Under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s global ambitions have steadily increased, including in unstable areas of the Middle East, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere. For the most part, Moscow’s activities in these and other areas run counter to Western interests and undermine efforts to mitigate conflict through broad-based, transparent processes. This report outlines the factors that appear to be motivating the Kremlin’s conflict-zone interventions and places them within the larger context of Russian foreign policy interests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at news conference in Moscow with President Erdogan of Turkey on March 5, 2020. (Pavel Golovkin/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at news conference in Moscow with President Erdogan of Turkey on March 5, 2020. (Pavel Golovkin/AP)

Summary

  • During the past decade, Russia’s foreign policy ambitions have steadily increased, including in areas of conflict or instability in the Middle East, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere.
  • Current Russian engagements in conflict zones are driven by the geostrategic interests and character of the traditional Russian state, global political ambitions and behavioral patterns inherited from the Soviet Union, and the political, economic, and private motives of the highly personalized Putin regime.
  • A rough overall pattern in Moscow’s interventions in conflict zones, based on proximity to the Russian heartland, is discernible: the closer to Russia, the more important are traditional geostrategic factors and the more willing the Kremlin is to commit resources.
  • In more distant conflict zones, such as those in the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America, Russia places greater emphasis on global-political or opportunistic economic and private interests, and is more selective in deploying its resources.
  • Russia’s activities in conflict zones usually directly or indirectly run counter to Western interests. Still, it is sometimes possible for the United States and its allies to carve out space for cooperation with Russia on specific issues in conflict zones.

About the Report

This report examines the Russian government’s posture toward and reasons for involvement in conflicts in less-developed or fragile contexts. The views expressed in the report are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the U.S. government.

About the Author

Paul M. Carter, Jr., is a State Department Senior Fellow in USIP’s Office of Strategic Stability and Security. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, and most of his career as a diplomat and scholar has focused on Russia, the Soviet Union, and other countries of Europe and Eurasia. From 2017 to 2019, he was the US consul general in Yekaterinburg, Russia. He is the author of Chief Ideologist: M. A. Suslov and the “Science” of Communism in the USSR, published (in Russian) by Moscow State University in 2003.

Related Publications

Don Jensen on Protests in Belarus and Russia’s Response

Don Jensen on Protests in Belarus and Russia’s Response

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

By: Dr. Donald N. Jensen

After an “obviously crooked election” in Belarus sparked massive protests, USIP’s Don Jensen says Russia is quietly using the situation to assert influence. If Moscow’s military presence in Belarus increases, “I think you’re going to see a much more forward projection of Russian power against NATO,” he said.

Type: Podcast

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Democracy & Governance

Amid the Central African Republic’s search for peace, Russia steps in. Is China next?

Amid the Central African Republic’s search for peace, Russia steps in. Is China next?

Thursday, December 19, 2019

By: Leslie Minney; Rachel Sullivan; Rachel Vandenbrink

The 2017 National Security Strategy refocused U.S. foreign and defense policy to address resurgent major power competition with Russia and China. In U.S. foreign policy, Africa has emerged as a frontline for this competition, as in recent years both Moscow and Beijing have sought to expand their influence and promote their interests on the continent. Nowhere is the role of major powers more apparent than in the Central African Republic (CAR), where Russia has emerged as a key power broker amid a civil war that has simmered since 2012. Despite concerns about the need to counter other major powers, the best course for U.S. policy in CAR is to not allow competition with Russia and China to distract from the fundamental priority of supporting a democratic, inclusive path to peace.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

The Ukraine-Russia Summit: An Unproven Chance for Peace

The Ukraine-Russia Summit: An Unproven Chance for Peace

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

By: Leslie Minney

The presidents of Ukraine and Russia will meet the French and German leaders in Paris December 9 to consider prospects for ending the five-year-old war in eastern Ukraine. Recent steps by Ukraine and Russia to reduce tensions highlight the summit’s potential, although questions for any real peace plan remain unanswered, most critically by Moscow. Despite signs that Russians at home are tired of the war and its costs, it remains unclear whether President Vladimir Putin might seriously consider ending his armed incursion into Ukraine’s Donbas region. But one potential benefit of the Paris summit is that his intent can be tested.

Type: Blog

Peace Processes

In Syria, Russian-Turkish Deal is a Game Changer on the Ground

In Syria, Russian-Turkish Deal is a Game Changer on the Ground

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

By: Mona Yacoubian

A chain reaction of events over the past two weeks in Syria have effectively reordered the conflict’s balance of power. Russia has emerged as the key power broker in Syria. Meanwhile, both the Assad regime and Turkey have achieved important gains, while the Kurds have suffered a significant loss. A 10-point deal negotiated between Russia and Turkey—if implemented successfully—will fulfill Turkey’s long-held demand that Kurdish forces be pushed approximately 20 miles off the Syrian-Turkish border. Following a U.S. decision to withdraw the majority of its forces from Syria, the deal also cedes control over significant portions of northeast Syria to the Assad regime and Russia. USIP’s Mona Yacoubian looks at the elements of the Russian-Turkish deal and its implications for Syria and the broader region.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications