Since the annexation of the Crimean peninsula and military campaigns in Syria, Russia’s foreign policy has drawn public attention. Most of the current country leaders, especially those of the West and the USA, voice their concern about the growing military enforcement of the Russian Federation. Many political scientists commenced a series of studies trying to define and calculate Russia’s next steps in terms of foreign policy regarding the recent precedents. The main concern, however, was to identify the Russian government’s incentives behind all the military actions. One of the most outstanding authors in this field is Bettina Renz and her study called Russia’s Military Revival . In the book, Renz made a serious attempt to explain the philosophy and motivation of Russian governmental bodies to a broad audience. The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze Russia’s Military Revival as well as to express some personal attitudes and ideas on the given topic. For the past years, most politicians were convinced that the fact of the annexation of the Crimean peninsula and military intervention in the Syrian civil War served as catalysts for further campaigns. Such convictions caused concern among governmental bodies of Western Europe and the USA. However, Russia’s Military Revival, published in 2018, allayed all the beliefs in Russia’s potential uprising. While the vast majority of people were convinced that in 2014, the Russian Federation began to lay the foundation for the upcoming riot, Renz gave strong arguments to dispel these doubts. To counter this position, she stated that all the aforementioned actions were nothing but a display of its self-realization (Stent 230). Her main objective was to put all the recent events concerning Russia’s military campaigns into the context of its overall history and the army development since the existence of the Russian Empire. In doing so, the author managed to single out four main tendencies of Russia’s foreign policy. According to Renz, they are “great power status, sovereignty, imperial legacy, and multilateralism” (15). These factors, to her mind, along with the overall world perception and mentality, have led to such behavior. Regarding these arguments, the author has concluded that the governmental bodies of world-leading countries should as well put all the actions into a perspective of historical background. Considering all the arguments mentioned above, the attitude to this research is quite controversial. On the one hand, the amount of effort put into the study is impressive, and all the arguments given have reasonable proofs. It goes without saying that every military action should be examined from the historical point of view because world history tends to repeat itself. On the other hand, however, to study the situation only from a perspective of its historical preconditions is not objective. Even though patterns of political behavior are crucial in terms of research, they still do not guarantee that the situation will not go beyond the limits this time. So, without excluding possible overestimation of Russia’s military potential, the world community should still be very attentive to its further behavior. As it w