The Americans are “a very lucky people. They’re bordered to the north and south by weak neighbours, and to the east and west by fish.” Bismarck had supposedly made such a remark. Russia has similar geopolitical advantage. It is 74 per cent larger than the US and is the most powerful post-Soviet state. It is a member of the UN Security Council and has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. In 2021, Russia held natural resources amounting to an estimated value of 75 trillion US dollars.

Today, Europe is in awe of Russia’s growing military muscle. If Donald Trump wins the American presidential election, Nato’s vulnerability could be further exposed. Many European experts wonder if Nato will survive Trump’s second presidency. As of now, Russia’s northern neighbour China both competes and co-operates with Moscow. But there is no alliance between the two. The economy and demography are Russia’s twin vulnerabilities. But Moscow is not sitting idle. Its footprint is growing in Africa and, to a lesser extent, in Latin America. And it worries the West.

Advertisement

Is the West paying a price for its resigned nihilism? It erred in thinking that the Cold War was over and history had ended. Geography, they say, is often the mother of history. If Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history”, protagonists of the information revolution pronounced the “end of geography”. Today, the world has realised that geography has not gone away. Our experience suggests history is peculiarly reluctant to give direct answers to such questions. Fukuyama now says that he isn’t even sure that liberal democracy existed in the US. Fukuyama described the US under Trump as the epitome of “kakistocracy,” a government of the “worst”, not the best kind.

American writer Robert D. Kaplan argues that what we’re witnessing now is geography’s revenge. He says that Putin “has used geography to his advantage.” He has acted “according to geopolitics, the battle for space and power played out in a geographical setting.” Today, Russian presence in Africa has begun to worry the West. The US doesn’t seem to have any interest in confronting it. As Europe and the US have withdrawn, Russia and China have stepped in. The Sahel region in Africa has seen withdrawal of American and French forces. As Foreign Policy journal points out, in April, the Pentagon announced withdrawals of U.S. military forces from Chad and Niger, two key U.S. partners in counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel region which are turning to Russia for security assistance.

The military junta in Niger which seized power in a coup last year showed no hesitation in ordering U.S. personnel to leave a $100 million drone base. Neither West’s ‘neo-colonialism’ nor Moscow’s ‘exceptionalism’ explains adequately why Moscow has established a credible presence in Africa. Russia’s growing clout cannot be attributed to Russia’s love-bombing the continent. A Carnegie report says that Moscow is “taking advantage of Western policy missteps, growing anti-European sentiment, and longstanding failures of international agencies.” Many African countries see Russia as a security partner by choice and as such they turn to Moscow. In the last three years, coups have brought the military to power in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. The military regimes expelled the French and other Westerners were forced out, perhaps emboldened by support from Moscow. This partnership extends to oil and mining sectors as well. Unlike the West, Russia doesn’t lecture African regimes on democracy and human rights.

Russia’s engagement with Africa goes deeper as a Polish Institute of International Affairs’ study suggests. The creation of the Africa Corps by Russia, says the report, is a measure of its assertive approach to expand its military presence in Africa. Compared to China which has expanded its footprint in Latin America, Russia’s presence is modest. It is a different matter though that the Biden Administration has identified both China and Russia as strategic competitors. Washington accuses Moscow of undermining US influence in the Americas by sponsoring like-minded regimes including in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua and fomenting unrest in democratic states. Russia’s media presence in Latin America has grown manifold. The Spanish language affiliates have millions of followers on You Tube channels, Facebook and X. Russia considers Latin America and the Caribbean as a strategic region where it is slowly gaining confidence to demonstrate its hard power.

While economic ties remain modest, Russia’s influence is growing in diplomatic and security affairs in the region. Last month, in its global power projection, a group of Russian Navy ships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, arrived in Cuban waters. Earlier this month the World Bank upgraded Russia from an upper-middle income country to a high-income one. Despite crippling sanctions which mean the country faces more individual sanctions than Iran, Cuba and North Korea, the Russian economy returned to growth in 2023. The contours of global strategic competition are changing fast. Western analysts believe that Russia’s interest in Africa and Latin America’s vast resources may have a bearing on supply chains. Russia’s interest in the continent’s vast resources will have repercussions for important supply chains.

Whatever the West may claim, Africa has embraced Russia and China as the Western powers have practically deserted the continent. The factors that have facilitated Moscow include absence of colonial legacy in the region and Russia’s capabilities to provide weapons and arms. Russian companies like Rosneft, Lukoil, Gazprom, Novatek, and Rosatom have expanded their activities in Africa. To the West, Russia is a “strategic spoiler.” “No-limit” strategic partnership with Beijing notwithstanding, Russia has reason to be wary of China. The two countries are competing for influence and strategic resources in Central Asia. Ariel Shangguan of Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, China raises a perplexing question, “are China and Russia friends or just friendly?” He refers to a Sino-Russian joint statement prior to the Ukraine war. While the Russian version used the term “friendship”, the Chinese version used the word “friendliness.”

As Isaac Stone Fish writes in the Washington Post, Russia is “vulnerable to Chinese territorial encroachment.” Since China has supplanted Russia as the most influential nation in Moscow’s traditional geopolitical backyard, “Moscow has more to fear from Beijing than Washington.” That may be far-fetched. However, the demographic imbalance between an overpopulated China and an underpopulated Siberia and Russian Far East are like a red rag to a bull.

(The writer is director, Institute of Social Sciences, Delhi)