimer argues in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), great powers naturally seek to maximize their influence to ensure security and survival in an anarchic international system. In this view, Russia’s actions can be understood as a rational response to the perceived encirclement by Western military alliances.
Key Elements of the Neorealist Argument:
- Security Dilemma: The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the potential integration of Ukraine and Georgia into Western alliances have heightened Russia’s security anxieties, motivating it to reassert control over its near abroad.
- Balance of Power: Russia seeks to restore a multipolar world order that counters American hegemony, aligning itself with China, Iran, and other non-Western powers to challenge Western dominance.
- Geopolitical Buffer Zones: Control over Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucasus is seen as critical to maintaining a defensible strategic frontier against NATO encroachment.
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine reflect these geopolitical calculations, as Moscow attempts to deny Western influence in regions it considers part of its ‘sphere of privileged interests’.
Constructivist Perspectives: Identity, Nationalism, and Civilizational Narratives
While neorealism emphasizes material power, constructivist scholars focus on the ideas, identities, and narratives that shape state behavior. In this context, Russian expansionism is not merely about power but also about national identity, historical memory, and civilizational mission.
Key Constructivist Insights:
- Civilizational Exceptionalism: Russian political discourse often frames the country as a unique Eurasian civilization, distinct from both the West and the East. This narrative has been championed by thinkers like Alexander Dugin, who advocates for a ‘Greater Russia’ that unites Slavic, Orthodox, and post-Soviet peoples.
- Historical Continuity: The Kremlin has invoked Tsarist and Soviet symbols to legitimize its expansionist agenda, portraying itself as the natural heir to these empires. This is evident in Putin’s references to the ‘spiritual unity’ of Russians and Ukrainians, and his emphasis on the Great Patriotic War as a unifying national myth.
- Cultural and Ethnic Protection: Russia’s interventions in Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014-present), and Kazakhstan (2022) have been justified on the grounds of protecting Russian-speaking populations and defending Orthodox Christian values against perceived Western cultural encroachment.
This identity-based narrative reinforces the notion that Russia’s geopolitical ambitions are not merely strategic but are deeply intertwined with its self-conception as a civilizational power.
Historical Institutionalism and Path Dependence
From a historical institutionalist perspective, Russia’s expansionist behavior can be seen as a product of its institutional legacies and path dependencies. As Theda Skocpol and Peter Gourevitch have argued, states often follow historically conditioned trajectories that shape their responses to contemporary challenges.
Key Institutional Factors:
- Centralized State Structures: Russia has historically relied on centralized, autocratic governance to maintain control over its vast territories. This tradition persists under Putin’s ‘vertical of power’, which centralizes authority in the Kremlin.
- Imperial Legacies: Russia’s imperial past continues to shape its geopolitical worldview, reinforcing the idea that greatness is synonymous with territorial expansion and regional dominance.
- Security State Complex: The legacy of the KGB and Soviet security apparatus has created a political culture that prioritizes security, secrecy, and strategic control over openness and liberal democracy.
Conclusion
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime reflect a complex interplay of geopolitical, ideological, and historical factors. While neorealist theories emphasize the strategic logic of power balancing, constructivist perspectives highlight the identity-driven narratives that shape Russian foreign policy. Historical institutionalism further underscores the path-dependent nature of Russian state-building, linking contemporary actions to deep-seated political and institutional traditions.
As Russia continues to assert itself in its near abroad, the question remains whether this expansionist posture represents a temporary geopolitical adjustment or a long-term strategy to re-establish a ‘Greater Russia’ on the lines of its imperial past. Given the economic, military, and political constraints facing Moscow, the feasibility of this ambition remains uncertain, but its implications for European security, global stability, and international order are profound and far-reaching.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.