This is something I've addressed before, here. On a purely technical basis, the distance across the Pacific was larger, the maritime technology was not sufficient, and the motive for doing so was nonexistent – Europeans wanted to reach Asia, Asians were already there. But in a broader sense, this kind of question is built on an implicit assumption that the Americas existed solely to be 'discovered' and exploited by Eurasians, and that this was some kind of historical inevitability.

Also, a side note regarding Russia: Okhotsk, the first Russian settlement on the Pacific coast, was not founded until 1650, over a century and a half after Columbus 'discovered' the Americas.

There is actually a growing body of archaeological evidence that suggests that Polynesian peoples made contact with America well before the 15th century, though it is difficult to date when exactly this contact would have occurred. You can read about this evidence in Terry Jones et al. eds., Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World (2011).

To summarize some of these authors' findings, there are certain objects that suggest Polynesian contact, including fishing implements: pre-1400s hooks and harpoons were found in California that have a close resemblance to those found in areas of Polynesia. Other objects that suggest Polynesian contact include chicken bones and sweet potatoes.

Oral indigenous histories also include some evidence that suggests non-European contact before Columbus. For instance, there was an indigenous Ecuadorian founding story recorded in the 17th century that talks about tall men coming to the area from the west in cane boats. For more on these oral histories, see Garcilaso de la Vega, The Incas, ed. Alain Gheerbrant (1961), and E. S. C. Handy, Marquesan Legends (1930).

So to sum up, Europe may not have been the first region to make contact with America.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!