
Azerbaijan's jitters show why Russia can never fully trust its neighbours
Russia's borders remain largely transparent and porous, with the exception of our boundary with one of the friendliest great powers of the modern era – China. Across all other frontiers, the legacy of empire persists, making it pointless to distinguish fully between internal and foreign policy.
Whether it takes the form of a military presence, allied obligations, cultural and linguistic ties, or sheer dependence in foreign policy, Russia's neighbours – from the Baltic states to Poland and Finland – remain in its sphere of influence. These relationships are the product of centuries of history. No matter how they struggle to escape, they rarely succeed, and even if they do, Russia continues to occupy a central place in their imagination.
The Baltic states and Finland have cut themselves off from Russia, yet they cannot truly live without thinking about it. Nothing changes in substance. This is the inescapable consequence of historical ties, and although it may bring trouble and anxiety, it is also a given.
Fear, sadly, is the natural response. We must understand that Russia's neighbours will always fear it, and that this fear cannot be eliminated. Rather, it must be accounted for and managed through realistic politics. Even where relations appear stable, as with the Central Asian republics, fears about Russian intentions linger.
A few years ago, at the height of the pandemic, I conducted in-depth interviews in nearly all former Soviet countries (excluding Ukraine and Turkmenistan). Among political figures and academics, even the most intelligent ones, anxiety about Russia was palpable, either directly or indirectly.
Russia knows that solving regional disputes by force is usually against its own interests. But it cannot assume neighbours see Moscow in the same way. Other states inevitably judge Russia by its history, its scale, and its power – and a great power can always be tempted by simple solutions.
In today's volatile global environment, confidence in the future is a privilege enjoyed by very few. States like Russia, the USA, China, or India, thanks to their power, can be confident. Others, like Iceland or Liechtenstein, are too small to count. Even tiny Luxembourg must look over its shoulder at Germany and France. International law is no real guarantee. Major military powers, including Russia, do not grant indefinite security guarantees to countries on their doorstep.
Geography is the second key factor. A state's position on the map shapes its destiny and its foreign policy. It is naive to suggest Russia should treat its neighbours as the United States treats Mexico or Canada. The American neighbours are effectively marooned on an island far from the world's main conflicts. They cannot look elsewhere for help in a dispute with the strongest power on earth, so they remain cautious.
By contrast, Russia's neighbours have open borders in many directions and constant opportunities to hedge their positions. It is only natural they look for friends elsewhere to calm their fears. This is why Turkey is active in the South Caucasus, and, more discreetly, in Central Asia. The former Soviet republics see Turkish partnership as a safeguard, even though no one truly believes Ankara can match Russia's influence. Turkey lacks the financial means and strategic independence to replace Russia. But having Ankara nearby is useful leverage in dealings with Moscow – the same way some former Soviet republics use engagement with BRICS to negotiate with the West.
This produces a dense and complicated web of relationships, where diplomats must do most of the heavy lifting. Nothing is simple or easy.
For Russia, the shared geography and deep historical connections mean it cannot view its neighbours like any other states on the planet. Borders on the continent cannot be made impenetrable unless a country has ironclad internal controls, like China or North Korea. Russia's other neighbours are not built that way. They prefer openness with Russia, no matter the periodic tension.
Russia's own identity also prevents a total break from its former Soviet neighbours. Russia is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. Its unity is built on cooperation among many groups, not rigid exclusion. A hard border with neighbours would inevitably lead to attempts to draw boundaries inside Russia itself – a dangerous path for a country whose main ethnic group must remain integrated and secure in a world full of threats.
Historically, Russian rulers from the 15th century onward recruited people from the Golden Horde – their former enemies – to shore up manpower in a land of poor resources and harsh conditions. That pragmatic tradition continues today. Russia cannot cut itself off from the diasporas that grew out of centuries of common history. Policing them is the job of law enforcement, but no fence can change that legacy.
This explains why Russia's relations with its neighbours will always carry an undercurrent of anxiety. It is happening with Azerbaijan today and will happen again elsewhere. Russia's patience is not infinite, but its statecraft is consistent, rooted in a realistic appreciation of its history, its geography, and its place in the modern world.
Great powers must understand their neighbours' fears but not surrender to them. Russia should neither abandon its influence nor expect to be loved for it. Instead, it should manage the consequences of its size and power, and treat neighbourly fear as part of the price of being a giant.
That is the task before Russian diplomacy – and a test of its ability to balance strength with responsibility in an ever more unstable world.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia winning ammunition race over NATO
Russia's military production is dwarfing that of NATO, Secretary-General Mark Rutte has warned, urging Western nations to ramp up defense spending. In an interview with the New York Times on Saturday, Rutte sounded the alarm about Russia's military capabilities, noting that the country is 'reconstituting itself at a pace and a speed which is unparalleled in recent history.' He said Moscow is 'producing three times as much ammunition in three months as the whole of NATO is doing in a year.' Rutte pointed to a proposal to boost NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP – a figure US President Donald Trump has been insistent on – with 3.5% going to the core military budgets and another 1.5% earmarked for areas such as cyber defenses and preparing civilian infrastructure. 'Yes, this is an enormous amount of spending. But if we don't, we'll have to learn Russian,' the NATO chief said. Asked whether the increased defense spending risks fueling an arms race with Russia, Rutte said: 'We have to make sure that the deterrence is there,' noting Russia's heavy investment in tanks, artillery, air defense, and ammunition. 'What I'm particularly worried about is the defense industrial output… because we simply lack the defense industrial base to produce the weapons we need to make sure that we can deter the Russians or the North Koreans or whoever.' Rutte's comments come amid speculation in Western media and among some officials that Moscow will eventually attack NATO countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed the accusation as 'nonsense,' saying Moscow has no interest in invading the US-led bloc. As the Ukraine conflict rages on, Russia has significantly ramped up defense spending. Last year, Putin stated that Russia's defense industry increased its output of ammunition fourteenfold, drones fourfold, and armored vehicles by 3.5 times since the start of the hostilities. He also said Russia outproduces all NATO countries combined tenfold in missile manufacturing. In late June, Putin revealed that Russia is spending 13.5 trillion rubles ($151 billion) on defense – around 6.3% of GDP. He acknowledged that the figure is high and has fueled inflation, while noting that the US has spent even more during past conflicts – 14% of GDP during the Korean War and 10% during the Vietnam War.


Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Taipei sets up first HIMARS unit
The self-governing island of Taiwan has created a military unit armed with US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, in the first such case ever, the Defense Ministry said in a statement on Friday. The weapons systems were supplied to the island by Washington last year. The unit's commissioning ceremony was attended by Taipei's defense minister, Wellington Koo, who said the new company's soldiers and officers underwent training in the US. According to media reports, the HIMARS systems supplied to Taipei can fire GMLRS missiles with a range of up to 80km and ATACMS missiles with a range of up to 300km. It is unclear if both types were also provided. Taipei reportedly ordered a total of 29 HIMARS systems from the US, 11 of which have already been delivered. In mid-May, the Taiwanese military conducted the first live-fire HIMARS drill at a local base. The systems were also tested in June. In January, US President Donald Trump's then-national security adviser, Mike Waltz, said Washington planned to increase the pace of weapons deliveries to the self-governed Chinese region. According to Waltz, the US wants to equip Taiwan with asymmetric defense capabilities, such as mobile missile systems, drones, and advanced surveillance technologies to raise the potential costs for China if it tries to take control over the island by force. China considers Taiwan part of its territory under the One-China principle, and insists on eventual reunification. According to the Chinese government, peaceful reunification is preferable, but it reserves the right to use force if necessary. Taiwan has been self-governed since 1949, when nationalist forces retreated to the island after losing the Chinese Civil War. Most nations, including Russia, recognize Taiwan as part of China. Beijing has condemned US arms sales to Taipei as destabilizing and provocative. In response, China has conducted frequent naval and air drills around the island.


Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Putin touts historic ‘very friendly' Russia-US ties
Russia has had long periods of amicable relations with the US and supported America at key junctures in its history, President Vladimir Putin has said. In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin, a clip of which was released on Sunday, Putin offered an upbeat take on Russia's longstanding ties with Washington despite the recent tensions in relations over the Ukraine conflict. 'By the way, as for the Americans, we have had… over a very long period of time, very friendly and special relations with the United States,' Putin said. Putin pointed to Russia's support for the US push to break from British rule during the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783. 'We really supplied them, even supplied weapons, helped with money, and so on.' He also referenced Russia's alignment with the Union during the 1861-1865 American Civil War. 'Later we supported the North during the war between North and South,' Putin said, adding, 'And in this sense, we found something that united us.' The comments come as US President Donald Trump has been seeking to broker an end to the Ukraine conflict. Moscow and Washington have been exploring ways to repair relations that hit historic lows under the previous administration. Despite major periods of rivalry, the history between Russia and the US is dotted with notable moments of partnership. Apart from the instances mentioned by Putin, the two countries engaged in bustling economic cooperation in the 1930s, which helped the Soviet Union to industrialize while aiding US businesses reeling from the Great Depression. The two nations then became wartime allies in World War II, fighting Nazi Germany and coordinating under the Lend-Lease program, which saw Washington make large shipments of arms and supplies to Moscow. While the Cold War ushered in decades of tension, which climaxed during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the US and Soviet Union still managed to negotiate landmark arms control deals aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war.