And thus say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, Iam against thee, O God, the chief prince (LXX: ἄρχοντα Ρως; Heb:נְשִׂיא רֹאשׁ) of Meshech and Tubal. (Ezek 38:3)
Among some groups and individuals, it is often stated that Russia is prophesied as an end-times villain in Ezek 38-39, including Ezek 38:3 as quoted above. As Michael S. Heiser notes:
This interpretive strategy is based, in part, on an effort to associate the geographic places named in Ezekiel 38-39 (e.g., Meshech) and then combing historical sources for “tyrant candidates.” At other times, historical identification of God has been attempted by playing with the Hebrew word and creating false linguistic connections with the names of historical figures. In this regard, Lust observes that the Septuagint renders the phrase נְשִׂיא רֹאשׁ (nesi’ rō’sh) as archonta Rōs (“commander of Ros”), and so modern readers can easily mistake the phrase as pointing to Russia.
An equation with Russia is exegetically indefensible and incoherent. Of its many problems,[276] the most lethal is its violation of Hebrew grammar. There are two possible readings allowed by Hebrew syntax for the phrase nesi’ rō’sh: (1) “God, the prince, the chief” (of Meshech and Tubal), and (2) “Gog, chief prince” (of Meshech and Tubal). Both options translate rō’sh as “chief” and thus eliminate understanding it as a place name. Consequently, “Russia” has no exegetical basis according to Hebrew grammar. (Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ [Defender Publishing, 2017], 170-71)
Heiser, in note 276 on pp. 318-19, adds the following against those who wish to see Ezek 38-39 as being, in part, a prophecy of Russia:
[T]here is no such place-name rō’sh known in the ancient world. As Astour has noted, the closest geographical correlation that could be argued is “Ra’shi (or Ara’shi) of Neo-Assyrian records, a district on the border of Babylonia and Elam . . . which had nothing in common with Meshech and Tubal” (M.C. Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 [1976]: 567, note 4). Further, the place-name “Rosh” would have had no meaning to an ancient Hebrew audience, since “the name Rus was first brought to the region of the Kiev by the Vikings in the Middle Ages” (E. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes [Wipf & Stock Publishers; 2003], 23). Rus and the longer Russia are of course Indo-European words, while Hebrew is from the Semitic language family. Consequently, a Rosh:Russia equation is a linguistic fallacy (false etymology). Additionally, aside from Genesis 10’s placement of Meshech and Tubal in Anatolia, Ezekiel’s descriptions of those places in Ezek 27:12-15 have them located among nations adjacent to Anatolia. The place-names are thus not the Russian cities, but ancient ethnic groups firmly situated in the ancient near eastern geographical reality of the Hebrew Bible.
Here is Ezek 27:12-15, referenced by Heiser as biblical evidence against such a nonsense reading of the Bible:
Tarshish traded with you because of your wealth of all kinds of goods; they bartered silver, iron, tin, and lead for your wares. Javan, Tubal, and Meshech -- they were your merchants; they trafficked with you in human beings and copper utensils. From Beth-togarmah they bartered horses, horsemen, and mules for your wares. The people of Dedan were your merchants; many coastlands traded under your rule and rendered you tribute in ivory tusks and ebony. (1985 JPS Tanakh Translation)
The Rosh = Russia interpretation is a nonsense theory slain by the facts.