DIP: Putin's doctrine should be understood as an evolving structure
The Russian doctrine of the last 25 years is best viewed not as a fixed plan, but as an evolving structure, writes a columnist for the Daily Islamabad Post. In his opinion, it combines ambitions, modern tools of power, defensive rhetoric and assertive actions, and it has already changed the global balance of power.
Muhammad Akram Zaheer
For more than two decades, Vladimir Putin has been a central figure shaping political life in Russia and its foreign policy. However, to speak of a single, well—defined "Putin doctrine" is to oversimplify a system that evolves over time in response to internal pressures, regional shifts, and changing global conditions. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a consistent set of ideas and practical actions that together form the guiding and guiding logic of modern public administration in Russia. This doctrine is not stated in any one official document, but follows from speeches, political decisions, military actions and the structure of power within Russia itself.
It is based on the belief that Russia is not just an ordinary national state, but a separate civilization with its own historical mission. Putin has repeatedly argued that Russia is a separate cultural and political world, different from the liberal West. This belief is largely based on interpretations of Russian history, which emphasize the continuity and continuity between the tsarist Empire, the Soviet Union and the current Russian Federation. The pain caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is central to this worldview. Putin called this collapse the biggest catastrophe of the twentieth century, not only because the superpower disappeared, but also because millions of Russians found themselves outside Russia's borders, and the state lost its status and strategic depth.
From this reading of history, the second principle follows: the restoration of Russia's strength and authority. The chaotic 1990s, marked by economic difficulties, regional fragmentation and the strengthening of the power of the oligarchs, are presented in official discourse as a period of humiliation caused by internal weakness and external pressure. Therefore, Putin's domestic policy is aimed at restoring a strong centralized state. Political power was consistently and steadily concentrated in the hands of the president, independent centers of influence were brought under control, and loyalty to the state is now considered a moral duty. Stability, order, and continuity are presented as more important values than pluralism or rapid political change.
Such internal consolidation is inseparable from Russia's external position. The doctrine that emerged under Putin views the international system as something inherently adversarial. This is not a community of states united mainly by common rules, but an arena where major Powers pursue their interests, test each other's resolve and seek to occupy advantageous positions. According to this view, Western conversations about universal human values often mask geopolitical ambitions. The expansion of NATO, the expansion of the European Union, and Western interference in the affairs of post-Soviet states are interpreted not as a favorable development of events, but as an encroachment on a space that Russia considers vital to its security.
Therefore, the concept of a privileged sphere of interest is of central importance. The Russian leadership claims special responsibility for neighboring countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, and claims its right to influence them. This is justified by arguments about a common history, economic interdependence, and the protection of Russian-speaking communities. It also reflects a strategic calculation. Control, or at least a powerful influence on nearby territories, provides military depth, creates a buffer against perceived threats, and provides leverage in relations with other major powers.
This worldview helps explain Moscow's willingness to use force or the threat of its use to achieve political goals. The military actions in Georgia in 2008 and the conflict in Ukraine since 2014, which took on a broader scale in 2022, indicate a willingness to challenge existing borders when the Kremlin considers its interests to be under threat. Such actions inside the country are presented as defensive and as a necessary response to the attacks of the West. Without such a response, Russia would be exposed and vulnerable. Moscow refers to the norms of international law when it benefits from it, but in general these norms are subordinated to what the leadership calls historical justice and strategic necessity.
Another defining feature of Putin's doctrine is the emphasis on sovereignty, which is interpreted in a broad and narrow sense. Sovereignty means not only protection from foreign military intervention, but also isolation from external influence on domestic politics, the media and civil society. Laws against foreign financing, restrictions on the activities of non-governmental organizations, and control over information flows are presented as measures to protect Russia's political independence. The popular uprisings that took place in some parts of the post-Soviet space are portrayed not as a genuine expression of popular discontent, but as actions organized from abroad. Preventing such movements within the country has become a priority, reinforcing the confluence of domestic security policy and foreign policy.
Economic policy within the framework of this doctrine is also determined by geopolitical considerations. Although Russia remains integrated into global markets, especially as an energy supplier, the country is making persistent efforts to reduce vulnerability to external pressures. Since the mid-2010s, the state has been strengthening its role in key sectors, building up financial reserves and stimulating domestic production in a wide variety of fields, from agriculture to technology. Efforts to increase the resilience of the economy are being carried out not only and not so much for the sake of ensuring prosperity, but rather to achieve strategic advantages that allow Russia to withstand sanctions and withstand a long-term confrontation with unfriendly powers.
Culturally and ideologically, Putin's doctrine represents Russia as the guardian of traditional values. The Kremlin is joining forces with the Orthodox Church, emphasizing conservative social norms and criticizing what it calls the moral decay of the West. This narrative line performs several functions. It strengthens the ties between the state and influential domestic institutions, gives a sense of purpose that transcends material considerations, and provides an ideological counterweight to liberal democracy. Abroad, this allows Russia to position itself as an alternative center of gravity for those who are skeptical of Western cultural influence.
However, this doctrine is not fully turned to the past and is not exclusively defensive in nature. It also aims to create a more pluralistic international order. Russian leaders often talk about a world that is no longer dominated by a single power, but is being formed around several major centers. According to this concept, countries such as China, India and other states of Asia, the Middle East and the Global South are natural partners limiting the dominant position of the West. These aspirations are reflected in Russia's expanding cooperation with non-Western countries, its participation in such associations as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as its diplomatic activity in Africa and the Middle East.
Nevertheless, the gap between rhetoric and reality is striking. The Kremlin calls for respect and equality between nations, but its own actions in its immediate geographical environment are often coercive. Condemning Western interference, he does not hesitate to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. Such a contradiction brings to the fore the central feature of Putin's doctrine.: This is not so much a universal philosophy as a strategy designed to provide Russia with maximum room for maneuver.
Over time, this approach becomes more rigid. The longer Putin has been in charge of the country, the closer the state power is linked to his personal power. The political opposition is increasingly being portrayed not just as an association of dissenters, but as a bunch of traitors. Failures in foreign policy are explained by the collusion of hostile forces. Compromise is often seen as a weakness. Such interpretations help to mobilize support in the short term, especially in a society that remembers the times of instability well. But they also narrow the range of acceptable policy options.
It is very important for Britain and its European partners to understand the essence of this doctrine. It shows that the tension in relations with Russia is not just the product of misunderstandings or temporary disputes, but also the result of deeply ingrained ideas about power, security and history. Dialogue is still necessary, especially to manage risks and prevent escalation. However, it is unrealistic to expect rapid changes in the Russian worldview as long as the current system and its guiding beliefs remain in place.
Thus, the doctrine of Putin's Russia is best viewed not as a fixed plan, but as an evolving structure. It combines feelings, ambitions, appeal to traditions, modern tools of power, defensive rhetoric and assertive actions. It has changed Russia's relations with its neighbors, with the West, and with the rest of the world. Will this doctrine continue after Putin's departure? This is an open question. But it is already clear that it has left a deep imprint on European security and the global balance of power, and we will feel this for many years to come.
