Russia’s Geography Problem: An Eternal Strategic Struggle

By Sedat Laciner

History makes one thing clear: geography is destiny—especially for Russia. For centuries, Russia’s strategic ambitions have been shaped by its vast landmass, its relative isolation from warm-water ports, and its constant insecurity over territorial vulnerability. Nowhere is this more evident than in its historic confrontations with the Ottoman Empire. From the Crimea to the Caucasus, Russian armies once surged southward, even reaching the gates of Istanbul. The conquest of Kars and the push toward the Bosphorus and Dardanelles were not isolated maneuvers, but parts of a centuries-long struggle for access to warm seas and maritime dominance.

Had Russia ever managed to control Anatolia and secure access to the Mediterranean via the Turkish Straits, it might have permanently altered the global balance of power. This unfulfilled strategic dream continues to haunt the Kremlin. Indeed, it is not a temporary ambition, but a recurring goal—one that seems poised to endure for as long as Russia exists.

The Warm-Water Obsession and the Security Dilemma

At the heart of Russia’s long-term strategic vision lies a deep, almost obsessive, desire to gain secure access to the open seas. Historically locked in by ice and land, Russia has always viewed warm-water ports as a gateway to economic and military strength—and as essential to its survival as a great power. If Russia had extended its reach westward into the Atlantic coastlines now held by Belgium and the Netherlands, or if it had held more territory in the Baltic Sea, it might have felt less cornered.

The fact that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were once directly governed from Moscow during the Soviet era is no accident. These Baltic nations not only represent key access points to the sea but are also geographic pressure points. Today, many analysts believe that Russia’s foreign policy—especially its military pressure and political interference in these countries—is aimed at reclaiming lost ground, both literally and symbolically.

Following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, Russia found itself powerless to prevent the breakaway of former republics. Economically crippled and militarily exhausted, Moscow had little choice but to watch its empire dissolve. But under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia has returned to the geopolitical stage with renewed vigor, seeking to reverse what it sees as the humiliations of the post-Soviet period.

Despite radical global changes over the past thirty years, Russia’s core strategic imperatives have not shifted. The aim of reaching the open seas—and securing its flanks—remains as relevant today as it was in the 18th century.

Geography as Fate

Russia’s expansion into the Baltic Sea region is not just opportunistic—it is existential. Russian strategists fear that if Moscow cannot dominate this region, it may be easily surrounded and strangled. This fear fuels Russia’s hostility toward NATO expansion and its aggressive posture toward the Baltic states. Ukraine, too, plays a critical role in this geographic anxiety. Its size, location, and coastline represent both a buffer and a potential corridor to the Black Sea and beyond.

From Moldova and Georgia to Romania and Bulgaria, Russia’s strategic concerns follow a clear pattern. The 2014 annexation of Crimea was not just a political maneuver—it was a geographical imperative. Crimea's strategic importance mirrors that of Russia’s Baltic ambitions, illustrating a continuity in thought: control the coastlines, secure the heartland.

Who Rules Whom: Russia or Its Geography?

Russia’s colossal landmass has bred not just a massive state, but also massive ambitions. Like all continental powers, Russia seeks to dominate its entire surrounding region. A historical parallel can be drawn with the United States, which began as thirteen colonies and rapidly expanded across the North American continent. The U.S. sought control from the Atlantic to the Pacific and even harbored ambitions toward Canada and Mexico. These were not eccentric dreams—they were geographic imperatives. In this context, Donald Trump's offhand remarks about buying Greenland or desiring closer ties with Canada reflect deeper geopolitical instincts, not personal quirks.

But while America expanded into relatively unpopulated or weakly defended territory, Russia faces a different challenge. It is boxed in by formidable neighbors, particularly in Europe. Poland, Germany, Turkey, and the Baltic states represent a dense cluster of powerful actors, all wary of Russian intentions. In this sense, Russia’s expansionist drive is met with far more resistance—and its paranoia, while aggressive, is also deeply rooted in centuries of conflict and vulnerability.

Conclusion: A Test Without End

Russia’s geography has never been merely a backdrop to its history—it is the central protagonist. More than ideology or economics, it is geography that defines Russian strategy. The need to secure access to warm-water ports, to dominate neighboring buffer zones, and to project power outward has shaped every major policy decision from the tsars to the Soviet premiers to the Kremlin of today.

And so the question remains: does Russia control its geography, or does geography control Russia? For now, the evidence suggests the latter.

As Russia continues to press outward—in Ukraine, in the Baltic, and across the Black Sea—it is not just seeking territory. It is acting out a historical script, one written by fear, ambition, and the unforgiving dictates of geography. The world should take note: for Russia, the struggle with its geography is not a phase—it is a permanent feature of its global role.

What outcomes this enduring quest will produce in the future remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: geography’s grip on Russian strategy is far from over.

By Sedat Laciner, Current Essays
5 June 2025