In the U.S. I can sign a contract with a private party–or even with the government–and reasonably expect (a) that the terms will be complied with or (b) if they are not, to have reasonable options for compelling performance or collecting damages. In Somalia, on the other hand, a contract is merely a discussion aid. Forcing performance or collecting damages requires deploying force.
Russia is in between. The courts are venal and capricious. This means that a contract saying one thing can be interpreted differently because of the counterparty's political connections. (Not saying that doesn't happen everywhere, but its degree and brazenness is greater in states without a firm rule of law, like Russia.) It also means that any disagreement could escalate unpredictably to one's property being sacked and self being jailed.
None of this makes Russia an impossible place to do business. But it does make it more costly, in the form of ambiguous risks and the unique and uncertain costs of mitigating them.