Understanding Russia's geographical ambitions according to Peter Zeihan

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

Peter Zeihan is an American geostrategist that correctly predicted Russia will invade Ukraine. In his 2014 book, he describes the demographical and geographical resons of Russia's actions, saying Russia's fast, advanced and multivectored population decline means Russia has only a limited window of time to take action (2020-2022 at the very latest). Very interestingly he also lays out what he thinks Russia's actions and ambititions are, saying Russia will eventually try to annex 11 countries and at one point start a war with NATO..

Russia's geography

Spoiler

Describing Russia's security goals, he starts by describing Russia's geography. He points that Russia's core territories include the flatlands of nothern Eurasia which stretch from the Atlantic coast of Europe to China. This a huge amount of steppe that holds virtually no natural barriers. Travel and contact between peoples in these grasslands was historically infinitelly easier compared to tropical and subtropical Asia (full of jungles) or the arid regions of the Middle East.

 

Security in the Eurasian Steppe

Spoiler

The vastity of the landscape and very harsh, continental weather made this region unstable and insecure. Many hordes expanded and took over the steppes over the years, starting from Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age. One doesn't have security in this region of the world unless it reigns over the entireity of the grassland and its fringes. Just like the Steppes were historically the place were Europe, China and the Indian subcontinent were invaded by Indo-Europeans, Huns or Mongols, at times the direction of the offensive were reversed, with Mongols, Persians, French and Germans invading Russia from the outside. In this context, control over a few strategic locations dictated by local geography has always been crucial for Russia.

 

Key areas

Spoiler

The key locations that Russia sees as crucial to its security are: the Baltic Sea, the Polish Gap, the Bessarabian Gap, the Black Sea, Caucasus, the Central Asian Corridor and Tian-Altay Gap. The only time in history when the Russians controlled all these strategic points at the same time, and thus was allowed a maximum level of security from any potential threats was during the URSS. After the fall of URSS, when all former Soviet Republics declared their independence, Russia lost control of almost all of these strategic locations. This explans in part why Russia looks up to its Soviet past and seeks to recreate the glory of its former empire.

 

Russia's actions to plug these gaps (1991-2022)

Spoiler

Even though it lost its dominion over these areas, little by little Russia used military expansion to add new layers of security and secure more of these gaps. In 1991, Russia occupied 10% of Moldova's territory, enhancing Russia's security perspective in the Bessarabian region. In 2008, Russia took Abhazia and South Osethia from Georgia, expanding Russia's buffer south of the Caucasus Mountain Range. In 2014, Russia took Crimea, expanded its maritime borders in the Black Sea and securing the port of the warm water port of Sevastopol. Lastly, in 2021 Russia used the Armenia-Azerbaijan war as an opportunity to send troops even more to the souh in the Caucasus, to guard Nagorno-Karabah. During the last year, Russia also sent military to help the Kazah president deal with protesters, in a clear attempt to integrate Kazahstan more into its sphere of influence.

 

Time

Spoiler

Peter says Russia's window to take action is extemely limited because of its demographical decline. According to him, by 2040, there will be less than 60M ethnic Russians in Russia - compared to around 111M people today. What he is saying is that Russia either take matters in its own hands now, it doesn't do it at all (Russia's Muslim minorities are actually growing at much faster rates than Russian ethnics, however, this only aggravates the problem the problem Russia is having as aas a Russian-centered country).

Order of invasions

Spoiler

According to him, Russia's imperative is, first of all, to ''pacify'' Belarus, Kazahstan and the Caucasus - which as stated before, indeed happened in variying degrees over years. After this, Peter predicts the order will be as follows: invading Ukraine -> invading WESTERN Ukraine -> invading the EU/NATO members of Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. 

Ukraine

Spoiler

Ukraine is agriculturally the most productive ex-Soviet state, a natural extension of the Russian plains, has a valuable industrial area right next to Russia's South-Eastern border (in Donbas), the highest population of Russians outside Russia and together with Moldova it controls the Bessarabian Gap. Besides, it has the economically valuable Dnieper river. These are some fot the reasons that he believes make Ukraine Russia's first target.

Poland+the Baltics

Spoiler

Peter then highlights that Poland and the Baltics states (4 hostile countries that suffered under Soviet yoke and that completely despite Russia) are hugely important for Russia's strategic goals as they command the entrace point on the Northern European Plain, dictate who controls the Baltic Sea and are in close proximity with Russia's second city, Sankt Petersburg. On the other hand, Kaliningrad and Belarus are two important Russian strongholds in this region.

 

Kazahstan, the Caucasus

Spoiler

In Western Asia, Peter discusses Russia's potential expansion, saying Russia views Kazahstan as a buffer and is interested in all 3 former Soviet Republics in the Caucasus, highlighting that Armenia is a Russian ally, while Georgia is a in a bad defensive position. Moreover, Russia has a military presence in the territories of Abhazia, South Osethia and Nagorno-Karabah already. According to him, these countries would not be hard to conquer (although it needs to be said this book was written before Azerbaijan's successful war against Armenia in 2020).

Romania

Spoiler

According to Peter, Russia's aims are to eventually push NATO back to its 1997 borders, effectively conquering the Baltic states and taking territories up to the natural defences of Vistula River and the Carpathians. He says a Russian takeover of the Baltics would not be hard, as these countries have a ultimately small populations. However, he says Poland and Romania would be the countries posing most problems (at he same time, he precisely says Russia is interested parts of these countries, eyeing only Romania's Moldova region east of the Carpathians). A war against the Baltics, Romania and Poland will mean a war against NATO, in other words WW3.

 

[Debithius 6,056]

Okey, how is Russia going to attack 5 NATO countries without any serious consequences? 

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

6 hours ago, Debithius said:

Okey, how is Russia going to attack 5 NATO countries without any serious consequences? 

He isn't saying there won't be serious consequences. In fact he has a very specific view on how the war will play out (he calls it the Twilight War), starting from the assumption that the US will not get involved military - which makes no sense, but I digress.  

He says America will be too focused on its own internal Left-Right division and grow isolationist, leaving Europe to defend itself from Russia with minimal American help. In his narrative, once Russia is done with Ukraine, Scandinavia+UK will form a coalition to defend the Baltic States (Russia's first NATO targets).

After that, he predicts Russia will make a move on Poland, when he says Germany will get involved too, lastly moving to Romania he says Russia might expect Turkey to enter the war. However, he interestingly has a theory that Russia's involvement in Syria was not only meant to give Russia a stronghold in the Middle East, but also to destabilize Turkey, so Russia will ty to distract Turkey from joining the war this way. 

Personally I will say has a very insightful view of analysing economy, demographics & geography, but is limited when it comes to the culture, worldviews, mindsets (I actually think Alexander Dugin is much better at understanding these kinds of things even though I don't agree with his ideology).

Anyways, Peter and some other people like just seem to also have a fetish for the idea of Turkey rising up and becoming a regional power in South-Eastern Europe again, which I think is unrealistical given the state Turkey is in right now. Also when he says US will not get involved, I can't help but notice echos of an American superiority complex, thinking US is so special for not being harmed so much during WW2 and being effectively an island-continent that is somehow completely safe. It is not and I think is careless to think oterwise. 

[Debithius 6,056]

57 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

He isn't saying there won't be serious consequences. In fact he has a very specific view on how the war will play out (he calls it the Twilight War), starting from the assumption that the US will not get involved military - which makes no sense, but I digress.  

He says America will be too focused on its own internal Left-Right division and grow isolationist, leaving Europe to defend itself from Russia with minimal American help. In his narrative, once Russia is done with Ukraine, Scandinavia+UK will form a coalition to defend the Baltic States (Russia's first NATO targets).

After that, he predicts Russia will make a move on Poland, when he says Germany will get involved too, lastly moving to Romania he says Russia might expect Turkey to enter the war. However, he interestingly has a theory that Russia's involvement in Syria was not only meant to give Russia a stronghold in the Middle East, but also to destabilize Turkey, so Russia will ty to distract Turkey from joining the war this way. 

Personally I will say has a very insightful view of analysing economy, demographics & geography, but is limited when it comes to the culture, worldviews, mindsets (I actually think Alexander Dugin is much better at understanding these kinds of things even though I don't agree with his ideology).

Anyways, Peter and some other people like just seem to also have a fetish for the idea of Turkey rising up and becoming a regional power in South-Eastern Europe again, which I think is unrealistical given the state Turkey is in right now. Also when he says US will not get involved, I can't help but notice echos of an American superiority complex, thinking US is so special for not being harmed so much during WW2 and being effectively an island-continent that is somehow completely safe. It is not and I think is careless to think oterwise. 

The EU can defeat Russia without America's help no doubt. Putin can't even win a war in Ukraine and he thinks that beating Germany and Scandinavia+UK will be a cakewalk or something? He is delusional, he is the one who is gonna get his ass whooped. Also we do have article 5 which I believe will be activated for sure which will drag the rest of NATO in. Otherwise there is no point in the organization to exist and I don't think the west want to show themselves like a bunch of pussies who talks big but got nothing to show for it.

Heck, Putin's invasion of Ukraine turned into a huge ass backlash, something he didnt expect.

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

9 hours ago, Debithius said:

Also we do have article 5 which I believe will be activated for sure which will drag the rest of NATO in. Otherwise there is no point in the organization to exist and I don't think the west want to show themselves like a bunch of pussies who talks big but got nothing to show for it.

If the US won't intervene, the US would already loose its hegemony in the world, therefore it would loose the war before it even started. Unless the US is going to have a civil war between the Left and the Right it's just unlikely.. The moment US will step out, US influence will be gone from Europe for good because either Russia takes over Europe or the Europe wins but won't ever trust America again.

9 hours ago, Debithius said:

Putin can't even win a war in Ukraine and he thinks that beating Germany and Scandinavia+UK will be a cakewalk or something?

His arguments are that 2022 is the very latest Russia can act before its too late, because the demographic decline is going to kick in. His idea is that Russia's desire to have secure borders overrides the rest. I am not saying this is happening, but I saw someone suggest Russia is delberatelly using its worst resources in Ukraine and saves what is has best for the big party with NATO, this would be in line with his line of thought. 

[NightStar 313]

I'm afraid he misunderstands the Kremlin view. The Kremlin believes that in 2013 they struck a deal with a then-legitimate president of Ukraine Yanukovich about integration of Ukraine into Russian economic union. However, this president lost power during 2014 Revolution and fled the country, and thus their dreams of integrating Ukraine into Russian Economic Union vanished with him.  

Kremlin may not believe that the entire 2014 was carried out by EU, but they obviously blame EU for recognizing 2014 Ukraine revolution and granting legitimacy to the Ukraine revolutionary forces which came to power in 2014. The Kremlin doesn't believe that EU recognized revolution because of the kindness of their heart - they think EU recognized the 2014 Revolution because the Brussels wanted Ukraine for themselves, as a part of EU trade zone. 

So what the Kremlin is doing now is basically serving the entire EU a bill for Ukraine, in a message that may be conveyed as follows: "You wanted Ukraine in the EU so much that you jumped to recognize the 2014 Revolution which removed a legally 2010-elected President Yanukovich from power. Well, you shall get Ukraine then, but you shall not get it the way you wanted -- not a prospering aspiring country, but a country full of death and destruction, refugees, destroyed industrial base, with less territory, withering budgets and maybe even without access to the Black Sea. And this will happen to any country which you will try to steal from out economic integration zone." 

That's the most unsettling part. We have sadly seen many wars over the course of our history, but in this one there is clearly a lack of even some wicked rationality. It's just a revenge, served cold, after 8 years of the initial outbreak of the conflict. It's like it's waged by maniacs, not military guys, so I would caution about attributing any "geostrategic intentions" to Kremlin actions. 

     

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

23 minutes ago, NightStar said:

I'm afraid he misunderstands the Kremlin view. The Kremlin believes that in 2013 they struck a deal with a then-legitimate president of Ukraine Yanukovich about integration of Ukraine into Russian economic union. However, this president lost power during 2014 Revolution and fled the country, and thus their dreams of integrating Ukraine into Russian Economic Union vanished with him.  

Kremlin may not believe that the entire 2014 was carried out by EU, but they obviously blame EU for recognizing 2014 Ukraine revolution and granting legitimacy to the Ukraine revolutionary forces which came to power in 2014. The Kremlin doesn't believe that EU recognized revolution because of the kindness of their heart - they think EU recognized the 2014 Revolution because the Brussels wanted Ukraine for themselves, as a part of EU trade zone. 

So what the Kremlin is doing now is basically serving the entire EU a bill for Ukraine, in a message that may be conveyed as follows: "You wanted Ukraine in the EU so much that you jumped to recognize the 2014 Revolution which removed a legally 2010-elected President Yanukovich from power. Well, you shall get Ukraine then, but you shall not get it the way you wanted -- not a prospering aspiring country, but a country full of death and destruction, refugees, destroyed industrial base, with less territory, withering budgets and maybe even without access to the Black Sea. And this will happen to any country which you will try to steal from out economic integration zone." 

That's the most unsettling part. We have sadly seen many wars over the course of our history, but in this one there is clearly a lack of even some wicked rationality. It's just a revenge, served cold, after 8 years of the initial outbreak of the conflict. It's like it's waged by maniacs, not military guys, so I would caution about attributing any "geostrategic intentions" to Kremlin actions. 

     

Would you say there are absolutely no demographical, economical, geographical, strategical or domestic reasons of the invasion? For instance many point out Russia cannot afford to loose their military base at Sevastopol, because warm-water ports are something crucial to Russia. Ukraine's decision to remove Russian Language (and all minority Languages from schools in fact, very stupid idea) meant that Russian culture was on its way out and Ukraine would become more national-centered rather in a smaller country in Russia's orbit, meaning Russia would have lost part of its sphere of influence. Russia is also in decline population-wise, adding some millions of people to their borders wouldn't hurt. At the same time many point out how the 2014 invasion coincided with the discovery of oil and gas reserves in eastern Ukraine. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria were all geopolitically motivated and came when Russia felt it was potentially loosing parts of its dominion. Would you say Georgia was having a Revolution when it decided to apply for NATO, and Russia wanted to invade because it didn't see the government as legitimate? Or that Russia didn't like the Western-direction of Georgia foreign policy and took matters in its hands?

[NightStar 313]

7 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Would you say there are absolutely no demographical, economical, geographical, strategical or domestic reasons of the invasion? For instance many point out Russia cannot afford to loose their military base at Sevastopol, because warm-water ports are something crucial to Russia. Ukraine's decision to remove Russian Language (and all minority Languages from schools in fact, very stupid idea) meant that Russian culture was on its way out and Ukraine would become more national-centered rather in a smaller country in Russia's orbit, meaning Russia would have lost part of its sphere of influence. Russia is also in decline population-wise, adding some millions of people to their borders wouldn't hurt. At the same time many point out how the 2014 invasion coincided with the discovery of oil and gas reserves in eastern Ukraine. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria were all geopolitically motivated and came when Russia felt it was potentially loosing parts of its dominion. Would you say Georgia was having a Revolution when it decided to apply for NATO, and Russia wanted to invade because it didn't see the government as legitimate? Or that Russia didn't like the Western-direction of Georgia foreign policy and took matters in its hands?

I believe that the factors which you’ve listed, such as Sevastopol naval base or the decaying Russian language usage in Ukraine, as well as many other factors could be important for some people within Kremlin or the General Staff, but I don’t think they used to be the driving force behind this invasion and war.

You’ve rightly pointed at Georgia and Moldova. Following the 1992 Transnistria War and the 2008 Russo-Georgia war both of these countries have territories which their governments don’t control and which are considered to be pro-Russian, but none of these two countries are currently at such a war with Russia as is Ukraine. So it’s not simply about Kremlin trying to restore its post-imperial or post-soviet dominion. There is something special about Ukraine for Kremlin, something that makes her different from Moldova and Georgia.

I think that what makes Ukraine special for Moscow is the following. After a pro-Russian president Yanukovich victory in Ukraine elections 2010 and the return of Mr. Putin to the office in 2012, Moscow announced a plan to establish a Single Economic Space, something similar to EU but without political integration: single customs, free movement of goods, services, finance and workforce, but no such political integration as European Commission.

They called it Eurasian Economic Union. I believe that Kremlin’s major motivation behind creating such a Union was financial: such an integration zone would ultimately, in their minds, require a single currency to serve its needs, and it was obvious that they booked this part for the Russian Rouble.

Providing that this Eurasian Economic Union with Russian currency was recognized worldwide, it would have given the Kremlin elites a much stronger banking system and a much stronger currency, and they would be able to keep their cash in Russian puppet banks without having to stash it in Switzerland where such money will always be subject to laundry laws etc, and, most importantly, without fearing that Russian national currency may lose half its value overnight, the way it did in 1998 or in the beginning of the 90s.

The fact that they couldn’t cast Ukraine for this Eurasian Economic Union didn’t just ruin their dreams of restoring Russia to some former glory — it sabotaged their entire future project. Russia came under heavy sanctions in 2014, and Belarus & Kazakhstan, the two countries that joined this Eurasian Economic Union, had to slow down this integration process because fully integrating with Russia meant fully integrating with sanction problems as well. Belarus managed to dodge the integration until 2020 Protests, and Kazakhstan is expressing concerns regarding Russia being under sanctions now.

The damage which the Ukrainian 2014 revolution caused is immeasurable in their eyes. It dealt a heavy blow to their entire project of creating a poor copy of EU and creating a financial system that would be tolerant to their grand corruption. To make the matters worse, this perceived damage came from the country which many of those high-ranking Kremlin official considered Russia’s «little sister», so it’s like a betrayal to them, which is in their culture is the worst of crimes. They can be respectful of enemies, but traitors are unforgivable to them.

They were ready to forgive the EU/USA though, for any damage can be compensated. Their military involvement in Syria and the entire 2016 US election mess was a message to the USA, whose fingerprints, they believed, was all over 2014 Ukraine Revolution: «we’ll keep messing with you and we will be too big a pain for your ass, so it’s cheaper for you to settle with us and discuss some sort of deal.» However, the USA effectively disregarded Putin ever since 2014, and so Russian demands for such a deal were presented in late 2021, when they demanded NATO military infrastructure to be pulled back to the lines of 1997, Crime recognized as Russian, Donetsk and Luhansk recognized as independent states, and sanctions lifted.

Fruitless as Kremlin’s demands appeared from the very moment they were published, they reflected a mindset which sought great compensation for great losses during 2014 caused, in Kremlin's eyes, by USA/EU recognizing unlawful revolution in Ukraine and thus enabling this country to slip through their fingers and escape their Eurasian Economic Union.

As may be concluded from such a description of events, it has little to do with purely domestic reasons for 2022 invasion. The sad truth is that for the past 8 years Russian citizens were mostly concerned with price growth, national currency devaluation and rising utility costs rather than with Ukraine or Belarus. Russian citizens could have easily envisioned their future without Eurasian Economic Union or anything like that, and Kremlin’s ambitions have more to do with their desire to create a system where their wealth would be under their control, and not the control of the Swiss banks. 

Having said that, however, we need to say that there is a domestic consequence of this war which may have been a reason, too. It’s Mr. Putin himself and his political future. When he won the latest election (2018), he was sworn in for the constitutionally last time. Ever since 2018, tensions were rising in his system of governance because everyone was expecting him to appoint a successor. However, he chose to change constitution in 2020 (during lockdown) and make himself eligible for 2024 «re-election». His approval ranking sank from 59% in 2017 to 32% in February 2021. He had to change the election rules because his party could not win the elections held by old rules. In 2020, he dismissed the government of D. Medvedev, his 2008-2012 successor. Things weren’t looking too bright for him, but following the outbreak of the war, his popularity is rising and his elites are either fleeing the country for good or explicitly backing him up, and some are even speculating he might cancel 2024 elections. 

 

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,081]

2 hours ago, NightStar said:

 

You give a very insightful and pragmatical take which I enjoyed to read, however the downside of your perspective is that is too limited. 

When deciding to what University to go, I had in mind not 1 or 2, but probably 10 reasons as to why I chose what I chose. Moreover, even in our daily life there are explicit, evident cause why we do certain things, then there are a plethora of other implicit causes or motives of our actions. This is magnified when it comes to countries, so to say that Russia only invaded Ukraine for a specific plan in which they wanted to expand the influence of the Ruble is short-sighted.

The discovery of gas and oil reserves (which coincided with the start of the invasion in 2014), Ukraine's geography and flat landscape which made it historically integrated within the Russian sphere, Russia's desire to anihilate Western influences in its perceived domition, Russia's national myth - all of these acted in conjuction and led to the war.

You talk about the Eurasian Economic Union, that within itself is a result of this constelation of factors which relate to Russia's perceived role on the world stage. The Eurasian Economic Union (directly linked with the Eurasian ideology) is exactly this: its scope is to amp Russia's role on the world stage, expand its sphere of influence and restore Russia's Soviet power projection. Ukraine, as the biggest European country is an inalienable component of Russia's plan to expand.

At the same time, saying Transnistria is understood to be run by pro-Russian forces rather than be under Russian occupation might mislead one to think Russia wasn't a direct belligerent in the 1991 war (which is false and borders on Russia's narrative that its involvement was meant to liberate opressed people). I would also like to remind you that after 2014, Russia's involvement in Donbas was also masked through proxies: Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics - however, absolutely all of us know they were Russians under a different name, the same is true regarding Transnistria.

Your view is very pragmatic, insightful and true, yet you remove a plethora of historical, cultural, and ideological factors unnecessarily out of the equation. 

In 1919, at the end of WW1, Charles de Gaulle said

Bolshevism will not last forever in Russia. A day will finally come when order will be restorted there and Russia will look around again. On that day she will see herself as peace has left her, that is to say deprived of Estonia, Livonia, Kurland (read Letonia), Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Bessarabia (read Moldova) and perhaps even Ukaine, in a word reduced in the limits of Old Muscowy. Will she be satisfied with this? We do not believe so. The same causes producing the same effects will see Russia resume its march towards the west and southwest.

The Maidan Revolution and Ukraine's pull back from Eurasian Econimic Union is a cause nonetheless and a reason for the invasion. However, one of many which relate to the fact that Russia seeks to actively challenge the status quo and restore its influence over previously held lands, amp its position on the world stage and resolve a certain national and ideological need.