Russia’s foreign policy in the mid-18th century reflected growing imperial ambition, strategic insecurity, and a desire to assert dominance in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region.
Russia’s Intervention in Poland
Context and Objectives
Poland in the mid-18th century was a declining power, politically fragmented and vulnerable to external manipulation. For Russia, Poland offered a strategic buffer and an opportunity to expand its influence westward without direct confrontation with more formidable Western powers.
Strategic Buffer: Russia aimed to secure its western borders by exerting political control over Poland, which was geographically situated between Russia and potential enemies in Western Europe.
Political Leverage: The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth’s elective monarchy system allowed external powers to influence or determine the selection of its kings, making Poland susceptible to foreign interference.
Pro-Russian Candidates: Russia consistently supported Polish monarchs who would serve Russian interests. The most notable example was Stanisław Leszczyński, a former Polish king and father-in-law to the French king, whose candidacy in 1733 led to the War of the Polish Succession.
War of the Polish Succession (1733–1738):
Russia and Austria backed Augustus III of Saxony, while France supported Leszczyński.
Russian forces invaded Poland to ensure Augustus's accession, showcasing Russia’s willingness to use military force to achieve diplomatic objectives.
This intervention helped solidify Russia's position as a decisive power in Eastern Europe.
Long-Term Influence
Entrenched Influence: Russia's ongoing interference in Polish affairs, including stationing troops and influencing legislation, foreshadowed the eventual partitions of Poland (which occurred later under Catherine the Great).
Weakened Poland: By undermining Polish sovereignty, Russia contributed to the internal decay of the Commonwealth, which remained politically paralysed and dependent on external actors.
The Failure to Secure Crimea from the Ottoman Empire
Strategic Importance of Crimea
Black Sea Access: Crimea was crucial to Russia’s ambition of securing a warm-water port and access to year-round naval operations.
Ottoman Rivalry: Crimea was under the control of the Crimean Khanate, a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, which Russia viewed as a long-standing rival and obstacle to its southern expansion.
Russo-Turkish Conflicts
Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739): Initiated by Russia to break Ottoman dominance over the Black Sea and capture the Crimean Peninsula.
Russia launched a series of military campaigns into Crimea, led by Field Marshal Münnich.
Initial successes included the capture of Azov and campaigns reaching deep into the Crimea.
However, logistical difficulties, disease, and lack of naval dominance led to significant losses.
Treaty of Belgrade (1739)
Peace Settlement: Ended the war between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian–Austrian alliance.
Russian Setbacks:
Russia had to return Azov to Ottoman control, although demilitarised.
Was denied the right to maintain a fleet on the Black Sea, a significant blow to naval ambitions.
Strategic Failure: Russia failed to secure lasting territorial gains in Crimea and was forced to delay its southern ambitions.
Russia and the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763)
Alliances and Geopolitical Context
Russia joined an alliance with Austria and France against Prussia and Britain.
The war was rooted in colonial competition and shifting European alliances, but for Russia, the focus was on containing Frederick the Great of Prussia, whose military strength posed a direct threat to Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe.
Military Engagements
Impressive Battlefield Successes:
Russian forces proved formidable, particularly at the Battle of Kunersdorf (1759), where Prussian forces suffered a near-total defeat.
Russian troops also occupied East Prussia and reached the gates of Berlin, demonstrating significant military capability.
Commanders and Troops:
Led by competent generals such as Count Saltykov, Russian troops earned a reputation for discipline and endurance.
Logistical and command issues remained, but overall performance was markedly improved from earlier campaigns.
Diplomatic Reversals
Death of Empress Elizabeth (1762):
A pivotal moment, as Elizabeth was a firm supporter of the anti-Prussian alliance.
Her successor, Peter III, was an admirer of Frederick the Great and promptly withdrew from the war, reversing all Russian gains and signing the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1762).
Russia returned all conquered territory to Prussia without compensation.
Missed Opportunities: Though Russia had militarily outperformed expectations, its diplomatic gains were undermined by Peter III’s abrupt policy reversal.
Russia’s International Standing by 1762
Strengths
Military Prestige:
The Seven Years’ War showcased the growing professionalism and effectiveness of the Russian army.
Russia proved it could project power far beyond its borders and compete with Western European militaries.
Geopolitical Clout:
Russia had clearly emerged as a key power broker in European affairs, especially in Eastern and Central Europe.
The ability to sway events in Poland, contest the Ottomans, and nearly defeat Prussia elevated Russia’s international status.
Influence without Colonies:
Unlike Britain and France, Russia did not pursue overseas colonies. Instead, it expanded and asserted power through territorial conquest and continental diplomacy.
Weaknesses and Limitations
Lack of Naval Reach:
Without a major Black Sea fleet or unrestricted access to warm-water ports, Russia remained strategically constrained in global maritime terms.
The failure in Crimea highlighted the limits of Russian logistics and supply lines, especially in southern campaigns.
Political Instability:
The sudden reversal of policy under Peter III damaged Russia’s diplomatic credibility and exposed the dangers of court politics influencing foreign policy.
This instability would soon be addressed by Catherine the Great, whose rise in 1762 marked a new era of imperial consolidation and strategic continuity.
Incomplete Diplomatic Gains:
Despite battlefield success in the Seven Years’ War, the lack of permanent territorial acquisition or significant treaty advantages limited the tangible results of Russian involvement.
Catherine’s Inheritance
By the time Catherine the Great ascended the throne in 1762, Russia stood as a major European power with a robust military reputation but an inconsistent diplomatic record.
She inherited:
A powerful military machine capable of challenging leading European powers.
An increasingly assertive foreign policy apparatus, especially towards Poland and the Ottoman Empire.
A need to stabilise and assert continuity, following Peter III’s erratic leadership.
Catherine would use this foundation to launch further foreign ventures, including the eventual conquest of Crimea and partitions of Poland, fulfilling many of the mid-century objectives left incomplete by her predecessors.
FAQ
Russia supported Augustus III because he was viewed as a more compliant and strategically dependable ally who would uphold Russian interests in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Leszczyński, although once king, was backed by France, and his reinstatement would have meant increased French influence on Russia’s western border—something Empress Anna and her advisers wished to avoid. Augustus III, son of Augustus II of Saxony, had dynastic legitimacy and the backing of Austria, creating a powerful Russo-Austrian bloc against France. Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in support of Augustus enabled it to project force in Eastern Europe, stabilise its western frontier, and begin a long-term policy of political manipulation within Polish affairs. The Russian elite also distrusted Leszczyński for his earlier abdication and saw his French connection as a threat to Orthodox interests and regional security. Securing Augustus III thus ensured Poland remained weak, divided, and susceptible to future Russian dominance without escalating confrontation with the major Western powers.
Russia’s campaign in Crimea faced major logistical challenges largely due to the harsh geography of the region and the limitations of mid-18th-century Russian military infrastructure. The peninsula was poorly mapped and sparsely supplied, making large-scale troop movements difficult. The Russian army struggled with extended supply lines that traversed vast, undeveloped steppes prone to extreme weather. Roads were minimal, and supply caravans often lagged, resulting in frequent shortages of food, ammunition, and medical provisions. Diseases such as dysentery and typhus ravaged troops more effectively than enemy resistance. Furthermore, the lack of a strong naval presence in the Black Sea meant that Russia could not adequately support or reinforce land operations via coastal routes, leaving campaigns vulnerable to disruption. Although Field Marshal Münnich achieved some tactical victories, the inability to establish a sustainable military presence in Crimea ultimately prevented Russia from achieving its territorial goals. These logistical issues exposed broader weaknesses in Russia’s imperial ambitions southward.
Diplomacy played a decisive role in both enabling and undermining Russia’s performance during the Seven Years’ War. Initially, Russia's diplomatic alignment with Austria and France allowed it to participate in a coordinated effort to curtail Prussia’s expansion. The alliance provided a strategic framework within which Russia could engage in major military campaigns against Frederick the Great. However, the real turning point came not on the battlefield but in the diplomatic arena following Empress Elizabeth’s death in 1762. Her successor, Peter III, abruptly ended hostilities and reversed all of Russia’s territorial gains through the Treaty of Saint Petersburg. His admiration for Frederick the Great led him to not only withdraw from the war but to realign diplomatically with Prussia. This sudden shift frustrated Russia’s allies and nullified years of costly warfare. The episode illustrates how vulnerable military achievements were to the whims of court politics and how diplomacy—especially internal decisions—could override battlefield success.
Russia’s military performance in the Seven Years’ War significantly enhanced its reputation as a major European land power. The Russian army, under leaders such as General Saltykov, demonstrated operational competence, organisational improvement, and strategic effectiveness in a way that surprised much of Europe. The most striking example was the victory at the Battle of Kunersdorf (1759), where Russian and Austrian forces delivered a crushing defeat to Frederick the Great’s Prussian army—widely regarded as one of the best in Europe. Russian troops advanced as far as Berlin, occupying significant portions of Prussian territory and operating effectively in unfamiliar terrain far from their supply bases. These successes challenged earlier perceptions of Russia as a backward or lumbering military power and marked its emergence as a force capable of shaping European conflicts. However, the reputation gained was complicated by the abrupt withdrawal under Peter III, which undermined Russia’s political credibility but did not erase the army’s growing respect.
Russia’s foreign engagements in the mid-18th century, particularly the Crimean campaigns and the Seven Years’ War, placed considerable strain on its domestic economy and required significant reallocation of state resources. The imperial treasury bore the costs of prolonged troop mobilisation, logistics, and military equipment, resulting in increased taxation and financial pressures. Although Russia had begun developing its metallurgical and arms industries, much of its war material still had to be imported or produced under inefficient conditions. The need to maintain a standing army and finance campaigns far from the heartland led to mounting fiscal deficits and redirected funds away from domestic infrastructure, civil reforms, and educational investment. Additionally, the peasantry bore the brunt of conscription and provisioning, increasing social unrest and reinforcing autocratic control to suppress dissent. While foreign policy efforts elevated Russia’s international profile, they simultaneously exacerbated internal economic challenges and demonstrated the limits of imperial overstretch prior to Catherine the Great’s reforms.
Practice Questions
‘Russia’s intervention in Poland was the most significant aspect of its foreign policy in the mid-18th century.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Russia’s intervention in Poland was undoubtedly significant, establishing long-term dominance over a weakened neighbour and projecting Russian power westwards. However, it must be considered alongside the Seven Years’ War, where Russia proved itself a serious military power in central Europe, and the failed Crimea campaigns, which revealed strategic weaknesses. While Polish affairs showed Russia’s diplomatic influence, the Seven Years’ War had broader implications for European balance. Ultimately, intervention in Poland was vital in asserting regional dominance, but other foreign policy elements, particularly the military dimension, were equally if not more significant in shaping Russia’s international standing by 1762.
To what extent was Russia successful in achieving its foreign policy aims in the period 1733–1762?
Russia had partial success in its foreign policy from 1733–1762. It successfully manipulated Polish affairs, installing preferred monarchs and undermining Polish independence. In the Seven Years’ War, Russian forces achieved remarkable victories, gaining respect across Europe. However, these gains were lost following Peter III’s abrupt withdrawal. The failure to secure Crimea in the 1735–39 war further underlined Russia’s limitations, especially in projecting sustained southern power. While Russia’s military credibility rose, the lack of permanent territorial acquisitions and inconsistent diplomacy suggest a limited realisation of broader strategic aims. Thus, Russia’s successes were impressive but ultimately undermined by political reversals.
