Breaking Loose? Russian Reasons to End Its Dependence on Foreign Ports

  • Alf Brodin


As a consequence of the dissolution of the Former Soviet Union, foreign trade between the Russian Federal Republic and Western Europe had to adapt to an essentially new geopolitical environment. One task was to find new routes and to establish a different framework for the conduct of water-borne transport. Nevertheless, to a very large extent prevailing trade patterns, despite many discontinuities, e.g. in exchange relations, were prisoners of the legacy of the past. In the absence of immediately available better alternatives, Russian cargoes had to be carried through the now independent Baltic States to reach ports that previously were parts of the Soviet Union. These ports were originally outlined and built within the framework of a centrally planned economy and received their cargo volumes through administrative directives. To the annoyance of certain political and nationalistic circles in Russia, ports in the Baltic States competed successfully with Russian ports for Russian foreign trade cargoes.


Foreign Trade Container Terminal Baltic State Leningrad Oblast Transport Corridor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avdeev, K., Deputy Head of Division of External Economic Co-Operation; City of St Petersburg; Interview in Stockholm 2000–03–23.Google Scholar
  2. Brodin, A. (1999). ‘Swedish Trade with the Former Soviet Union,’ pages 169–215 in Alvstam, C.-G. and Lindahl, R. (eds). Forskning om europafrdgor. Gothenburg, CERGU at Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
  3. Brodin, A. (2000). ‘Ports in Transition in Countries in Transition.’ Dissertation, Department of Human and Economic Geography at Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
  4. Dervis, K., Selowsky, M. and Wallich, C. (1996). The Transition in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington D.C., The World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. EBRD Transition Report (2000). London, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
  6. Hayter, D., Partner; Booz–Allen & Hamilton; London; Interview in Stockholm 1997–09–09.Google Scholar
  7. Hoare, A.G. (1986). ‘British ports and their export hinterlands: a rapidly changing geography,’ Geografiska Annaler 68B: 1, pages 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holt, J. (1993). Transport Strategies for the Russian Federation. Washington D.C., The World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Kareva, O., Chief of Investment Department; Vyborg Rayon; Interview in Vyborg 1993–02–12 ff.Google Scholar
  10. Kirkow, P. (1997). ‘Transition in Russia’s Principal Coastal Gateways,’ Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 38: 5, pages 296–314.Google Scholar
  11. Kjellén, R. (1917). Staten som lifsform. Stockholm, Hugo Gebers Förlag.Google Scholar
  12. Klaassen, L. (1987). Exercises in spatial thinking. Aldershot, Avebury.Google Scholar
  13. Klink van, H.A. and Berg van den, G. (1998). ‘Gateways and Intermodalism,’ Journal of Transport Geography 6: 1, pages 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kushnirsky, F.I. (1997). ‘Post Soviet attempts to establish Free Zones,’ Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 38: 3, pages 144–62.Google Scholar
  15. Lloyd’s List (1998–2000). Issues from the date indicated where used.Google Scholar
  16. Mayer, H.M. (1957). The port of Chicago and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Department of Geography, research papers no 49. Chicago, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Morskie Porti (1997–2000): Issues from the month indicated where used. Moscow, Association of Sea Commercial Ports.Google Scholar
  18. North, R. (1997). ‘Transport in a new reality’ in Bradshaw, M.J. (ed.). Geography and Transition in the Post-Soviet Republics. Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Norwegian Institute for Transport Economics (1998). Nyttekostnadsanalys av utbyggning av Oslo havn og to alternative havnelösningar. Report no 407/1998. Oslo, Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics.Google Scholar
  20. Nove, A. (1992). An Economic History of the USSR 1917–1991. London, Penguin.Google Scholar
  21. Parfenov, A., General Director, Lenmorniiproekt; interview St Petersburg 1998–01–24 ff.Google Scholar
  22. Ranger, P., TACIS–Project Manager – Novorossiysk port; Scott Wilson Kirkpatrik, London; interview in Novorossiysk 1998–11–13.Google Scholar
  23. Rissoan, J.P. (1994). ‘River Sea navigation in Europe,’ Journal of Transport Geography 2: 2, pages 131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Russian Regional Report (2001). Weekly mail service to subscribers. New York, EastWest Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Shleifer A., Treisman D., (2000). Without a Map — Political tactics and economic reform in Russia. Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, G. (1995). ‘Ethnic Relations in the new States,’ pages 34–45 in Shaw D. J. B. (ed.). The Post Soviet Republics. Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Tally, W. (1998). ‘Linkages between transportation infrastructure investments and economic production,’ Logistics and Transportation Review 32: 1, pages 145–55.Google Scholar
  28. Trolley, R. and Turton, B. (1995). Transport systems, policy and planning- A geographical approach. Harlow, Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Vigarié, A. (1979). Ports de Commerce et Vie Littorale. Paris, Hachette Université.Google Scholar
  30. Whitehead, D. (2000). ‘Factors affecting the pattern of future demand in the ports industry,’ PIANC Bulletin 104, pages 16–20.Google Scholar
  31. World Development Report (1996). From Plan to Market. Washington, D.C., Oxford University Press/World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alf Brodin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations