After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia under Yeltsin tried to get a closer relationship with the Western countries, especially focusing on cooperation with the United States. As the Russian government noticed the flaws in the cooperation, Moscow changed the focus on other Near Abroad states. Russia still has big obvious and mandatory interest in the former ex-Soviet Eurasian republics. Russia needs close ties to these countries for economic and geostrategic reasons since the economies of these countries are closely linked to the Russian economy. To secure Russia´s will, the Russian government has developed multiple ways to control the newly independent states without actually having the competences to do so. Russia´s military influence, the dependence on Russia´s resources and Russian cultural influence can change the politics of a CIS state drastically.
Russia and the West
After the fall of the USSR, the Russian leadership put its focus on building a closer relationship with the West while having just a little interest in the Near Abroad states. Yeltsin thought that Russia belonged in the West, should therefore be part of the West and should as much as possible imitate the West in its own domestic development. The West, especially the United States, welcomed the new policies Russia wanted to implement, even stating the slogan of a “mature strategic relationship” between Russia and the United States – the former East/West contest has been sanctified. With the help of the West, Russia undertook domestic reforms and tried to establish a free market and democratic institutions. Russia hoped to become America´s coequal partner in global politics and then to become an attractive partner for the CIS states, which should lead to a closer economic and political integration strengthening Russia´s influence and power in the CIS region.
But the relationship was deceptive. On the one side, the United States did not want to share global power with Russia, and on the other side, even if they wanted to share global power, Russia was not strong enough economically and socially to be a real global partner.
In 1996, the US-Government started planning a NATO expansion towards the Eurasian countries. Russian elites were concerned about the expansion as it could also be interpreted as an advance towards Russia of a hostile America-led alliance. The increase of the American sphere of influence in Europe diminished the Russian hope that the former Soviet Republics would revert to Moscow´s influence once Russia would had regained its health. The American idea in Eurasia was, opposed to Russia´s idea, to have multiple moderately strong, but independent states without having one sole leading power in the Region. Regarding this, the Ukraine became extremely important for the Western policy-makers. Ukraine should become free and sovereign and be independent from Russia, stopping Russia from reintegrating the former Soviet Republics, as the American view stated that an imperial Russia could not be a democratic Russia.
After it became clearer that a partnership between Russia and the USA was not viable, as Russia was extremely backward in social and economic terms by the communist rule and as all the Western aid helped not enough for Russia to stabilize the economy, Russia put focus on the relations with the former Soviet Republics, also called the “Near Abroad”.
Russia´s policy towards the Near Abroad
Russia´s prime goal was to achieve control over the former Near Abroad states. The Russian government developed a three part strategy to try to secure control over the newly independent states. First, Russia created the CIS. Second, Russia tried to keep military control over the former Soviet Republics by maintaining military presence in the countries. The last part is to control the nations through Russia´s economic and energy power, especially by controlling and manipulating oil and gas. The Russian culture also influences the people living in the CIS states.
“Whereas in Europe countries worked collaboratively in order to unite, the CIS was created expressly for the sake of a civilized divorce. There was only one goal: the CIS was created so the process of the Soviet Union´s disintegration would unfold in the most civilized manner possible. And this goal was achieved.” (Putin in Armenia / March 2005)
Short summary of the CIS
The CIS was founded in December 1991 by Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
One of the most important reasons was the economic interdependency of the former Soviet Republics. Many industrial enterprises would have simply ceased to exist because they depended on fuel and raw materials, which are originating on what is now a foreign country. The ties with Russia were extremely significant as Russia accounted for roughly 70 % of the Soviet industrial output and supplied many republics with fuel and raw materials.
At first, in 1992 and 1993, Russia hoped that its leadership of the CIS would expand the influence over the large ex-Soviet Republics. But the newly independent states resisted against the absorption. Most of the nations, especially Ukraine, resisted Russia´s perceived use of the CIS to promote a Moscow-led union.
Pretending to help local authorities to deal with unrest, Russia deployed troops in Georgia and Tajikistan in 1993. This shows, that Russia acted outside of the competences it had in the CIS. One year later in 1994, Russia had got the authority to act like a leading role – becoming a “peacekeeper”- in the CIS. The refusal to join the CIS by the Baltic States in 1995 made clear, that the CIS is not a democratic organization. Several leaders of member states of the CIS spoke up against Russia´s role in the CIS in 1995, strengthening this point in 1997 blaming Russia for the way in which the CIS had become a tool of Russian hegemony.
In the meantime, the newly independent states had concluded a variety of economic and military ties among themselves and with other states, strengthening their own position and weakening Russia´s.
In February 2006, Georgia officially withdrew the membership of the CIS Defense Council to become a member of the NATO as it could not be a member of two military structures simultaneously. In Russia´s eyes, this Georgian policy weakened the unity and purpose of the CIS furthermore and was a provocation by the West against Russia. Georgia officially withdrew from the CIS in August 2008 which resulted in the Georgian War against Russia.
Russia´s military influence
Russia needed the Near Abroad states to gain control over the Soviet Union´s military assets, which are spread over all of the 15 former Soviet Republics. The most important possessions of the Soviet Union were the Black Sea Fleet, the military bases in the respective countries and a space launch facility. Russia was the major candidate to inherit all the military installations, but the newly independent states did not want Russia to gain the complete control over the military of the USSR. For example Kazakhstan wanted to become the owner of the Baikonur Cosmodrome, the space launch facility, and Ukraine wanted to get the power over the Black Sea Fleet. Georgia has been demanding the withdrawal of the Russian military bases since its independence.
The Russian government wanted to control the military in the Near Abroad states to prevent a penetration in their own territory. This objective could be achieved most easily by creating a belt of friendly states, which acts like a buffer zone towards Russia, and where it is legitimate for Russia to avoid a full withdrawal of the Russian military.
The military influence in the CIS states should have prevented democratization in the different nations. Neither Yeltsin nor Putin made efforts to promote liberal democracy in the former Soviet Republics; in contrast, they preferred dealing with authoritarian leaders. The Color Revolutions starting in Serbia in 2000, followed by Georgia in 2003, Ukraine 2004, Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan 2005 and the social unrest and brutal government crackdown in Uzbekistan 2005 had made a serious impact on Russia´s policy. Russia feared that the democratization in the newly Independent States would have an impact on Russia itself. So the Russian government tried to stop and prevent the political mobilization against the authoritarian leaders.
A good example to support that statement is the Georgian War in 2008, which is already mentioned above, or in Moldova in 2005.
Georgia´s course towards the West has been severely opposed by the Russian government. They have spread anti-Georgian propaganda in Russia´s media while supporting the pro-Russian movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian government wanted to keep the situation in Georgia politically unstable which would allow them to maintain military presence in Georgia. These actions were taken to prevent any cooperation between the Georgian and the Russian democracy activists. In August 2008, warfare erupted as Russia sent troops into South Ossetia to minimize Georgia´s control over the territory. These events led up to the invasion of Georgia by the Russian military, which destroyed major economic key points and important infrastructure. After establishing security zones, Russia declared that they would acknowledge South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, which was broadly seen as illegal by both Western countries and third world governments.#
Another example is Moldova, which had to fight against its own separatist challenge in Transnistria. In 1991/1992, an independence movement supported by 1,500 Russian soldiers fought against the Moldavian government. After a peace agreement was signed in 1992, Moldovan authorities wanted the Russian troops to leave Transnistria, but they did not withdraw the troops up until 1999. Shortly before he would resign as the president, Yeltsin formally declared the withdrawal of the military forces in Transnistria, but Putin canceled this plan shortly after he became president. The Russian government stated in the last years that the Russian forces in Moldova will be acting as “peacekeepers” for the indefinite future.
In 2005, Moldova stated that it would like orientate itself more towards the West. As a result, in early 2006 the Russian government stopped the transfer of gas to Moldova for 16 days and the import of Moldavian agricultural goods, which are a vital part of the Moldavian economy. This pressure made Moldova drawback, promising not to leave the CIS.
This shows how Russia uses and abuses its military strength to enforce other smaller countries the Russian will.
Oil and gas as a factor to increase Russian influence in the Near Abroad
Oil and gas are extremely influential and important natural resources.
Russia uses its monopoly to control the politics of the CIS states. The mostcommon discussion here is about the state-owned Russian enterprises, which expanded in the CIS countries, mostly focusing on the natural gas producer Gazprom.
In the 1990s, Russia subsidized the other CIS states with lower gas prices than for the rest of the world. This subsidizing was used to keep the CIS states close to Russia. But as the world gas prices rose, Russia lost a lot of money by selling the gas cheaper to the former Soviet Republics. Putin then put in a lot of effort in accumulating money for the state by increasing the prices for the CIS states, bringing the prices for gas into line with the prices for the EU and increasing the money they get from the Near Abroad nations.
The Russian energy market serves as a very influential foreign policy tool, allowing Russia to control the policies of the states in the CIS, because they depend on the Russian energy supply. For example in the end of 2005, Ukraine resisted a price increase of Gazprom´s gas, resulting in Gazprom shutting down the supply of gas to the Ukraine for four days in January 2006, only feeding in the gas which should be exported to Europe. 
The Ukrainian government reacted immediately and acquiesced in the demands of Russia. Gazprom is getting maximum control over the gas and oil infrastructure in the Near Abroad states. Starting in the early 1990s, Gazprom is getting major stakes of the gas companies in the CIS states, for example in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and Armenia. They use this monopoly to control the East-European gas market and furthermore, to have a threat against the EU as the EU depends a lot from the gas of the Eurasian states.
While keeping the CIS states close to Russia, the Russian oil and gas companies can profit of this relationship. The CIS countries offer lucrative targets for resource-seeking investments. As the most lucrative domestic oil reserves are located in East-Siberia, which is lacking a proper infrastructure, it would require long-term investments to access these resources, which might not be worth it. So the Russian companies try to get their resources in the more accessible locations in the CIS countries.
Concluded, Russia uses its monopoly over essential resources to force other countries to fulfill its will.
Russky mir as an influential factor
For Putin, it was clear that the most important factor influencing a country´s success was the “intellectual, spiritual and moral quality of its people”, which was strongly dependent on the citizens´ feeling that they share common values, a common history and common traditions. Furthermore, he strengthened the point that he wanted to create a culture of unity in diversity in the CIS, putting focus on the historical identity and relationships of the different nations. The feeling of unity would greatly improve stability in world affairs, as the different nations would act together and support each another. The Russian Orthodox Church, the institution that defined the nation´s moral vision and sense of honor, was the major factor in this point.
Beyond the Russian borders, this feeling of honor was called the Russky mir.
Russian politicians wanted to abuse this feeling of unity in the 1990s. Pyotr Shedrovitsky, a political consultant, used this feeling of Russian unity to strengthen Russia´s power in the newly independent states after the dissolution of the USSR. The Russky mir was used to preserve the Russian language and culture outside of Russia, strengthening Russia´s influence in the neighboring states while supporting Russia´s country stability and restoring Russia´s status as a world power.
The Russian politicians, notably Putin, have recognized the enormous social capital of the Russky mir and the Russian Orthodox Church. Fulfilling the expectations of the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin is strongly supported by his citizens.
But the Russian Orthodox Church is also influencing the foreign policies of Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church promotes its concerns in the policies of Russia, influencing Orthodox Christians or other religious believers. This encourages the spread of Christian values and morals. The church is also capable of using the Russian propaganda machines, for example Russia Today or Sputnik to fulfill this goal. Finally, whenever the Russian state or a Russian organization promotes Russian culture or language, the Russian Orthodox Church is coming along and spreads their religious agenda. This is leading to a faster influence of the Russian cultural identity.
As you can see, Russia uses its cultural power to increase its support of the population while abusing the power of religion.
Conclusion
After the failed cooperation between Russia and the West, Russia put focus on the Near Abroad countries. The foundation of the CIS was conflicting. On the one side, the economic interdependency between the former Soviet Republics was big. On the other side, Russia abused the CIS to try to establish a Russian hegemony. The Russian military and resources have a huge influence towards the different CIS states. Russia can drastically change the policies of a member state by invading them or using its monopoly over gas to force them to fulfill Russia´s will. Furthermore, Russia can abuse its cultural power to convert the population of the newly independent states to Russia´s ideology.
ral aspects why Russia is interested in the Ukraine. There is a high amount of Slavic people living in the Ukraine. The historic relationship of the Slavs and Russia makes it reasonable for Russia to try to protect the Slavs and the Russian identity. Especially in the Eastern Ukraine, there is a Russian speaking majority and the people living there identify themselves mostly as Russians. The Ukrainian population is torn apart from between the Soviet identity and the relatively new national identity. Many older people have grown up in the Soviet Union and they are still influenced by the values of the USSR.
Russian Foreign Policy 