In 2015, British journalist Tim Marshall published Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics. This book breaks the globe into ten regions, analyzing how geographical features like rivers, mountains, and seas influence political decisions, military strategies, and economic development. Tim Marshall is praised for making a complex topic accessible and engaging. However, his book also faces criticism for certain omissions. Critics point out that by focusing solely on geography, Marshall sometimes neglects other significant factors in political decision-making. In any case, it is useful to learn from the ideas in Prisoners of Geography.
Below, there is a summary of the first chapter of the book, which focuses on Russia. Keep in mind that this chapter discusses the invasion of Crimea in 2014, but was published before the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2022.
You can find all available summaries of this book at the links below:
- Chapter 1 (Russia)
- Chapter 2 (China)
- Chapter 3 (United States)
- Chapter 4 (Western Europe)
- Chapter 5 (Africa)
- Chapter 6 (Middle East)
Russia, an immense country spanning six million square miles and eleven time zones, holds the title of the world’s largest nation. Its vast landscape encompasses diverse terrains, including forests, lakes, rivers, frozen tundra, steppe, taiga, and mountains. This geographical enormity has deeply influenced global perception, with Russia symbolically represented by the bear, an animal embodying both majesty and ferocity. Russians, cautious of invoking the bear’s darker nature, often refer to it as ‘medved,’ meaning ‘the one who likes honey.’
The nation straddles Europe and Asia, divided by the Ural Mountains. European Russia lies to the west, while Siberia extends eastward to the Pacific Ocean. Traversing Siberia by train is a six-day journey, even in the modern era. Russian leaders have historically focused their policies westward, considering the vast distances and regional differences across their territory.
Winston Churchill’s 1939 description of Russia as a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’ remains a popular reference among writers. Churchill believed the key to understanding Russia is its national interest. This perspective seems relevant to contemporary Russian leadership, which, despite democratic appearances, retains an authoritarian essence with national interests at its core.
Russia’s geographical position shapes its strategic considerations. The North European Plain, a corridor running from France to the Urals and only 300 miles wide at Poland, presents both an opportunity and a challenge. For Russia, Poland is a gateway for military advancement to prevent enemy approaches towards Moscow. However, as the wedge of land broadens towards Russia’s borders, it becomes difficult to defend due to its vastness. Russia’s historical resilience against invasions from this direction, as seen in Napoleon’s and Hitler’s failed campaigns, is partly due to its strategic depth and the challenging logistics for invading armies.
In the Russian Far East, the geography acts as a natural defense. The harsh conditions and logistical difficulties deter potential invasions from Asia. Despite the apparent improbability of invasions, Russia’s history is marked by multiple incursions from the west over the past five centuries. This includes invasions by Poland, Sweden, France, and Germany, highlighting a recurring pattern of conflict along the North European Plain.
Post-World War II, Russia expanded its territory, mirroring the old Russian Empire’s reach. In response to the perceived threat of Soviet aggression, NATO was formed in 1949. The Warsaw Pact, a collective defense treaty led by Russia, was established in 1955 as a countermeasure. However, by the 1980s, the Pact’s strength had diminished, leading to its dissolution following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
President Vladimir Putin, critical of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, views the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a significant geopolitical disaster. Russia has observed NATO’s eastward expansion with concern, especially as former Soviet states and Eastern jjEuropean countries joined the alliance. Despite NATO’s assertion to the contrary, Russia contends that it was assured these nations would not become NATO members.
Russia, looking ahead to the next century, acknowledges the unpredictability of global dynamics. Just as it was unforeseeable a century ago that American forces would be stationed near Moscow, Russia has witnessed profound geopolitical shifts in recent decades. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, every former Warsaw Pact state, except Russia, joined NATO or the European Union by 2004. This expansion has significantly influenced Moscow’s strategic outlook, shaped by Russia’s extensive history.
The origins of Russia date back to the 9th century with the Kievan Rus’, an East Slavic federation centered around Kiev, in modern-day Ukraine. However, the Mongol invasions in the 13th century forced a shift of the Russian heartland to Moscow. This early Russia, known as the Grand Principality of Muscovy, was vulnerable due to its geography, lacking natural defenses against the Mongol threat from the south and east.
Ivan the Terrible, Russia’s first Tsar, pioneered the strategy of expansion as a form of defense, leading to significant territorial growth. Under his rule, Russia expanded eastward towards the Urals, south to the Caspian Sea, and north towards the Arctic Circle. This expansion provided strategic depth and a buffer zone against potential invaders.
In the 18th century, under Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, Russia turned its attention westward, expanding its empire and becoming a major European power. This expansion included the occupation of Ukraine and the Baltic States, effectively safeguarding Moscow from western threats.
By the 20th century, Communist Russia had transformed into the Soviet Union, stretching from the Pacific to Berlin and from the Arctic to Afghanistan, rivaling the United States in economic, political, and military might.
Despite being the largest country in the world, Russia has a relatively small population of around 144 million. Its vast territory poses challenges in agricultural distribution and governance across its eleven time zones. Geographically, Russia is a European power up to the Urals but is not predominantly an Asian power, despite its extensive borders in Asia.
Interestingly, Russia is visible from the United States, specifically from an island in Alaska, illustrating the proximity of the two countries in the Bering Strait. This fact underscores Russia’s vast geographical spread, with a significant portion of its territory extending deep into Asia.
However, Russia faces challenges in projecting power in Asia due to logistical constraints and a sparse population in Siberia, which is rich in natural resources but harsh and sparsely populated. The increasing presence of Chinese businesses and immigration in Siberia suggests a potential shift in regional influence.
Domestically, Russia’s diverse ethnic composition and vast territory have historically necessitated a strong security system. This was evident during the Soviet era when Russia ruled over various nations with little cultural or political affinity. Regions like Chechnya and Dagestan continue to exhibit similar sentiments towards Moscow.
The downfall of the USSR was influenced by economic strain, geographic challenges, and military overreach, such as the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. This invasion was driven not by ideological motives but by strategic concerns over controlling the region.
Russia’s lack of a warm-water port for year-round access to major trading routes has been a longstanding strategic disadvantage. This limitation hinders Russia’s ability to operate as a global naval power and affects its economic potential. The quest for such a port has been a crucial aspect of Russian strategy, as articulated by historical figures like Peter the Great, who emphasized the importance of expanding Russia’s influence towards regions like Constantinople and India.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in the emergence of fifteen independent countries. This breakup realigned national borders more logically according to geographic features like mountains, rivers, and seas, which historically have influenced the development of distinct languages and customs. An exception to this natural delineation is in the Central Asian ‘Stans’, where borders were strategically drawn by Stalin to create ethnically diverse states, thereby weakening their individual national cohesion.
In the post-Soviet landscape, these countries can be broadly categorized into three groups based on their geopolitical leanings: neutral, pro-Western, and pro-Russian. The neutral countries, namely Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, maintain a degree of independence from both Russian and Western influence, largely due to their self-sufficiency in energy production. The pro-Russian states, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, and Armenia, have close economic ties with Russia. Kazakhstan and Belarus, for instance, are part of the Eurasian Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, both led by Russia. Conversely, the pro-Western countries, most of which suffered under Soviet rule, now align with NATO and/or the EU. This group includes Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Albania, and Romania, along with Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, which aspire to join these Western alliances but are hindered by Russian influence and military presence on their territories.
The political situation in Ukraine exemplifies the strategic tug-of-war between Russia and the West. As long as Ukraine remained pro-Russian or neutral, Moscow felt secure in maintaining its strategic buffer zone along the North European Plain. However, Ukraine’s drift towards the West, with potential EU and NATO memberships, threatened Russia’s access to the Black Sea and its only major warm-water port in Sevastopol, Crimea. The escalation of this situation led to the eventual annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
The annexation of Crimea was a strategic move by Russia to retain control over its vital naval base in Sevastopol. This port, while crucial, is constrained by international treaties that limit Russian naval movements through the Bosporus and into the Mediterranean. Russia’s limited naval presence in Tartus, Syria, underscores its strategic limitations. Consequently, Russia is enhancing its naval capabilities in the Black Sea, including constructing a new port in Novorossiysk and commissioning new ships and submarines.
Following the annexation, Russia exploited geopolitical vulnerabilities, leveraging the concept of ‘ethnic Russians’ to intervene in former Soviet territories. This strategy was evident in the encouragement of pro-Russian uprisings in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s approach is pragmatic, focusing on destabilizing regions without necessitating full-scale military intervention, thereby maintaining deniability and avoiding direct confrontation with the West.
The situation in Ukraine reveals a broader pattern of Russian foreign policy. While unlikely to extend military action into the Baltic States or further in Georgia, Russia will continue to exert influence in these regions. Its actions are calculated to avoid direct conflict with NATO while asserting its interests in its ‘near abroad.’ The West, particularly Europe, is cautious in its response, partly due to its reliance on Russian energy supplies. This dynamic illustrates the complex interplay of geopolitics, energy politics, and national interests shaping the relations between Russia, its neighbors, and the wider international community.
Russia’s military actions, like those in the 2008 war with Georgia, serve as strategic warnings to NATO and other Western powers. In 2014, NATO’s deployment of aircraft and military exercises in Eastern Europe signaled a firm stance against further Russian expansion westward. This response, though seemingly modest, was a significant diplomatic gesture affirming NATO’s readiness to defend its member states. The United States, in particular, has shown a growing willingness to adapt its foreign policy strategies independently of traditional structures, reflecting frustration with European nations’ defense spending.
In the Baltic States, which are NATO members, any Russian aggression would trigger Article 5 of NATO’s charter, compelling collective defense. This principle was previously invoked after the 9/11 attacks, leading to NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan. Russia, aware of this, is unlikely to directly assault the Baltics but could exert influence through the significant Russian-speaking populations in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These communities, feeling underrepresented and sometimes stateless, are potential leverage points for Russia. Additionally, Russia’s control over energy supplies to these states adds another layer of influence.
In Moldova, Russia’s approach is more nuanced. Direct military action would be overt and costly, but Russia already exerts control through Transnistria, a breakaway region with a significant Russian-speaking population. Russia maintains a military presence there and uses economic leverage, such as energy dependency and trade, to influence Moldova’s political orientation away from the EU and NATO.
Across the Black Sea in Georgia, Russia’s influence is entrenched due to the 2008 war, which resulted in Russian control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgia’s aspirations for closer ties with the EU and NATO are tempered by the reality of Russian proximity and military power.
Russia’s most potent tools in asserting its influence are not its military forces but its control over energy resources, particularly natural gas. This dependency on Russian energy curtails the foreign policy options of many European nations. Efforts to reduce this dependency include diversifying energy sources, with several European countries looking to build LNG terminals to import gas from the U.S. and other regions. This shift could weaken Russia’s geopolitical leverage, prompting it to seek new markets, such as China.
Geographically, Russia’s global political reach extends to various regions, including Latin America, the Middle East, the Arctic, and to a lesser extent, Africa. Domestically, Russia faces demographic challenges, with a stagnant population growth and a relatively low average lifespan for men.
Throughout history, Russian leaders have grappled with the same geographic constraints, from the times of Ivan the Terrible to Vladimir Putin. The geographic realities of Russia, such as its flat terrain and frozen ports, remain constant factors in its strategic considerations and influence its interactions with the rest of the world.
Leave a Reply