Russian Geopolitical School: Permanent Dilemma of Vulnerability and Expansionism

Introduction: Gopolitics, like any other science, has general rules and specific patterns and this issue has provided the feasibility of the school of geopolitics in the field of global thought. In Russian scientific circles, due to the country's role in the balance of international power in the last three centuries, thinking about Russian geopolitics has become a vital necessitybut the important issue in this field has been the dispersion of opinions and the instability of propositions over time and finding a common point of view for the formulation of the special Russian school in this field.
Research questions: The main question raised in this research is how to talk about the Russian geopolitical school and understand its central concepts?
Research hypothesis: The author's hypothesis is that despite the dispersion of ideas, their common link and point of commonality can be expressed in the concepts such as maritime inaccessibility, territorial vulnerabilities, the problem of strategic depth, the buffer zone and expansionism as the Russian geopolitical school. Among these, two categories of geographical vulnerability and territorial expansion of the central sign are taken into consideration.
Methodology and theoretical framework: To examine the hypothesis of the article, I have used the method of qualitative and thematic content analysis of texts related to Russian geopolitical thought. In this regard, various texts have been written in the last three centuries. Although more distant texts are difficult to access, many new texts refer to the main themes of those writings. To review these texts, the author tried to select the most important ones and then by reviewing them, select the most important thinkers in the field of Russian geopolitical studies. The main basis for selecting indicators such as the age of scientist, the importance of thought, thematic coherence and the reputation of the school of thought was created. In the meantime, of course, some approaches such as Eurasian, Atlantic and Eastern approaches have been less difficultbut this issue regarding other approaches has not been an easy task due to existing differences of opinion.
Results and discussion: The main factor that has caused the Russian school of geopolitics to remain limited is that geopolitical ideas in this country, unlike other great powers, are very diverse and controversial and this makes it very difficult to understand. The causes of this diversity can be found in important cases such as territorial expansion and the complexity of factors affecting geopolitics, the diversity and expansion of threats and their types, the issue of empire and the crisis of national identity, the instability of borders and the constant intellectual and identity conflict against the West. From the point of view of Russian geopolitical thinkers, this country is very vast and has many neighbors and has a common land border with fourteen countries and faces various threats in the western, southern and eastern directions. Russia has a territorial connection with the two continents of Europe and Asia and has a close maritime neighborhood with the American continent. Russia has a serious relationship with three global geostrategic regions including Euro-Atlantic, Middle East and East Asia, and therefore, from their point of view, this issue is considered very vital. From the point of view of many thinkers of Russian geopolitical knowledge, to overcome the problems and threats caused by the lack of maritime access and defense vulnerability, this country should put strategies such as strategic depth, buffer zone and territorial expansion on the agenda and this is a fact that has shaped its practical policy in post-Mongol Russia from the 15th century to the present day. The collection of these geopolitical propositions in recent centuries have led to two basic issues in Russia: on the one hand, the need for a powerful government and on the other hand, the creation of an imperial state. However, as a result of the powerful and autocratic government, it has faced the development crisisand the inevitable state of the empire, it has also suffered an identity crisis and both have caused instability in the directions of domestic and foreign policy.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this article and despite some conflicts, we can talk about the Russian geopolitical school whose main concepts and components are common among different thinkers in this country from the 18th century to the present day. It seems that the reason for the lack of recognition is a kind of denial, neglect, cultural and ideological denial of Russia in the past two centuries by Western academic circles and the lack of translation of Russian texts in Iran, except for some articles on Eurasian approach. Therefore, despite the dispersion of views in the field of Russian geographical studies, concepts such as maritime inaccessibility, territorial inaccessibility, defense vulnerability, lack of strategic depth, the necessity of a buffer zone, and expansionist politics are the common variables of these views and geographical vulnerability, especially in the western regions, and territorial expansion in the surrounding environment are the focal points of this geopolitical school.
The findings of the article showed that the realities of Russian geography and the concerns of the thinkers of geographical studies have provided important possibilities for the presentation of the Russian geopolitical school along with its other western counterparts and without it, a deep understanding of the country's foreign policy becomes difficult. With its help, important progress can be made for the countries around Russia and especially Iran, which has been one of its victims in a wide area from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.