In 1858, as China was losing the Second Opium War, the Muscovite Empire forced it to conclude an unequal treaty, seizing over 600,000 km² of Outer Manchuria under the threat of invasion. This #colonial land grab was justified using the language of security concerns.
As the architect of the treaty, Count Nikolai Muraviev, stated: "Do not believe, gentlemen, that russia is greedy for the expansion of her frontiers... All russia cares for is the security of her boundaries."
russia assured this would be its last and only advance into China.
However, just 2 years later, right after the British and the French had burned the Summer Palace of the emperor in Beijing, russia took advantage of China's defeat to enforce a second unequal treaty, annexing yet another enormous portion of China's territory along the Pacific.
Throughout the 19th century, tsarist diplomacy consistently invoked security concerns to justify territorial expansion. This created an endless cycle: each new acquisition required further advances to "secure" the empire's boundaries, driving it to push forward repeatedly.
The significance of the notion of "security concerns" in the political vocabulary of #russianExpansionism has been completely ignored by realist IR scholars. This has led to misguided conclusions and wrong expectations.
