Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia sought to re-establish its hegemony over the newly independent states that emerged across the post-Soviet space. To this end, Russia began redefining its national identity to align with the realities of the 21st century and focused on rebuilding economic and political influence in its near abroad.
This period of transition brought Russia to a critical strategic and ideological crossroads: should it align itself with Europe and adopt a Western-oriented identity, or should it develop a distinct path rooted in its historical and geopolitical uniqueness? After the 2012 presidential election, President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia possesses an independent and traditional political culture that blends both European and Asian elements. He also emphasized Russia’s indispensable role in shaping modern world history, asserting that global security cannot be achieved without Russia’s involvement in the emerging world order.
Although Russia had formally distanced itself from traditional imperial ideology, many Russian strategists envisioned the country as a model for post-Soviet states—an anchor around which they could be drawn. This concept served as a foundation for short- and long-term strategic ambitions aimed at regaining Russia’s political hegemony in the region.
Meanwhile, Western intellectuals argued that liberal democracy had triumphed over Soviet communism. According to this paradigm, liberal democratic values would naturally spread across the post-Soviet space, as no alternative governance model could rival the appeal of Western institutions. Consequently, many Western policymakers believed that Russia would inevitably integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community and adopt liberal democratic norms.
Motivated by this belief, Western governments and institutions promoted their political and cultural models across the region. The United States and major EU powers such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom introduced various economic and political integration initiatives. Azerbaijan and Georgia, for instance, supported the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, which symbolized a shift toward Western-oriented infrastructure. Similarly, the Baltic States—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—quickly adopted liberal democratic frameworks and joined the European Union in 2004.
However, the expansion of Western influence near Russia’s borders was perceived as a strategic threat in Russian political thinking. Many within the Russian elite—largely composed of former Soviet bureaucrats—remained influenced by Cold War-era perceptions of Western encroachment and containment.
Russia’s “Near Abroad” Strategy
In the early post-Soviet period, Russia attempted to maintain influence through the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a regional organization formed shortly after the Soviet collapse. However, CIS proved ineffective in practice, failing to meet Russia’s strategic objectives. Recognizing this shortfall, Russia introduced a new framework known as the “Near Abroad” Strategy, aimed at reasserting its dominance in the region.
A revealing declaration by President Boris Yeltsin in 1995 reflected the ideological underpinning of this strategy:
“Besides Russian television and radio broadcasts, Russian publications must be supported in the relevant countries. National personnel of these states must be educated by Russian officials. Russia must become the main educational center for the post-Soviet countries. The younger generations should be educated in Russian and treat the language with respect. This will be extremely important for future control over the region.” [1]
This strategy emphasized cultural, linguistic, and educational soft power as tools to retain influence. However, soft power alone proved insufficient to advance Russian interests in the face of growing Western engagement.
In response, the Putin administration introduced a new political governance model known as “Hegemonic Democracy.” This model, rooted in realist theory and developed by Russian intellectuals, offered a limited and controlled form of democracy. It was presented as an alternative to the liberal democratic model promoted by the West.
To further institutionalize its influence, Russia launched the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)—a regional integration project designed to counterbalance Western initiatives like the EU and NATO. The EAEU provided an economic framework through which Russia could reassert leadership over the post-Soviet space while promoting a distinct civilizational model.
Conclusion
Russia’s post-Soviet foreign policy has been shaped by a dual ambition: to redefine its national identity and to re-establish regional hegemony. The strategic rivalry between Russia and the West over the post-Soviet region reflects deeper ideological contestation—between liberal democracy and alternative governance models rooted in authoritarianism and realism. Through its “Near Abroad” strategy, hegemonic democracy model, and the Eurasian Economic Union, Russia continues to challenge Western influence and promote its own vision of regional order.
Bayram Aliyev 