Why Didn't Russia Colonize Africa? Uncovering the Untold Story

The Global Colonial Scramble and Russia’s Role

Well, when you think of colonial powers, your mind probably races to Spain, Britain, France, and Belgium—those countries that left a significant imprint on Africa's borders, politics, and culture. But you might be wondering: Why didn’t Russia, one of the largest and most powerful empires in history, ever colonize Africa? Honestly, I’ve wondered this myself and after diving into the topic, the answer is more complex than I originally thought.

Russia’s lack of direct colonial interests in Africa, especially during the so-called "Scramble for Africa" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, can be attributed to a mix of geographic, political, and economic factors. While Russia was certainly an imperial power, its focus was primarily on expansion in Europe, Central Asia, and the Far East. Let’s break it down.

The Geopolitical Landscape of Russia

1. Russia’s Priorities: Expansion to the East and South

Honestly, one of the most significant reasons Russia didn’t target Africa during the colonial era is that its focus was elsewhere. Russia’s imperial ambitions were aimed primarily at expanding its territory to the east, into Siberia, and further south into Central Asia. This expansion wasn’t just about land; it was about strategic control of important routes and resources. I remember chatting with a history professor about this, and he pointed out how the Russian Empire was deeply invested in controlling areas like the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, and even parts of the Ottoman Empire.

These regions offered more immediate strategic value compared to Africa, which at the time seemed more distant and less accessible. Russia’s geographical and economic limitations made it more practical for them to expand in directions that provided more tangible benefits.

2. Lack of Naval Power and Maritime Interests

One of the key factors I never really thought about until recently was Russia's relative lack of naval power compared to other European powers. Russia, for all its vastness, was a land-based empire. Colonizing Africa required a strong navy to secure trade routes and territories, something that Russia simply didn’t prioritize in the same way. Most of their military and economic energy went into strengthening their land forces and managing their European borders.

I had a conversation with a friend who’s an expert in Russian history, and he made a good point: Russia’s naval fleet wasn’t nearly as competitive as that of Britain or France, who relied on their naval power to project influence worldwide. Instead, Russia focused on land-based dominance.

Economic Constraints and Africa’s Appeal

1. Russia’s Economic Focus

At the time when European powers were scrambling for African colonies, Russia was facing internal economic struggles. The Russian Empire was largely agrarian and had limited industrialization compared to Western Europe. While Britain and France were building vast empires rich in resources, Russia was still focused on developing its own economy. This left little room for the kind of investment necessary to establish and maintain colonies in Africa.

I’ve read that Russia’s focus on controlling its vast land resources, especially in Central Asia, was more pressing than seeking new colonies in Africa. It was only after Russia began industrializing in the late 19th century that it started to think more globally, but by then, much of Africa was already divided between European powers.

2. African Colonies as a Financial Burden

Another consideration that many overlook is the financial burden of maintaining a colony. Colonies required immense investments in infrastructure, military presence, and administration. Russia, despite its size and power, often struggled to maintain control over its distant territories, let alone new ones in Africa. This practical financial constraint made it hard for Russia to take on the same level of colonial investment that countries like France or the UK could afford.

Russia’s Ideological and Political Focus

1. Pan-Slavism and the Focus on Europe and Asia

Honestly, another factor I hadn’t considered at first was Russia’s ideological focus. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia was deeply invested in Pan-Slavism—a movement aimed at uniting Slavic peoples. The Russian Empire’s energies were largely directed toward maintaining control over Slavic nations, like Poland and Ukraine, and expanding influence in Eastern Europe.

By focusing on these areas, Russia didn’t have the same colonial mindset that European powers had toward Africa. They were more concerned with consolidating power in neighboring regions rather than establishing new colonies far from home. The idea of an African empire just didn’t align with Russia’s core imperial goals.

2. The Influence of the Tsarist Regime

Under Tsarist rule, Russia was also deeply conservative, and its leaders were more interested in maintaining the status quo rather than expanding outward into the African continent. In contrast, many Western European powers were eager to exploit the resources of Africa and create colonial empires for prestige and economic gain. Russia, on the other hand, didn’t see Africa as a priority, preferring to engage in wars and alliances that helped secure its position in Europe and Asia.

Conclusion: Russia’s Missed Colonial Opportunity

So, why didn’t Russia colonize Africa? The reasons are complex but clear: Russia’s geopolitical focus, its lack of a strong naval presence, economic constraints, and its ideological priorities all played a part. By the time Russia began looking outward, much of Africa had already been claimed by European powers. While Russia was undoubtedly a formidable imperial power, its resources and ambitions were directed elsewhere, leading to a missed opportunity in Africa.

And, honestly, it’s a fascinating what-if scenario. What if Russia had decided to explore Africa? Would the colonial map look different today? It’s something that certainly makes you think. What do you think?

Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years

How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.