Open Source, Foreign Perspective, Underconsidered/Understudied Topics

A Survey of Russia: 

Security Topics for 2020 

and Just Beyond

Brigadier General (Ret.) Peter B. Zwack

KNOWLEDGE ISMERETEK KENNTNISSE 3HAHИE W EI DZA OC HN MI CE

ANZ OTNE OL TS I OC NOC MI EI NTO POZNAVANJE CONNAISSANCE

FOREIGN MILITARY STUDIES OFFICE

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is an open source

research organization of the U.S. Army. It was founded in 1986 as an innovative program that

brought together military specialists and civilian academics to focus on military and security

topics derived from unclassified, foreign media. Today FMSO maintains this research tradition 

of special insight and highly collaborative work by conducting unclassified research on foreign 

perspectives of defense and security issues that are understudied or unconsidered. 

Author Background

Brigadier General Peter Zwack (Ret.) served as the United States Senior Defense Official and 

Attaché to the Russian Federation during the challenging years of 2012-2014. Retired in 2015 

after 34 years of military service, he served for four years as the Russia-Eurasia Fellow in the 

Institute for National Strategic Studies within the National Defense University. While there he 

taught a Masters course in National Security Studies. BG Zwack is currently a Global Fellow 

at the Kennan Institute within the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. He also serves as an 

Adjunct Fellow at the Pell Center for International Relations.

BG Zwack began his work in Russian-Eurasian affairs as an U.S. Army Soviet Foreign Area 

Officer (FAO) at the Defense Language Institute (1988), and then the Russian Institute in 

Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany (1989-1991). He has served and written extensively 

in this field since then. His written and lectured insights, many personal, are based on his over 

30-years of analytical and in-country USSR-Russia experiences that began in summer 1989 as

a young U.S. Army Captain studying Russian and culture in a provincial Soviet city on the

Volga River. He takes a broad Eurasian perspective while explaining key aspects of the

complex US-Russia and increasingly China “triangle,” and how these and other relationships

will shape the course of the world ahead. BG Zwack brings a personal hands-on perspective to

Russia and Eurasian affairs and the challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. and Russia

today.

Since 1989, he has interacted with Russians and international colleagues on multiple levels 

including defense, security, academia, policy, veterans, and private citizens. He regularly 

consults, writes and lectures within the interagency, defense department, think tanks, 

academic institutions and business community on contemporary Russian and Eurasian 

security issues, and leadership lessons learned.

FMSO has provided some editing, format, and graphics to this paper to conform to organizational 

standards. Academic conventions, source referencing, and citation style are those of the author.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the official policy or position of 

the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
1

A Survey of Russia: Security Topics for 2020 and Just Beyond

Introduction

Although US security concerns 

have recently focused to a large degree on 

China, it is Russia that is the unpredictable 

wildcard. The country has stumbled in 

more ways than one during the past several 

months. In March 2020, it overplayed its 

hand in a game of oil supply-price 

brinksmanship with Saudi Arabia. The 

ruble is under inflation pressure. And the 

Kremlin’s initial fumbling of the 

coronavirus outbreak only added to its 

impact. In late May, Russian state press 

reported that Moscow could face a 7.5

percent drop in GDP following the 

pandemic.1 One of the most telling signs 

of pressure on the Kremlin was the 

decision—no doubt a reluctant one—to postpone the grand 75th anniversary events linked to VEDay on 9 May and reschedule a more modest celebration for 24 June. During this tumultuous 

period, a Levada poll saw a slide in President Vladimir Putin’s popularity to 59 percent, a sixyear low.2

In late spring, rural areas were 

ravaged by COVID-19, and 

unemployment soared in places where 

many people are already living at 

subsistence levels and deeply dissatisfied 

with a 2018 decision by the Kremlin to 

raise the official retirement age.3 Civic 

unrest has also increased. The recent arrest 

of former journalist and Roscosmos 

employee Ivan Safronov for allegedly 

passing state secrets to the Czech Republic 

stoked public anger.

4 Large street protests

in the Far East erupted in July over the 

arrest of the popular, anti-United Russia

Governor Sergei Furgal on charges of 

murder.

5

 Tens of thousands of people 

marched in provincial Khabarovsk. 

In spite of the cascade of challenges, Moscow is not in freefall. The Kremlin’s prudent 

measures to stockpile currency and key resources following the crisis years of 2014-2015 are 

helping to meet basic population needs, including long-standing pensions. But those actions have 

Start of the Victory Day Parade

Source: Mil.ru, <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MoscowVictoryDayParade2020-06-24_2.jpg>, 

CC BY 4.0.

Protest in Khabarovsk on 8 August 2020

Source: Incredible Terrence, 

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3_

%D0%B2_%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D

0%B5_8_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0_2020_3.jpg>, CC BY-SA 

4.0. 
2

not been enough to take the edge off other urgent domestic crises, such as a partially idled 

workforce in key industries and national infrastructure. Military procurement and modernization 

have slowed. High-profile initiatives involving other countries have also been impacted. The 

grand, if controversial, Nordstream II pipeline with Germany has been delayed. Direct military 

commitments in Syria might also take a hit; so, too, might the use of Yevgeni Prigozhin’s 6

Wagner Group’s “Private Military Companies” (PMCs) in non-attributed “Gray Zone” activities 

in murky conflicts such as Libya and greater Africa, and in supporting Venezuela.7

With Change Comes Opportunity...to Succeed or Fail

Change has never come easily to Russia or Russians, but change is coming. Major 

societal shifts are underway not only internally, but in the world beyond Russia’s borders. 

Of particular importance is the question of Moscow’s relationship with the United States

and the West in the years ahead. To some observers, Russia’s best prospect for survival as a 

viable national entity will be to solidify a credible, non-confrontational relationship with the 

West. The same could be said for its relationship with the United States. In spite of high tensions 

at the moment, tough, resilient Russians still crave equal status and respect.

8 Unfortunately,

recent allegations of Russian agents paying Taliban to slay US and coalition personnel in 

Afghanistan serve only to muddy already toxically murky waters between the two nations.

9

 

Closer to home, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 created huge political baggage that 

has yet to be unpacked and stowed away. The Kremlin must find a way to resolve its fraught 

relationship with Kyiv. Only a normalized relationship between the two nations will lead to a 

major relaxation of EU-US sanctions. It would also go a long way toward reducing tensions with

Eastern Europe, including Belarus, as well as the Black Sea region. The contentious Belarus 

presidential election on August 9 was of intense interest to the Kremlin concerned over where

Minsk and its headstrong President Alexander Lukashenko would prioritize future attention. 

Other compass directions also point to major challenges for Russia. The South (including 

the Middle East and Central Asia) presents mainly strife and instability. As for the Far East,

despite its burgeoning partnership with China, Russia faces major long-term risks by tying up too 

tightly with Beijing. 

A huge factor in managing any and all of the above problems is the Russian regime. 

President Vladimir Putin’s future role in Russia’s power structure has been ongoing political 

theater. Initial speculation focused on the likelihood that he would move to a top position in the 

Federation Council when his final presidential term expired in 2024. But a controversial 

nationwide constitutional referendum was held on June 1, 2020, which included the proviso that 

the presidential term be reset to zero, allowing Putin two more six-year terms, extending his run 

to 2036.10 He won 78 percent of the popular vote. When recently asked about Putin, a roughhewn taxi driver in his fifties from Rostov was direct and brief: “He is a strong man ... he takes 

care of us.”11
3

Such frank support was not always forthcoming. In the 

winter of 2011-2012—after Putin reassumed the presidency

under murky electoral circumstances—chaotic demonstrations in 

Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square broke out. Major efforts to 

legitimize Putin’s ongoing power were made in the aftermath, 

and included most recently an unusual constitutional plebiscite 

on June 25, 2020.

12

 The scheduling of the plebiscite was 

intriguing: Just one day after the Kremlin’s rescheduled Victory 

Day Parade, normally held on May 9, but delayed by COVID19.13 The upshot of all the maneuvering is that Vladimir Putin is 

likely to remain in office for a dozen more years.

The de facto extension of Putin’s power to 2036 means 

that the regime will have to wrestle with how to maintain its grip 

on power when faced with so many real challenges. How will it 

manage the economic, social and military stresses that will come 

on the heels of a likely overall population decline over the next 

generation?

14 Can the country’s oil-gas dependent economy adjust long-term to the bottom 

falling out of the market in 2020? What happens as a weak ruble continues to chip away at the 

average citizen’s buying power?15 The Kremlin will not be able to ignore growing numbers of 

Russian citizens who might well become more restive as problems pile up and more suffering 

results.16

Will the Putin regime “muddle through” on an ad hoc footing, dealing with challenges as 

they arise? Or would it likely deploy hyped-up narratives of external threats in order to unify the 

home front—a strategy that would take pressure off the regime? For example, Moscow could 

readily stoke cross-border tensions in sensitive areas like the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine or the 

Caucasus to relieve pressure from its center.

Also looming on the near horizon is the very real possibility that all existing global arms 

control agreements will lapse and the world’s stability will be in serious jeopardy for the first 

time since the end of the Cold War. If no checks are in place, how will Moscow bolster and 

deploy its arsenal of weapons and tactics? How will the regime respond to an increasingly 

restless China? How will it manage ever-more potent technologies in the cyber and AI realms? 

Finding answers to these and many other questions will keep teams of international 

analysts and academics, including Russian, busy 24/7 as this jarred new decade further unfolds. 

Vladimir Putin

Source: The Presidential Press and Information 

Office, 

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimi

r_Putin_April_2020_(cropped).jpg>, CC BY 4.0.
4

 Location, Location, Location:

The Central Role of Geography and History in the Russian Worldview

If any major nation on this planet is defined and driven by its geography and history, it is 

Russia. To better understand modern Russia and its psychological and policy drivers it is 

instructive to sometimes pull out a map and review the immense country from every direction. 

A quick refresher tour: Russia stretches from the western Baltics and Barents Seas across 

upper Eurasia to the Pacific through eleven time zones. For a sense of scale, the legendary TransSiberian railroad from European Moscow to Pacific Vladivostok spans a greater distance than 

the miles an airplane covers flying from Washington DC to Honolulu. In essence, Russia IS

Eurasia, with other countries large and small filling in the gaps. 

Russia’s sprawling land mass didn’t gel all at once. It was created by conquest. Russia 

carved pieces of land out of neighboring civilizations and nations during a millennium of 

imperial and Soviet expansion. Modern Russia both benefits and suffers from its legacy of 

conquest. The country is vast and its borders are mind-bogglingly long and impossible to fully 

defend. Therefore while its enormous terrestrial size connotes strength it also presents great 

vulnerability. Its population is largely concentrated west of the Urals, leaving huge swaths of 

Russian territory to the east lightly populated and less tethered culturally or socially to Moscow. 

It is no exaggeration to say that there are many Russias within Russia. 

Source: US Army Training and Doctrine Command G2; created with Natural Earth <https://www.naturalearthdata.com/>
5

Ground transportation to connect these widely-dispersed “Russias” is limited. The 

country’s entire rail and road network—largely completed before WWI to connect the Czar’s 

vast empire—runs mostly west to east. This orientation is especially evident in the southern 

latitudes east of the Urals. For the most part, the road networks, notably the recently completed, 

unofficially named Trans-Siberian Highway, mirror the west to east track of the country’s rail 

system. There are very few north-to-south conduits east of the Urals. 

Geography sets the stage for another key ingredient in Russia’s long history: 

demography. The country’s relatively small population is utterly out-of-balance with its vast land 

mass. At approximately 145 million citizens, Russia’s population is about 40 percent of the 

US’s, one-third that of the European Union and a mere one-ninth of China’s. The population is 

not appreciably increasing, with its barely break-even birth rate anticipated to slacken in the 

years ahead —a factor that will have a big impact down the line.

17 Religious and ethnic diversity 

within Russia are shifting as well. While still dominantly Russian-Orthodox, the nation’s 

population is approximately ten percent Moslem, primarily secular Sunni, with a growing 

presence mostly in the Caucasus and southern regions.

The uneven distribution of the country’s shrinking population presents a serious 

challenge. Three-quarters of Russia’s people live in western Russia, in an area reaching from the 

Baltic Sea to the Ural Mountains, where greater Europe ends and Asia begins. East of the Urals 

lies vast Siberia and the Far East, regions sparsely populated and sharing borders with Central 

Asia, Mongolia and China. (Russia and China share a 2600-mile border, approximately the same 

length as the US-Canadian border). In the north, approximately two million Russians live within 

the inhospitable Arctic zone, where half the landmass is claimed by Russia. The melting of the 

polar ice cap in recent decades has given rise to a navigable Northern Sea Route (NSR)—a 

commercial opportunity, but also exposing Russia’s resources and submarine nuclear bastions. 

Climate shifts are also having a negative impact on Russia’s geo-ecology. About fiftyfive percent of the county’s barely habitable landmass is permafrost. Record heat spikes in 2020 

have been melting frozen topsoil, kicking methane into the atmosphere and making gas lines and 

oil storage unstable. A huge diesel fuel spill (as much as 17,500 tons) in late May near Norilsk 

was dire enough to push Putin to declare a state of emergency. At the same time, forest fires—

increasingly commonplace—raged in the Siberian taiga.18 Another limiting factor is the everpresent reality that only approximately eight percent of Russia is arable land; rural Russians must 

turn to micro-greenhouses to raise food. In spite of its huge size, Russia is hobbled by millions of 

square miles of unusable land.

Given all of the challenges outlined above, it is easy to understand how and why Moscow 

views the world through a prism of real, perceived and contrived existential threats—many of 

them rooted in geography and history.

19 Frustrated by its longstanding uneasy relationship with 

the West, for example, Russia in recent years took to emphasizing its Eurasian destiny and 

heritage. Invocations of the near mystic but increasingly less influential political scientist 

Alexander Dugin abounded; Dugin’s 1997 book, “Foundations of Geopolitics” is sometimes 

referred to as Russia’s “Manifest Destiny” doctrine. On a more pragmatic note, Moscow has 

been trying to merge the defense aspects of its Central Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) 

with the more economic efforts of its Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the Chinese-driven 
6

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). 20 This renewed Eurasian-centric mindset on the part 

of Russia informs many of the policies and actions emanating from the modern Kremlin and is 

likely to continue to do so. Despite such, Russia’s culture—primary Slavic ethnicity, Orthodox 

religion, language, alphabet, architecture, fine arts and philosophical underpinnings—still

remains overwhelmingly western albeit with Asian strains and influences. 

Ranking right up there with geography and demography is the powerful tug of Russia’s 

long history—especially in the realm of warfare. From 1240AD, when the Mongols swept from 

the east to destroy and enslave “Rus,” (site of today’s Kyiv), to the ghastly Nazi invasion from 

the West a mere 75-79 years-ago, Russians have been fighting existential enemies from every 

direction for many centuries. Much of the conflict is self-imposed; aggressive expansionism 

begets paranoia about revenge and retaliation. That said, the extraordinary toll on the country’s 

population is all too real and many magnitudes beyond what most Americans can begin to 

comprehend. How does a country—including FSU states—process and mourn the loss of over 

forty million citizens to global war, internal revolution, civil war, famine, repressions, gulags and 

more—just in the period from 1914 to about 1954? No modern Russian family has been

untouched by tragedy; many take great pride in stories of individual courage and moments of 

national triumph. The collective fallout and deep reactionary distrust feed a defensive and 

reactively xenophobic worldview that runs deep through the Russian mindscape even today. 

A Survey of 2020 Russia and Its Periphery

One of the most obvious manifestations of Russia’s defensive posture is the Kremlin’s 

fixation on pushing out the country’s borders—at least psychologically—to match the size and 

shape of the Soviet Union (FSU) before 1991. In 2009, then President Dmitry Medvedev referred 

to the region formerly in the FSU as its “privileged” sphere of influence.

21 Moscow is in a 

perpetual state of disruptive, coercive “gray zone” conflict in those fourteen now independent 

nations. Its goals range from simply exerting influence regionally to disrupting efforts by any of 

these UN recognized states from joining Western economic and security institutions and 

organizations (NATO being a prime example). This endless shadow conflict occasionally erupts 

into outright aggression against its immediate FSU neighbors. The two best known examples are 

the preemptive invasions—aggression—of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. 

It may be easier to understand Russia’s actions if you put yourself in the shoes of a senior 

security analyst or seasoned planner on the Russian General Staff in the 1990s, after the collapse 

of the FSU. Suddenly, Russia was no longer protected from the West by both a Soviet and 

Warsaw Pact buffer zone multiple hundreds of miles distant. By the early 2000s, the post-Soviet 

picture must have looked particularly alarming to the Kremlin: the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) were expanding, the US and allies had 

intervened in Kosovo, the Middle East and Afghanistan; sleeping giant China was awakening

and in 2002 the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Treaty that was for Moscow a key security 

mechanism. Moscow’s aggressive moves into Georgia and, later, the Ukraine were in part 

attempts to arrest this momentum and its fears about encroachment. The pushback strategy has 

been somewhat sidelined by the double whammy of the oil price shock and COVID-19 in the 

first half of 2020. The rivalry between Russia and the US in the West, for example, has settled 

for now into an edgy stalemate—playing out against a backdrop of weakening democracies and 
7

growing authoritarianism, plus the breakdown of long-standing international strictures and 

convention. The Kremlin sees the West as the purveyor of liberal democratic and free market 

soft power—potent threats that must be countered and forestalled. 

The Russian Military and Security Forces

The age-old strategy of saber-rattling is alive and well in Russia, albeit in a form that 

often depends more on hype than heft. The Russian military, though powerful and much 

improved since 2008, is not “10 feet tall.”22 Carefully orchestrated military exercises are 

designed to downplay the relative size and imbalance of the Russian military certainly when 

compared to the muscle of the US military enterprise and her allies. Despite displays of regular 

heavy air and naval patrolling, the Russian military power posture overall appears mostly 

defensive. Such displays typically deploy from under large, integrated but not impermeable 

“A2/AD” (Anti Access – Air Defense) air defense and missile belts protecting mostly coastal 

regional power centers, such as Kaliningrad, Crimea, Severomorsk and Petropavlovsk.23

This is not to say that Russia doesn’t maintain an ace in the hole: its strategic nuclear 

capability. The nuclear Strategic Rocket Forces remain the ultimate guarantor of Russia’s 

survival and brings international stature and respect. But where the growing danger lies is in the 

Kremlin’s willingness to operate in an ambiguous non-linear “gray zone” where it can exploit the 

many well-known vulnerabilities that open societies manifest. It is in this shadowy cyber realm

that Russia (and other nations) launch non-declared asymmetric operations to erode civil society, 

undermine credible governance and encourage illiberal politics. Fighting back is made all the 

more difficult by Russia’s inherent ruthlessness, a trait acquired through centuries of internal and 

external strife requiring both national and personal survival skills. Free societies that are not 

willing or able to be equally ruthless during official peacetime are often hamstrung when it 

comes to contesting and repelling the onslaught of corrosive messages and provocations lobbed 

across the dark space of the Internet or by unattributed assassination. Yet it is on this ‘battlefield’ 

where many future victories and defeats might well occur...without firing a shot or launching a 

missile. 

Conventional Forces: Much Improved but Uneven Quality

In the meantime, the traditional Russian military, though increasingly flexible, capable 

and lethal—and numbering less than one million active-duty personnel—is limited by the

demographic and economic realities of mainstream Russia. It is likely that its pre-mobilization 

numbers make it difficult to handle more than one major front-level mission with several other 

secondary missions at a time.24 For backup, the regular military does have a pool to draw on, but 

it consists of largely inactive reserve forces. The National Guard (@250,000 members), formed 

in 2016 as a sort of regime protecting “Praetorian Guard,” the truncated Interior Ministry (MVD)

(under 200,000), plus several hundred thousand more from the FSB (including border guards), 

SVR, security services and from Russia’s challenged civilian demographic all pull from its 

multi-tasked manpower pool. In any major conflict scenario employing its standing land, air or 

sea forces, the Kremlin’s strategy would almost certainly have to depend heavily on initial 

deception and surprise to gain a paralyzing asymmetric advantage in any first phase of war. 
8

Another planning factor is that a solid 30 to 35 percent are one-year conscripts that are 

most numerous in the Land Forces. These represent mainstream Russian society and while 

mostly patriotic, present the Russian military with special challenges especially in the case of 

major out-of-Russia operations. A long-dwell occupation force astride an unsupportive 

population such as in the Baltics, rump Georgia or deeper into Ukraine would present 

considerable challenges if composed of numerous one-year conscripts. 

Add to the mix the reality that Russia’s “Gen Z” recruits are far more connected to the 

world and less easily led than during the Soviet era. The same applies to the civilian population. 

Controlling access to smartphones and news is virtually impossible in 2020. Even in the 1980s, 

when smartphones did not yet exist, bad news from the front eventually filtered back home and 

the Russian population grew increasingly agitated against the Afghanistan operation.

25 More 

recently, in 2018, thousands of mostly young Russians hit the streets to protest the regime’s 

efforts to enforce decryption of the widely used “Telegram” internet app.26 While attaining a 

fully professional “contract” force has always been an objective, the goal is hampered by 

economics, demography and competition from the large internal security forces. The Russian 

population is gradually aging, reducing the annual pool of available recruits, whether contract or 

conscript.27 Finally, although the Russian military is generally held in high esteem, the conscript 

system still suffers black eyes, such as the hazing that included a mass shooting in the TransBaikal region last October.28

With the bulk of its first-line ground forces arrayed in the Western and Southern MDs, 

Russia’s fleets operate out of all five districts, with the best platforms including strategic ballistic 

missile submaries (SSBN), assigned to the Northern Fleet MD from Severomorsk and the Pacific 

Fleet out of Petropavlovsk. Arrayed across the breadth of north-central Russia are the bulk of 

Russia’s Strategic Rocket forces, consisting of hundreds of fixed and mobile strategic launchers, 

and airbases from which fly the majority of its heavy nuclear bombers. The operation and 

maintenance of these strategic forces requires the crème of Russian military personnel (other 

than elite specialized forces, such as the Airborne and Naval Infantry) within each branch. 
9

Hard-Won Lessons? Or Heavy Baggage?

Russia’s “troika” of major military operations from 2014 to 2020 has provided many 

hands-on lessons in deploying forces. The first involved the GRU “little green men” used in 

Moscow’s stunningly successful takedown of Crimea in February 2014. Next came the messy 

proxy-led invasion of Eastern Ukraine culminating in unattributed formed units of Russian 

regulars deployed in early summer 2014. Lastly came, the full-blown, white blue and red flagwaving tactical to high-operational intervention in Syria in autumn 2015.

29 In all three cases, the 

entire spectrum of Russia’s non-nuclear military—a distinction from calling such “conventional” 

military—was employed with varying degrees of success. While Crimea’s occupation and illegal 

annexation was swiftly accomplished, the less popular and sapping struggle in eastern Ukraine 

continues without resolution. In Syria, Russia’s carefully modulated operations supporting 

Bashar-al-Asad’s regime are mired in a conflict that seems to have no end.

What Russian forces are mastering is how to conduct more flexible and mobile combined 

missions with coalition partners/proxies and joint operations, especially in Syria within its 

ground, air and maritime forces. Also, major advances in integrating enhanced C2, electronic 

warfare, drones and space supported operations using advanced cyber capability are noteworthy. 

Although heavy air strikes inflicting heavy civilian losses in 

support of the Bashar-al-Asad regime grabbed headlines, Russia’s 

disciplined ground forces in Syria have displayed a growing deftness 

in working within coalitions, and deconfliction with high-end 

foreign forces including—paradoxically—Americans, Turks and 

crossborder, the ever watchful Israelis. This multi-domain “New 

Type Warfare” (as the Russian military calls it) is part of the 

ongoing evolution of the “New Look” reforms begun by Chief of the 

General Staff General Nicolai Makarov (2009-2012) after the 

clumsy Georgia operation in 2008.30 Since then, the Russian military 

and Defense Ministry have been capably led by Chief of the General 

Staff, General Valery Gerasimov and Minister of Defense Sergey 

Shoigu respectively, a rather competent, non-flashy tandem 

representing defense-military continuity and Putin’s continuing trust 

during turbulent times. It was Gerasimov who was credited in 2017 

for stating this key proven point: 

“A great number of Russian officers of have gained combat experience. All the heads of 

military districts with their staff, combined arms armies, air and air defence armies and almost 

all the division commanders and more than half of combined arms brigades and regiments 

commanding officers have been involved in the Russia’s grouping in Syria. They had combat 

practice in command and control, joint cooperation and complex surveillance, control and fire 

systems.” 31

General Valery Gerasimov

Source: Kremlin.ru, 

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vale

ry_Gerasimov_(2015-05-12).jpg>, CC BY 4.0.
10

No Re-Start for New START?

Perhaps the most ticklish—and time-sensitive—military issue is nuclear weapons and 

arms control. The current New START treaty expires on February 5, 2021, unless it is extended 

by Russia and the United States. Russia’s position remains unwavering.

32

 In December 2019, 

Vladimir Putin publicly declared (and subsequently reiterated):

"I have already said, I want to repeat it again, until the end of the year we are ready to extend 

the current New START. Now, if they [the United States] send us by mail tomorrow or we sign 

and send it to Washington, let them just put a signature, but only if they are ready. So far there is 

no answer to any of our proposals and if there is no New START, there will be nothing at all in 

the world that is holding the arms race back and this, in my opinion, is bad,"33

The February 5, 2021 “expiration date” represents a critical crossroads in how strategic 

“Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) will be managed, with or without consultation, with or 

without the built-in verification procedures that New START provides. Russia’s new Deterrence 

Policy—unveiled on June 2, 2020—outlines specifics on how and when Russia would employ 

nuclear weapons—including first use—in response to various nuclear and non-nuclear threats.34

Complicating US-Russian strategic stability are new Russian and US weapons systems 

that are being fielded or are under development, which could nudge both nations into a full-out 

arms race if New START expires. Long-range precision conventional weapons, missile defense, 

and new technologies including fast evolving cyber, AI and space threats must also be addressed 

in any future treaty. 

And then there’s China, which was not a major factor when the original New START 

was implemented in February 2010. There is growing consensus among US and Russian arms 

control experts that all of these thorny topics—including China’s steady growth as a nuclear 

power—could be addressed during any five-year extension period. That said, a potential fly in 

the ointment is China’s (to date) implacable rejection of any arms control regulation. 

The fate of the Open Skies Treaty is also in doubt. That treaty—heavy on verification 

methods—utilizes optically-equipped aircraft platforms and involves 34 nations, including 

numerous US allies and partners. Most want to maintain this treaty, as does Moscow, while 

Washington in 2020 has stated its intent to depart. 

On March 10, 2020, Russia reaffirmed its support of the 191-nation signatory Nuclear 

Proliferation Treaty. Moscow, however, is quite concerned about Trump administration 

discussions about reenergizing nuclear warhead testing that would violate the spirit of the 

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (1996), which the US has signed but not ratified.35
11

Russian Security Seen through the Prism

of its Five Military Districts

One useful way to review Russia’s current security issues in more depth is by examining 

each of the country’s five main Military Districts (MDs) (See map, below). By looking at the 

world through the prism of those five MDs spanning Russia’s broad periphery we can assess

Moscow’s threat perception and how it has prioritized potential responses to those perceived 

threats. Then this survey will also briefly review activities in what can be called the Russian 

“Mid-Abroad” and “Far Abroad. These five military districts (wartime OSKs – Unified Strategic 

Commands) are in rough congruence to US Geographic Combatant commands (GCCsCOCOMs) in how they project their operations and influence throughout Eurasia, the Arctic and 

out of area. We shall begin with the Far East and Pacific. 

 

Eastern Military District EMD (Khabarovsk): Russia’s overall 

strategic posture in the Far East is defensively status quo. This immense 

area abuts China, the NW Pacific and eastern Arctic. Moscow has does 

not have territorial ambitions beyond retaining her end-WWII Kurile 

Island conquest, and Sakhalin Peninsula. With no major border changes 

from the USSR’s break-up except some local Sino-Russia land swaps along the Amur-Ussuri 

Rivers near Khabarovsk in 2004, Moscow has been particularly proactive during Putin’s long 

stewardship in diffusing the major points of friction that existed between China and Russia in the 

latter 20th century.36 This includes the current difficult coronavirus period where Beijing and 

Moscow have been working through some related policy differences. 37 Especially during the 

overlapping leadership period of Chinese leader Xi JinPing and Putin, Moscow and Beijing have 

entered a pragmatic partnership. The relationship stops short of an alliance, but appears 

substantial enough that both conceivably could coalesce into temporal military-political entente 

Russian Military Security Posture

Source: Designed by author from Russian MOD Map of Military Districts, Wikimedia commons 

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Military_districts_of_Russia_2016.svg>
12

if their existential threat perceptions aligned 

into mutually actionable circumstances. 

Despite increasingly aggressive Russian airpatrolling (that also occurred in the Cold War), 

and the Russian navy’s recent dangerous 

“brushbacks” against US warships in the 

Arabian and South China Seas, this does not 

necessarily mean overt Russian military 

support if China were to push brinksmanship to 

conflict with Taiwan or the South China Sea. 

What it does risk is a difficult to control 

accident or incident that neither side wants.

With few “real” allies to call on, both 

Beijing and Moscow are loath to be 

strategically isolated, whether by hard power 

alliances or within soft power venues such as 

the United Nations (UN). As Dmitri Trenin succinctly writes from the Carnegie Moscow Center:

“In its bilateral relations with China, Russia should continue to adhere to the following 

formula: Russia and China must never act against each other, but they do not necessarily always 

have to act as one, thereby guaranteeing that neither power will stab the other in the back while 

refraining from imposing constraints on how the two states interact with the rest of the world. 

Russia and China are both major powers, even if their economic, political, and military 

resources and advantages differ. They must maintain a certain distance from each other; 

otherwise, friction becomes inevitable.”38

The US in turn, has strong Pacific allies in Japan, South Korea and Australia-New 

Zealand and good relations with multiple other regional partners. Mystifying is Russia’s 

impractical enmity to Japan. If the Kurile Island issue could be resolved, Russia could provide a 

strong regional economic partner, counterbalancing China.39 As for North Korea, Russia remains 

carefully realistic and balanced about a relationship that dates back to 1948. Moscow is 

concerned foremost about North Korea’s fundamental stability, given that the two countries 

share a narrow border. Although Russia does not officially support North Korea’s nuclear 

program, it worries about the wound-tight nation imploding under the unpredictable Kim Jung 

Un.40 While in general agreement with Beijing regarding Pyongyang, Moscow is not always in 

lockstep. Until the ruble inflated in 2014, Russia’s Far East benefited from cheap North Korean 

laborers. Russia’s relations with South Korea are carefully cordial with modest business, tourism 

and occasional low-profile military visits. 

In pure geostrategic terms, Beijing and Moscow economically cover each other’s major 

flanks, which allows Russia to focus resources and forces in the west and south, while China 

remains fixated on its Pacific periphery, Southeast Asia and islands, its Belt and Road Initiative 

(BRI) and related Polar Silk Road. Despite recent US military and political retraction worldwide, 

both nations share a core threat perception that the US—with its array of global allies and 

Source: Peter Fitzgerald, 

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Far_East_regions_map.png>, CC 

BY-SA 2.5.
13

military capabilities—continues to weaponize soft power liberal democratic and free market 

principles aimed at forcing regime change in Moscow and Beijing.41 This deep-rooted perception 

of US motives appears to be more menacing in the eyes of both regimes than straightforward 

US-allied military power.42

Despite a deep mutual distrust based on a millennium of difficult coexistence, RussoSino cooperation is increasing politically, economically and militarily. The frequency and 

breadth of Chinese and Russian military interactions continues to deepen. In just the past several 

years several thousand Chinese and Russian ground troops exercised (but did not closely 

interoperate) during the major 2018 Vostok (east) and 2019 Tsenter (center) exercises in southcentral Siberia. Warships sortied together in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Indian oceans. 

Perhaps the most arresting moment was when Russian and Chinese strategic bombers flew a 

mission together in July 2019, pushing into Japanese and South Korean Air Defense ID zones.43 

Russia is funneling natural gas into China 

as an initial part of a giant natural gas 

agreement—the Power of Siberia pipeline—that 

until recently has been more complicated and less 

satisfactory for both regimes than as originally 

envisioned.44 The Chinese continue to bore their 

BRI toward the Caspian Sea and Europe through 

the independent southern lands of the former 

Soviet Union (welcoming officially supportive 

but privately skeptical Russian acquiescence) and 

via its maritime lanes through the Indian Ocean 

to the Middle East and Europe. China is also 

building the capability to navigate the mostly 

Russian Northern Sea Route (NSR), including 

the use of icebreakers. She is also helping extract 

LMG on Russia’s arctic Yamal peninsula nearby 

the Kara Sea where Exxon Mobil had a drilling 

joint venture with Rosneft as late as 2018.45

For long-term Russian planners, the future must be murky regarding Beijing. China is an 

emergent superpower that outstrips Russia in all but nuclear weapons and natural resources. 

There is no feasible way that Russia could block Chinese influence and infrastructure by 

conventional terms, therefore Moscow must shape and manage burgeoning Chinese inroads, 

aspirations—and encroachment—by riding with Beijing. Long-term, China’s enormous 

population, coupled with its incessant thirst for resources, risk becoming perilous for weakening 

Moscow.46

Not forgotten is Russia’s difficult regional history with China in which imperial Russian 

gained its resource-rich Far East via unpopular treaties from a moribund Qing Dynasty during 

the mid-1800s.47 The two “made peace” with the long-ago treaties, but for countries with very 

long memories, the mid-1800s is not yet the distant past especially when recalling the brief but 

vicious Sino-Soviet border clashes along the Amur River near Khabarovsk in 1969. 

A map showing the Power of Siberia pipeline, its connection 

into China, and future connections with another pipeline.

Source: Khu’hamgaba Kitap, 

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Power_of_Siberia_Map.png>, CC BY-SA 4.0.
14

Finally, the Chinese and Russians are utterly different on many fronts: historically, 

culturally, religiously, ethnically and perhaps most importantly, philosophically. The differences 

are clear, even along the shared border. Populations there live together but remain quite distinct 

from one another. They are collocated in some places but not integrated. Both Moscow and 

Beijing are acutely sensitive to any perceived US and allied governments attempts to try to drive 

wedges between the China and Russia. Doing so will only drive them more closely, malignly 

together. Instead, multiple natural wedges are already there and will deepen naturally if left alone 

by outside forces.

A Russian post-graduate student from the Far East who had spent time studying language 

and culture in a provincial Chinese city sums up the relationship:

“It was a good experience and I was well treated. It was, however, like living on another 

planet.”48

Central Military District – CMD (Ekaterinberg): The CMD’s 

strategic posture in 2020 is defensively“Status Quo.” The huge Central 

Military District spans Russia’s Central Siberia, from the Urals east 

along the Central Asian borderlands to mid-Mongolia, and north to a 

long boundary along the Arctic. It is home to approximately 55 million 

citizens and encompasses over 40 percent of Russia’s landmass, including much of the country’s 

resource-rich heartland. This is also a very religiously and ethnically diverse region, with a large

and mostly secular Sunni Moslem population living along the Volga River basin. To quote noted 

Russia scholar and former President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, the 

CMD’s primary role is to:

“Orchestrate Russian engagement in local conflicts within Central Asia, to manage 

Russia’s bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and to supply reinforcements from its two armies 

either to the east or west in the event of war,” and that their purpose is to forestall instability 

that might spill over into Russia and to remind everyone that Russia’s forces in the region are 

mightier than China.” 49

Russia’s priorities in the central region are to maintain secure borders, exert strong 

influence on the independent FSU Central Asian nations, deter the spread of jihadism from the 

south and be the principal transportation conduit between east and west. Any potential for 

reabsorbing these lands back into a greater Russia is gone. They’re not only developing their 

own identities, but China is extending its economic corridors through the vast region via the Belt 

Road Initiative. The peaceful and moderate turnover of power in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan 

after strongman Islam Karimov’s death in September 2016, and Nursultan Nazarbayev’s stepdown in March 2019, muted mainstream fears that Russian forces would intervene after their 

passing—a scenario still worrisome in Belarus. As in most other FSU nations, most Central 

Asian citizens under 40 years old have little to no recollection of the USSR, and likely do not 

speak Russian. In fact, more are learning Chinese.50 That said, canny Central Asian diplomats—

master balancers—are wary of aggressive Chinese business practices including entangling “debt 

traps.” These diplomats see Russia—a neighbor they know all too intimately—as a security 
15

guarantor for any extreme circumstance.51 The US is seen as a balancing entity but not anymore 

as a key regional power broker, after reducing its presence and investments in the region. 

Russian bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are mostly focused on maintaining stability in the 

face of chaos bubbling out what Moscow sees as future failed Afghanistan. Those bases also

anchor Russian interests in the region. 

While the Putin regime is officially supportive, some influential Russians are increasingly 

vocal about their concerns of deeper Chinese encroachment in former Soviet Central Asia. A

major new airbase is being built in restive Xinjiang province, just across the border. Another 

airbase is rumored by Agence France Presse to be in the works in the extended Wakhan Corridor 

bordering China in northeast Afghanistan.52 Of special interest to the United States is Moscow’s 

disruptive, dangerous relationship with the Taliban—a relationship that epitomizes Russia’s 

attempt to disrupt US-backed missions and interests world-wide. The pairing should also be 

viewed as an effort by Moscow to build a pragmatic regional firebreak with what it perceives 

will be the likely inheritor of Afghan power, and overall future regional instability. 

Further south, Russia maintains good relations (including major arms sales) with India, 

who also has increased its influence and investment in Central Asia and Afghanistan. This 

geostrategic area promises a new-age “Great Game,” involving a potential “Quadrangle” of 

regional “Great Power” interlocutors, including Russia, China, the US and India. 

Southern Military District SMD (Rostov on Don): The 2020 

Russian military posture in the Black Sea-Caspian regions is both 

aggressively status quo and revisionist. The SMD borders the fractious

Caucasus region including NATO partner Georgia, that along with 

Ukraine remain sensitive hot spots for Russia and has a dense population 

along the Black Sea’s shorelines. 

53 In autumn 2020 Russia will stage its major quadrennial 

“Kavkaz” exercise with SMD as its focal point.54

The SMD is the smallest of Russia’s five military districts, but arguably the most 

complex. Wedged between the strategic Black Sea and hydrocarbon-rich Caspian Sea, the SMD 

has been an epicenter of Russian military activity since the break-up of the USSR. Both 

Chechen wars (1990s), the Daghestan counter-insurgency, the 2008 Georgian conflict and the 

stealth invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 were largely staged by forces operating out of this 

MD. 

Moscow is still solidifying her connection of Crimea to the mainland via the recently 

built Kerch bridge, site of a major Russia-Ukraine maritime crisis in November 2018.55 Russian 

forces also maintain presence in the Caucasus within Armenia, keeping an eye on simmering 

Nagorno-Karabakh tensions with Azerbaijan. Major fighting broke out in 2016, and deadly 

skirmishes flared up again in July, 2020.56 Complicating the situation for Moscow is Turkey’s 

support of Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital.

57 Russian support for the non-recognized statelets of 

Abkhazia and South Ossetia, carved out of Georgia in 2008, require resources and effort, as does 

Ramzon Kadyrov’s reactionary proxy leadership of ever volatile Chechnya. Dagestan, within 

Russia proper, still harbors radical Islamist jihadists who periodically erupt. Some worry that 
16

Dagestan, indeed the entire region, will be a springboard for returning ISIS Jihadists from Iraq, 

Syria and Afghanistan. 58 If so, more turmoil can be expected. 

Across the Black Sea lies NATO’s Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria. Russia regularly

encounters US and allied air assets and naval forces sortieing through the strategic Dardanelles to

support allies and partners. These timeless historic straits are also critical for seaborne supply to 

Russian forces in Syria and interests within the Mediterranean. The Caspian region also presents 

both opportunity and challenge for Russia, by providing maritime touch points with Iran, 

Azerbaijan and Central Asia. While patrolling these waters, the SMD’s Caspian Flotilla has 

flexed its offensive capability; it surprised the world in late 2015 by launching long-range Kalibr 

cruise missiles over 900 miles into Syria.59

Northern Fleet Military District (NFMD) – Severomorsk (Joint 

Strategic Command): Russia’s security posture in the north is 

aggressively status quo. Russia has no realistic ambition to physically 

seize the high north but definitely intends to strongly control and 

influence the vast region. 

About fifty percent of the landmass framing the Arctic is Russian. It is the longest 

contiguous border—and geostrategic flank in the world and as such presents Moscow with both 

opportunity and vulnerability. The large area is populated by no more than two million hardy 

citizens. Looking west to east is the ever ever-widening Northern Sea Route (NSR) that spans all 

of northern Eurasia from the Atlantic (Barents Sea) to the Pacific Ocean (Bering Sea). From the 

NFMD’s icy terrestrial borders jut massive extended underwater formations, such as the 

Lomonosov Ridge, that thread their way deeper toward the northern pole and appear to reinforce

Russian claims to rich Arctic waters and resources (Russia has cited the UN Law of the Seas 

(UNCLOS) of which the US is not a signatory to support its claims). One of the original eight 

members of the Arctic Council, Moscow is very active diplomatically in managing its 

northernmost interests. China’s increasing interest in the resource rich Arctic, exemplified by its 

ambitious “Polar Silk Road,” investment and construction of ice breakers, is officially welcomed 

by Moscow, but warily so. 

The Arctic, and how it evolves over the next generation, is one key to Russia’s long-term 

future. Equipped with more than 45 icebreakers of varying sizes, Russia is truly an “ice-faring” 

nation and continues to significantly increase its military capability in the region. The boost 

includes two recently deployed ground brigades, and a strong aviation and naval component—

the most notable commitments since the drastic cuts and retraction of the 1990s. Most of the 

deployed assets give the appearance of being offensive, but in fact the bulk of these forces are in 

defensive mode. That orientation is especially notable, because the heart of Russia’s strategic 

deterrent capability rests with its nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) bastions in the 

Barents and White Seas, and also with in the Far East’s Sea of Okhotsk. A lattice-work of mostly 

former Soviet bases and search and rescue stations are being built or reestablished to manage 

combat operations, fishing and resource extraction, fighting oil spills, and even saving a sinking 

passenger liner plying treacherous Arctic waters. 
17

The formation of the independent Northern Fleet MD began in 2015 and was just 

confirmed in 2020. The establishment of the NFMD signals Moscow’s focus on maintaining

close control of its perceived equities and vulnerabilities in the Arctic. 60 (See the affixed map 

that shows its location.) Spanning the western portion of the NSR, and covering the BarentsWhite Sea nuclear bastion, the NFMD projects strong maritime and air capability through the 

Barents Sea into the North Atlantic, where it can threaten NATO sea lines of communication 

(SLOC) with the US and Canadian homeland. Its Northern Fleet is the largest and most capable 

of the Russian Navy. Of special note are vulnerable NATO concerns that would likely be an 

early target in any major conflict: Russian undersea assets that could conceivably cut key C2 

cables and links running along the ocean floor.61 

Western Military District WMD (St Petersburg): The Russian 

posture in the West is aggressively revisionist, but less so than in 2014. 

This survey intentionally left the WMD for last in order to give 

priority attention to Russia’s tremendous Eurasian span and potential 

challenges. That said, this region and its traditionally contentious relationship to the West has 

been of great strategic importance for multiple generations. NATO—now up to 30 members—

has long been perceived by Moscow as its core threat. The organization remains the main friction 

point between Moscow, Brussels, and Washington DC.62 Most Russians continue to believe that 

the alliance should have been disbanded after the Cold War and the bitter break-up of the 

USSR.63 The European Union is seen as a soft power extension of NATO’s alliance; most of the 

EU’s 27 members are also members of NATO.

For centuries, Russia has had a turbulent history with the “west”—long stretches of hostility, 

punctuated by short periods of calm. In spite of a grandiose West-USSR alliance to defeat the 

horrific Nazis during World War II, the Russians blame US-NATO for breaking the USSR and 

the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact. Initially a useful platform for Russian Cold War aggression 

toward the West, the Warsaw Pact had also provided a perceived valuable geographic buffer 

zone for Moscow, Leningrad-St. Petersburg and Kiev. (Remember: Geography coupled with its 

tough history is key to the Russian worldview.)

The USSR’s 1991 collapse was bitter for Russians, whether they lived inside the 

Federation or in one the new nations within its so-called Near Abroad. It’s not surprising that the

independent western FSU nations remain the most dangerous and volatile clash points for direct 

US-NATO and Russian interests. Fueling the flames, the Kremlin consistently portrays NATO as 

an existential threat—paradoxical, as no NATO nation is seeking conflict with Russia.64

The Western MD’s posture remains spring-loaded with enough forward conventional 

military power spear-headed by the formidable First Guards Tank Army, to achieve early 

offensive objectives in the Baltics, and/or Eastern Ukraine. Russia can readily call on its Baltic 

fleet, interdiction support in the North Atlantic from the NFMD and powerful tactical and 

operational aviation to create shock and havoc quickly. Electronic warfare (EW), cyber and 

space-based platforms would add to initial disruption. Assets from both WMD and SMD have 

heightened their attention in the Black Sea region, where NATO has raised its defensive profile 

the past several years. As previously noted, the Russian seizing of three Ukrainian vessels near 
18

Kerch in November 2018, and holding their crews for almost a year, underscores the tensions in 

this region as well.65

There was major angst in 2018 during the huge quadrennial Zapad (West) military 

exercises that the Russians would use the exercises to move large forces into prickly Belarus, and 

under some pretext, attack across the Suwalki Gap meeting forces from the heavily armed 

Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. While preparing for the worst case, others asked this question: 

What would the Russians actually achieve with such an unprovoked offensive? Such a move, 

when the regime was not existentially backed against the wall (which is when Russia would be 

most dangerous) would trigger NATO’s Article 5, global condemnation, strangling sanctions and 

overall isolation—which combined would possibly lead to unsustainable international and 

domestic pressure on the Russian regime. Such a move might also give rise to a regional 

“coalition of the willing”—possibly with NATO partner nations—to intervene on the Baltics 

behalf.66 Playing such high stakes, especially if threatening use of tactical nuclear weapons

when under heavy conventional pressure, would not enhance Russia’s overall position. If

significant numbers of NATO and US personnel died at Russian hands, Russia would risk swift 

retaliation against vulnerable interests and assets across Eurasia and globally. Moreover, such an 

attack would demand a long, hostile occupation, something for which Russia’s conscript-laced 

ground forces is not well configured. The Russian public would likely lose patience with the 

regime for embroiling the country in massive, lengthy conflicts. Plus, perhaps most importantly, 

for an autocratic regime that is also an oligarchic kleptocracy, such a high stakes adventure 

would simply be bad for business.

In the meantime, looming existential threats are on the rise around the world. If the 

current vicious and dangerous distraction in the West continues, wherein US-NATO and Russia 

fail in the next half-generation to achieve a credible, cooperative even if imperfect relationship,

the world will quite simply become a more dangerous place for everyone. 

And the Distant Rest of the World

The Mid-Abroad. This construct touches on how Russia is able to project power and influence 

on those non-FSU areas that it does not border, but can support with its own strategic lift and 

logistics. Syria, toward which Russia can sail and fly directly into, falls within its “Mid-Abroad” 

interests. Libya is on its edge. Russian sealift, supported by strategic aviation, can project and 

supply Russian forces in the Middle East and most of the Mediterranean. To sustain these 

logistics functions, the Crimea would be essential to the effort. Strategically situated near the 

Dardanelles, Crimea could provide not only basing capabilities, but maintain pressure on Turkey 

and control the straits. It is hard to envision a realistic scenario where Russia could fully support 

its contingents in a real crisis over an extended period on the edge of this support. Other than the 

eastern Mediterranean basin there are no other major nodes in this so-called “Mid-Abroad” that 

Russia could reliably support for an extended period without major effort. 

The Far Abroad: These are locations where the Russians can reach via extended refueled flight 

or sea transport from MD ports and airbases. As such, they are extremely vulnerable to 

interdiction in any real military crisis with any modern global or regional military. At distant 

Latin American locations such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, and countries in Africa such 
19

as the Central African Republic (CAR), Congo, Nigeria, Sudan, Mozambique and several other 

states, Russian business and non-attributed paramilitary entities abound. Among these are the 

Wagner Group which is operating in numerous sub-Saharan countries and apparently was 

particularly badly handled in the CAR and Mozambique.67 It is worth noting that more Russian

soldiers serve in African peacekeeping missions that the US, UK and France combined.68

Arguably the most brazen show of strategic Russian military reach into its “Far Abroad” was in 

December, 2018 when two strategic Backfire bombers flew to Venezuela, a bold move that 

created quite a sensation. 69

Summary

Based on numerous readings and conversations, Russians acknowledge major future 

security challenges and opportunities, both from a short- and long-term outlook. The collective 

weight of its multiple challenges as outlined in this short survey risks engulfing it over future 

generations. Moscow’s initially erratic response to Russia’s late-breaking coronavirus outbreak, 

coupled with simultaneous political demonstrations especially in Moscow and the Far East reveal 

how fluid 2020 has been for the Kremlin. How traditionally resilient Russia manages its 

formidable demographic, geographic and historical fundamentals with the core needs of its 

struggling economy, diverse, aging population and increasingly assertive neighbors across vast 

borders will determine its difficult national course. 

For Moscow, there can be several future outcomes. Russia and the West can remain 

trapped in an ongoing and debilitating confrontation that weakens both, while other competitor 

nations rise. Or somehow, someway, Russia and the West, with Moscow and Washington 

leading the way can find a way out of the dangerously distrustful morass both find each other. 

Highly unlikely as it may appear, perhaps Vladimir Putin, seemingly secure in his 

position until 2036, will become less confrontational and more expansive in his thinking, 

although NATO, and especially Ukraine, will weigh heavily with him. Or more likely, would he, 

the Kremlin, be more emboldened and even more revanchist. Western actions will have a hand in 

this. Meanwhile the 2020 American presidential election will certainly shuffle Washington’s, 

and by extension, Moscow’s political landscape, no matter the final result. 

First and foremost in any effort to begin improving relations between Russia and the US, 

experts on both sides agree that must be a commitment to measurably reduce the most malign

and poisonous activities in the cyber-disinformational “Gray Zone.” 70 Furthermore, Moscow 

gives, along with many in the US, allied expert and political community, high priority to

maintaining a nuclear Arms Control regimen with an extended New START as its centerpiece—

one that, over time, must address dangerous new technologies and the emergence of China. It 

would be quite energizing as scientists and astronauts in both countries muse, if the two 

experienced space-faring nations, the US and Russia, could somehow partner on a mission to 

Mars as they did on the international Space Station (ISS). 71 This would be much more desirable 

and progressive than embarking on an expensive new space race building destabilizing ASATs.72

Bilateral US and Russian competition is no longer the only game in town. The rise of 

China, and other growing powers such as India, are tipping the global scales away from the 
20

traditional rivalries of the past. Further, undisciplined demonization toward China regarding 

coronavirus, deserved as it may be, may accelerate tensions and its actions. As we have reviewed 

Beijing’s restless growth, its trading activities along the vast Chinese border with Russia, its 

Eurasian push economically and influentially into Central Asia via the BRI, and its declared 

Polar Silk road through the Arctic all put a long-term stress on Moscow, in spite of political 

platitudes, natural gas/resources and military training exchanges between them. Some Russians 

would grudgingly say that Russia is mortgaging its long-term future in the Far East with its 

careful embrace with China. India also, a cordial Russian interlocutor and a Chinese adversary, 

will be an increasing important balancer in the years ahead. 

As the US does with its geographic COCOMs, how Russia manages its tremendous 

security dilemmas via its Eurasian-oriented MDs along its vast terrestrial periphery and abroad 

will be central to its safety, its prosperity and its future. How then will Russia-US relations 

evolve worldwide? Wouldn’t carefully reopening “eyes-wide-open” contact between diplomats 

and militaries through the global, Eurasian spanning MDs and COCOMS be beneficial for both 

nations in this dangerously fluid world? The simple geography and global tensions implore such. 

Despite hardliners on both sides, numerous Russians and Americans (and allies) including 

seasoned practitioners participating in non-governmental diplomatic Track II dialogues would 

cautiously support such a reopening.73 The current intensely distrustful environment malignly 

colored by destabilizing gray zone activities could inadvertently lead to unintended catastrophe 

anytime, anywhere. Those with long experience and context are acutely aware of this. 

Is continued existence with fewer checks and balances in this taut state-of-being really in 

both nuclear-tipped nation’s best interest as the world struggles beyond COVID-19? Only time 

will tell. 

Notes

1 “Russia could face a 7.5 percent drop in GDP after pandemic,” Tass, May 28, 2020. 

https://tass.com/pressreview/1161275

2 Darren Mccaffrey, ‘Analysis: “VE-Day and President Putin’s Pandemic nightmare,” Euronews, 

May 8, 2020. 

https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/08/analysis-ve-day-and-president-putin-s-pandemicnightmare

3 Moscow Times, “Coronavirus in Russia, the latest news,” June 27, 2020 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/27/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-june-27-a69117

4

 Johnny Tickle, “Ex-Journalist Ivan Safronov charged with high treason after alledgedly passing 

secrets to NATO,” Russia Today, July 13, 2020. 

“https://www.rt.com/russia/494611-journalist-charged-high-treason/

5 Evan Gershkovich, “Russia’s Khabarovsk region tasted democracy. Now voters feel it was riped 

away.” The Moscow Times, July 15, 2020. 

 
21

 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/07/15/russias-khabarovsk-region-tasted-democracynow-voters-feel-it-was-ripped-away-a70880

6

“Denmark paves way for Russia’s Nordstream restart,’ Moscow Times, July 7, 2020. 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/07/06/denmark-paves-way-for-russias-nord-stream2-restart-a70797

7 Aruuke Uran Kyzy “The Wagner Group is a Private Military Company that that not exactly 

private,” TRT World, January 10, 2020. 

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-wagner-group-a-private-military-company-that-s-notexactly-private-32840

8

 Andrei Kortunov, ‘Russia and the West; what does Equality mean,” Russian International 

Affairs Council, November 1, 2016. https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-andcomments/analytics/russia-and-the-west-what-does-equality-mean/

9

 Russian Bounties in Afghanistan; An expert analysis,” Wilson Center, June 8, 2020

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/russian-bounties-afghanistan-expert-analysis

10 Kiril Rogov, “What happened to us and the authorities in the July 1 vote,” Novaya Gazeta, July 

3, 2020. 

https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/07/03/86130-vbrosy-delegitimatsiya-i-repressii

11

 Quote to the author in Novgorod, May 2018. 

12 Antoine Labruschini, “Russians cast early votes in ballot to extend Putin’s rule,” AP, June 25, 

2020

https://news.yahoo.com/russians-cast-early-votes-ballot-extend-putins-rule-030306490.html

13 Patrick Reevell, “Russia holds military parades despite continuing Coronavirus epidemic,” June 

24, 2020

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/russia-holds-military-parades-despite-continuing-coronavirusepidemic-152800406--abc-news-topstories.html

15 Kenneth Rapoza, “Russia’s economy coming in worse than expected because of Pandemic,” 

Forbes, May 28, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/28/russiaseconomy-coming-in-worse-than-expected-because-of-pandemic/#5ea7a4b936cb

16 Michael Kofman, “Russian demographics and Power; Does Moscow have a long game,”War 

on the Rocks, February, 4, 2020. https://warontherocks.com/2020/02/russian-demographicsand-power-does-the-kremlin-have-a-long-game/

17 “Russia takes on its Demographic Decline,” STRATFOR, March 29, 2019

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/russia-takes-its-demographic-decline

18 Carolyn Kormann, “A Disastrous Summer in the Arctic,” The New Yorker, June 27, 2020.
22

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/a-disastrous-summer-in-thearctic?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm

19 Peter Zwack, “Russia’s Contradictory Relationship with the West,” Prism-National Defense 

University, August 3, 2016. 

https://cco.ndu.edu/PRISM/PRISM-Volume-6-no-2/Article/840779/russias-contradictoryrelationship-with-the-west/

20 Frederick Starr, “Greater Eurasia, Russia’s Asian Fantasy,” Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, 

January 18, 2020.

https://silkroadstudies.org/publications/joint-center-publications/item/13350-greater-eurasiarussias-asian-fantasy.html

21 Dmitri Trenin, “Russia’s spheres of interest, not influence,” Carnegie Moscow Center, 

September 22, 2009. 

https://carnegie.ru/2009/09/22/russia-s-spheres-of-interest-not-influence-pub-23863

22

 Daniel R. DePetris, Despite the Bluster, Russia is not 10 feet tall,” The National Interest, 

March 7, 2017. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/despite-the-bluster-russia-not10-feet-tall-24794

23 Douglas Barrie, “Anti-Access Aerial Denial; Bursting the No-Go bubble,” IISS< March 29, 2019.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/04/anti-access-area-denial-russia-andcrimea

24 Global Firepower, “Russia Military Power” 2020. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/

25

 Amy Held, “Russia moves to mask military trail by telling troops to put down smartphones,” 

NPR, February 20, 2019

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696396644/russia-moves-to-mask-military-trail-by-tellingtroops-to-put-down-smartphones

26 Nika Alekseva, “The Kremlin takes on Telegram,’ DFR Lab (Atlantic Councill), April 21, 2018

https://medium.com/dfrlab/the-kremlin-takes-on-telegram-358a7927bad5

27 Paul Goble, “Aging of Russian Population makes Putin defense build-up more difficult and 

dangerous,” Jamestown Foundation, Issue 17, Volume 104, July 17, 2020

“https://jamestown.org/program/aging-of-russian-population-makes-putins-defense-buildupmore-difficult-and-dangerous/

28

 “They Warned me, they’ll rape me; soldier stands by mass shooting” The Moscow Times, 

November 6, 2019 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/06/they-warned-theyll-rape-me-russian-soldierstands-by-mass-shooting-a68062
23

 

29 Peter Zwack, ‘Russian challenges from now into the next Generation; a Geostrategic Primer,’ 

National Defense University, March 25, 2019. 

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1795022/russian-challenges-from-now-intothe-next-generation-a-geostrategic-primer/

30 Michael Kofman, “Russia’s Armed Forces under Gerasimov; the Man without a Doctrine,” 

Russian Military Analysis (Blog), April 2, 2020. 

https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2020/04/02/russias-armed-forces-undergerasimov-the-man-without-a-doctrine/

31 “Remarks by General Valery Gerasimov at Russian MOD board, ”DifesaNet, November 7, 

2017 http://www.defesanet.com.br/en/e_russiadocs/noticia/27620/Gerasimov/

32 Anton Khlopkov & Anastasia Shavrova, “Five Steps to a New START Extension,” Russia in 

Global Affairs, April 6, 2020

https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/five-steps-new-start/

33 “Putin: Global Security will be shaken if New START treaty is not extended,” 

https://sputniknews.com/world/201912191077628253-putin-global-security-new-start-treaty/

34

 Nikolai Litovkin, ‘Russia names new circumstances for deploying nuclear weapons’ Russia 

Beyond, July 13, 2020 https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/332429-russia-circumstancesfor-nuclear-weapons-usage

35 Maxim Rodionov, “Russia accuses U.S. of destructive stance on Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” 

Reuters, June 30, 2020.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-nuclear/russia-accuses-u-s-of-destructivestance-on-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-idUSKBN2411JD

36 Putin and Hu Resolve Border Disputes, New York Times (Editorial), October 15, 2004. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/world/asia/putin-and-hu-resolve-border-disputes.html

37 Ka-Ho Wong, “How will the Coronavirus outbreak affect Russia-China relations,” The 

Diplomat, March 14, 2020. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/how-will-the-coronavirusoutbreak-affect-russia-china-relations/

38 Dmitry Trenin, “Its time to Rethink Russia’s Foreign-Policy Strategy,” Carnegie Moscow 

Center, April 25, 2019. https://carnegie.ru/commentary/78990

39 Ibid

40 Anastasia Barannikova, “What Russia thinks of North Korean nuclear weapons,” Bulletin of 

the Atomic Scientists,” April 24, 2019. 

https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/what-russia-thinks-about-north-koreas-nuclear-weapons/
24

 

41 Benjamin Denison, “Stay out of the Regime Change business, ”War on the Rocks” June 16, 

2020 https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/stay-out-of-the-regime-change-business/

42A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov, “Color Revolutions in Russia: Possibility and Reality,”

Journal of the Academy of Military Sciences 3, (60) FMSO 2017.

43 Franz-Stefan Gady, “Russia-China conduct first ever Joint Strategic Bomber flight in IndoPacific,” The Diplomat, July 23, 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/china-russia-conductfirst-ever-joint-strategic-bomber-patrol-flights-in-indo-pacific-region/

44 Al Jazeera, “The Power of Siberia; Russia and China Launch Giant Pipeline,” December 2, 2019

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/the-power-siberia-russia-china-gas-pipeline-launch191202112625898.html

45 Atie Staalesen, “ExxonMobil is pulling out of its Arctic Joint Venture with Rosneft,” Arctic 

Today, March 8, 2018. 

https://www.arctictoday.com/exxonmobil-pulling-arctic-joint-venture-rosneft/

46 “Best of Frenemies, Official relations are good, Russians grow wary of Chinese investments,” 

South China Morning Post,” Nectar Gan, March 24, 2019 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3002975/best-frenemies-officialrelations-are-good-russians-grow-wary

47 Andrew Higgins, “On Russia-China Border, Selective Memory works for both Sides,” New York 

Times, March 26, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/europe/russia-china-border.html

48 Comments made to author during visit to Russian Far East in November, 2018. 

49

 Paul Goble, “Russian military seeking to counter Chinese role in Central Asia,” The 

Jamestown Foundation, June 18, 2020.

https://jamestown.org/program/russian-military-seeking-to-counter-growing-chinese-role-incentral-asia/?fbclid=IwAR2WtktiL52uua2WagVBNw5bPtWR94d_azVcs4T3M5srw9ryrWvUjUW6DU 

50 Stephen Blank, “Russia’s waning soft power in Central Asia,” The Diplomat, January 9, 2015. 

https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/russias-waning-soft-power-in-central-asia/

51

 Kenneth Rapoza, “Russian economy coming in worse than expected because of pande

mic,” Forbes,” May 28, 2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/28/russias-economy-coming-in-worsethan-expected-because-of-pandemic/#5ea7a4b936cb
25

 

52 Nicole Bauke, “Now China’s helping to build a military base in Afghanistan,” February 2, 2018. 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/02/02/now-chinas-helping-to-build-a-militarybase-in-afghanistan/

53 Pavel Felgenhauer, “Renewed Armenian-Azerbaijani fighting threatening to escalate further,” 

Jamestown Foundation Volume 17, Issue 104, July 16, 2020

https://jamestown.org/program/renewed-armenian-azerbaijani-fighting-threatens-to-escalatefurther/

54 “About 150,000 troops go on high alert in snap combat readiness check”, Tass, July 17, 2020 

https://tass.com/defense/1179641

55 Laurant Gyori & Jonas Syrovatka, “Kerch Incident proves Ukraine-NATO prepare for war 

against Russia; Russian propaganda in Czech & Hungarian media,” Euromaidan Press, December 

11, 2018. 

http://euromaidanpress.com/2018/12/11/kerch-incident-proves-ukraine-nato-prepare-forwar-against-russia-russian-propaganda-in-czech-hungarian-media/

56 ‘Kremlin concerned by clashes on Azeri-Armenian Border,” Tass, July 14, 2020

https://tass.com/politics/1178249. 

57 Dorian Jones, “Azerbaijan clashes highlight Turkey-Russia rift,” VOA, July 16, 2020. 

https://www.voanews.com/europe/azerbaijan-armenia-clashes-highlight-turkey-russia-rift

58

 Anna Nemtsova, “Putin sends his man to Dagestan to try to tame a hotbed of crime and 

jihadist,” February 16, 2018

https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-sends-his-man-to-dagestan-to-try-to-tame-a-hotbed-ofcorruption-and-jihadists

59 “Kalibr Nk: The Russian Cruise Missile that Shocked the World,” Sputnik, October 12, 2015. 

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201510121028390749-russia-kalibr-missile/

60

 Thomas Neilsen, “Putin heightens strategic role of Northern Fleet,” The Barents Observer, 

June 8, 2020 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2020/06/putin-heightens-strategicrole-northern-fleet

61 Garrett Hinck, Evaluating the Russian threat to undersea cables,” Lawfare Blog, March 5, 

2018 https://www.lawfareblog.com/evaluating-russian-threat-undersea-cables

62 Authors perspective:, NATO’s enlargement was first, about the will and aspirations of those 

nations that voluntarily acceded unlike the members of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact 

before its 1990 dissolution. No other nation can dictate those aspirations. This is why NATO 

insists that the principle of it’s “Open Door” must remain active for NATO aspirants such as 

Georgia and Ukraine, even if the timing is not right for their accession. Furthermore post-Cold 

War NATO enlargement was first about treaty-assured stability in a Central and Eastern Europe 
26

 

historically riven by conflict and tragedy, that became reluctantly hardened due to strategic 

misunderstandings leading to an increasingly revisionist Russia. 

63 Hafsa Kara Mustafa, “The Warsaw Pact is dead, why is NATO still alive?” Russia Today, 

December 5, 2015. 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/324840-warsaw-pact-nato-us/

64

 Author’s perspective; A world without NATO and the regional security it brings—

demonstrated by more than 71 years without a major conflict between once-hostile member 

nations—would actually be dangerous long-term for both Russia and the West. After all, what

would replace it? If history is a guide, likely right-wing, even reactionary pakts and ententes, 

would fill its vacuum, entities not traditionally friendly to Russia. 

65 Deutches Welle, “Russia returns navy vessels seized from Ukraine,” November 18, 2019 

https://www.dw.com/en/russia-returns-navy-vessels-seized-from-ukraine/a-51286196

67 Steve Balestrairi, “Wagner Group: Russian Mercenaries still foundering in Africa,” SofRep, 

April 19, 2020

https://sofrep.com/news/wagner-group-russian-mercenaries-still-foundering-in-africa/

65 Luke Harding, “Leaked documents reveal Russian effort to exert influence in Africa,” The 

Guardian, June 11, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/11/leakeddocuments-reveal-russian-effort-to-exert-influence-in-africa

66 Jame di pane, “How to defend the Baltic States from Russian invasion,” Newsweek, November 

6, 2017.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-defend-baltic-states-russian-invasion-702677

70 Author participated in two US-Russia arms control focused Track II dialogues in 2019. 

71

 Adrian Thompson, “Russia and US are likely to go to Mars together former astronaut says,” 

sarPRnews, March 16, 2020. 

https://satprnews.com/2020/03/16/russia-and-us-are-likely-to-go-to-mars-together-formerastronaut-says/

72 “Russia tested anti-satellite missile US says,” Moscow Times, April 16, 2020

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/16/russia-tested-anti-satellite-missile-us-saysa70007

73

 Peter Zwack, “Breaking down US-Russian distrust through time, talk and meals,” Defense 

One, November 28, 2016. 

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/11/breaking-down-us-russian-distrust-time-talkand-meals/133430/
27