Introduction: The Decision to Sell Alaska
Russia's decision to sell Alaska to the United States in 1867 was a significant geopolitical move that reshaped the map of North America. However, considering the historical context, it raises the question: Would it have been beneficial for Russia had it not sold Alaska to the United States?
The Historical Context and Challenges Faced by Russia
The Doctrine Sea to Sea dominated US expansionist policies, aiming to secure assets from coast to coast. Russia, already engaged in multiple wars across Europe, lacked the resources, manpower, and military might to defend Alaska effectively. Far from the mainland, maintaining Alaska required significant investments that Russia could not afford.
The Crimean War and Russo-Japanese War further strained Russia's resources and capabilities, highlighting the vulnerability of Alaska. Even during the first World War, when the situation was dire, both the US and the British threatened to invade Russia, which could have directly led to Alaska being taken by the British or the US.
Alaska’s Strategic and Economic Value from the Russian Perspective
From a purely economic stand point, Russia found Alaska to be essentially worthless. Remote and undeveloped, it required extensive resources and investment to exploit its potential. Siberia, though challenging, offered more immediate resource and industrial opportunities, especially after the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Russia could not afford to develop Alaska, defend it effectively, or know the true resource potential of the land. The region's strategic importance to the British Empire meant that the land was a vulnerability that needed to be addressed. Had the full extent of Alaska's mineral and oil wealth been known, Russia still would have struggled to secure and manage it.
The Alternative Scenarios: Alaska and Canada
Historically, Alaska could have very well ended up as part of Canada. The Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905 demonstrated Russia's inability to maintain control over distant territories. The proximity to British-controlled Canada and the Russian-Canadian relations post-Crimean War made Canada a more likely adversary than the US.
If Russia had not sold Alaska to the US, other global conflicts, including the First World War, could have easily resulted in US or Canadian forces seizing the territory. Even without direct military intervention, the lack of resources and infrastructure made Alaska susceptible to British annexation or Canadian independence post-revolution, as evidenced by the semi-autonomous status of former Russian territories in North America.
Conclusion: Benefits and Drawbacks of Keeping Alaska
Would Russia have benefited if it had retained Alaska? The answer remains uncertain. While Alaska's resources now seem valuable, it was invaluable to Russia at the time. The logistical, economic, and military challenges were formidable, and even today, Alaska's development faces difficulties.
Had Russia retained Alaska, it might still be part of Canada today, or it could have become an independent state with strong ties to either the US or Canada, but with no certain path to prosperity and security. Keeping Alaska would have required significant investments and could have drawn Russia into further military conflicts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Ultimately, the sale of Alaska to the US was a pragmatic decision that allowed Russia to focus on other pressing issues and areas of greater strategic importance, like developing Siberia and maintaining its political and military power in Europe.