• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Dmitri Trenin"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Russia's Spheres of Interest, not Influence

Russia retains interests throughout the post-Soviet regions, but Moscow’s considerable influence is no longer dominant.

Link Copied
By Dmitri Trenin
Published on Sep 22, 2009
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: The Washington Quarterly

In the aftermath of the 2008 Georgian war, President Dmitri Medvedev, setting out Russia’s foreign policy principles, spoke about the country’s spheres of “privileged interests” and the government’s obligation to defend Russian citizens abroad. Coming less than a month after Russia’s armed response to Georgia’s attack on its breakaway province of South Ossetia, where most residents had been provided with Russian passports, this statement produced a shock. It sounded as if Moscow was reclaiming the Soviet geopolitical legacy of Russia’s spheres of influence and was prepared to intervene with force in countries with significant ethnic Russian minorities. The talk of Russian assertiveness, making rounds since the mid-2000s, was substantially enhanced by accusations of Russia’s outright aggressive behavior. The year that followed has seen an unprecedented global financial and economic crisis, a new administration in Washington, and a decrease in tensions between Russia and the United States. The issues that had produced a near confrontation between the two—such as the United States’ single-minded support for President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia; Russia’s actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia; NATO’s membership action plans (MAPs) to Georgia and Ukraine; and plans to install U.S. ballistic missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland—while not completely off the table, are now clearly on the backburner.
 
Toward the end of 2008, however, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in a wide-ranging statement, made a very strong case for the “unique relations” that bound Russia and the countries of the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He spoke about “civilizational unity” of the lands that used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and before that, the Russian empire. Thus, a question arose: what is the difference, if any, between the sphere of interests proclaimed by the current Russian leadership, and the more traditional sphere of influence condemned by international public opinion? What, after all, are Moscow’s motives and its aims?

About the Author

Dmitri Trenin

Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center

Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space

      Dmitri Trenin

  • Commentary
    What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West Revealed

      Dmitri Trenin

Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyCentral AsiaCaucasusRussiaEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    How to Join the EU in Three Easy Steps

    Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.

      Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?

    Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing It

    Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons

    The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.

      Marc Pierini

  • Article
    Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of Connectivity

    The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.

      • Areg Kochinyan

      Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.