Explaining a country in the context of national identity provides us with a deeper and more comprehensive view. Understanding the background of why Russia has gone through such a process and has been forced to act like that through the past history will be of great help in finding mutually helpful cooperation measures at the point where the other person needs it.

   This study was written for the purpose of examining the process and characteristics of the formation of Russian identity, and to understand the political, economic, and social culture of modern Russia.

   Modern Russia’s politics, economy, and culture are the result of pursuing their own tradition and identity while absorbing the nutrients of Eastern and Western civilization. Russia, a multiracial and multicultural country, is a country with geographic, civilized, and demographic conditions in which it is not possible to clearly describe their identities. So Russia has as complex elements as its vast territory and natural environment.

   Modern Russia’s politics, economy, and culture are the result of pursuing their own tradition and identity while absorbing the nutrients of Eastern and Western civilization. Russia, a multi-ethnical and multi-cultural country, is a country with geographic, civilized, and demographic conditions in which it is not possible to clearly describe their identities. So Russia has as complex elements as its vast territory and natural environment.

   In fact, identity is not fixed and immutable. The Russian identity was also constantly reconstructed and interpreted in various ways, depending on the times, social changes, and the intentions of the ruling powers. The coexistence of conflicting elements, one of the characteristics of Russian identity, is also a result of looking at their inner selves differently. The Russians also sought their own direction in Europe and sought it from Eurasian elements as well. These two perspectives were differentiated into various perspectives through conflict and interaction with each other.

   Russian intellectuals say that within themselves there is a heterogeneous element of ascetic Russian Orthodox beliefs and intense secular desires. Russia clearly shows this duality through its national identity. Russia’s identity turmoil is also the result of geopolitical conditions that were located on the outskirts or in the middle of civilization. Even in the midst of such confusion, the Orthodox church, which has become a customary religion, has a profound influence on politics, economy, and social culture as well as the formation of Russian identity.

   Geographically, Russia encompasses both extremes of the Eurasian continent due to its vast territories facing the East and the West, as well as the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

   Putin wants to take advantage of these geographic conditions to emerge as a great power. To this end, it argues on the reinforcement of authoritarianism and nationalism necessary for efficient state management. Putin’s anti-Western policy reflects a sense of crisis that the introduction of Western-style democracy could jeopardize the security of their regime.

   In summary, the characteristics of Russian political culture are strong centralism and vertical power structure, authoritarianism, dual attitude of envy and rejection toward Europe, pursuit of tradition and vigilance against external forces, minority rule and its domination, state capitalism with nationalism, and imperialism orientation.  

   The lens of national identity is also needed to find out the characteristics of the Russian economy, which is different from that of the West. Russia’s identity, symbolized by nationalism, led to state capitalism in the field of economy as well. In the context of identity, the characteristics of the Russian economy can be explained as a state-led economy, a privileged economy by minority rule, communism, and the tendency to pursue independent economic spheres. State capitalism, in which political logic takes precedence over market, can be interpreted as originating from Russian authoritarianism and nationalist political culture. The nationalization policy, the privileged economy of minority power elites, and the gap between the rich and the poor are in the same vein. The Nobles and permanent residents of the Russian Empire, the nomenclature of the Soviet Union, Oligarhi of the Yeltsin period, and Siloviki of the Putin period form the lineage of the privileged class. In terms of foreign economic policy, Russia is simultaneously promoting openness to the outside world and forming an independent economic block.

   Russia’s nationalistic nature has greatly influenced the legislative system and its culture of conflict resolution. The Orthodox and authoritarian legal system received from the Byzantine Empire in East Rome is inherited to modern Russia. The Putin-era legal culture, called the “dictatorship of the law,” is now more authoritarian than any other country.

   The dispute resolution culture in Russia shows the characteristics of coexistence of the rule by informal relationship of human and rule of law. Dispute resolution methods that rely on informal human relations are governed by personal connections and acquaintances, and may appear as a behavior of taking private interests by bypassing rules and laws. Although the practice of relying on personal connections is still in common use, it is evaluated that the method of solving problems through laws and institutions is gradually becoming established. However, even in the Putin era, dispute resolution is still being criticized for being driven by power or money. It is not the rule of law, but the arbitrary rule of the privileged class using state power.

   In conclusion, Orthodox beliefs and Byzantine authoritarian cultural heritages, geographical and civilized conditions in the middle between Asia and Europe, and hostility to external forces formed by exposure to numerous invasions had a significant impact on Russian identity. In addition, multicultural and multi-ethnical factors following the expansion of territory and internal and external policies of the ruling forces, which have changed by era, are combined to form modern Russia’s political, economic, and social culture.

   The national identity formed in this way provides a consistent and useful context for explaining not only politics, but also the economy and the culture of dispute resolution. Therefore, it is difficult to properly understand this huge country unless an understanding of the national identity embodied in Russian characteristics is prerequisite. Russia’s history, which has created a common denominator of national identity, can be explained as “coexistence of difference and uniformity” amid the vast geographic conditions and the mixture of heterogeneous elements in which multi-ethnic people live. This is also the result of the strong state power trying to dissolve the heterogeneous elements of multi-ethnic and multi-civilization into a unified national identity. Therefore, in order to comprehensively understand the various aspects of Russia, the context of national identity is necessary.

   The Chapter 1 - Introduction (Sang-Nam Park) and Chapter 2 ( Sang- Jun Park and Sang-Hyeon Kim) deals with the theoretical background of identity and the process of forming a Russian identity. The Chapter 3 (Sang-Nam Park) explains the close relationship between Russian identity and politics. Chapter 4 (Yeon-Kwan Cho) analyzed the Russian economy in relation to its identity. Chapter 5 (Young-Ok Kim) introduces the culture of conflict resolution in terms of the authoritarian legal culture of Russia. The Chapter 6 Conclusion ( Sang- Nam Park) contains a comprehensive interpretation and perspective on Russian identity, politics, economy, and legal culture. The last Chapter 7(Sang-Nam Park,  Dong-Ho Yeom, and Young-Ok Kim) presented policy implications for cooperation between Korea and Russia were presented in a large framework.