Final Blog: Russian- Ukraine War- India’s Stance through Three Theoretical Perspectives

 

Title: Final Blog: Russian- Ukraine War- India’s Stance through Three Theoretical Perspectives

Topic: Analyzing India’s stance in the Russian- Ukraine war using the realist, liberalist, and constructivist framework

Introduction:

From conflict to crisis and then to a full-fledged war, we have seen how the Russian-Ukraine conflict escalated. We also know from my previous blog posts that the crisis did not occur in isolation within Russia and Ukraine; rather, the crisis impacted numerous countries in a variety of ways. With this being said, through this blog post I will attempt to bring out how the three main perspectives (i.e., realists, liberalists, and constructivists) and their understanding of anarchy to explain India’s stance in the Russian-Ukraine crisis, or war.

Minor background on India’s stance:

Within the international arena, India is seen as portraying a neutral stance. India has not criticized Russia as other countries have done. India has also abstained about five times from voting on the United Nations platforms that condemned Russian aggression. It is evident through the way India has responded to the situation that India is trying to help sort out the situation using peaceful diplomatic ways rather than resorting to the use of military or violence.

India’s stance through the three perspectives while using their understanding of anarchy:

Before we analyze India’s stance through the three perspectives, we must understand what we mean when we say anarchy. Here, anarchy does not mean the presence of chaos, but rather the absence of a higher authority. Here it is the absence of authority higher than nation-states in the international arena.

Interlinking realists' understanding of anarchy and the analysis of India’s stance using realism:

We know that realism, as seen by most theorists, is essentially a pessimistic theory. This is because, within realism, states tend to behave in the most egoistic and selfish manner, and the interest of the state lies in everything but peace. Realists argue that most concepts in the world could be explained in terms of an anarchic international system. This further implies that the absence of authority higher than nation states makes states suspicious of each other. Thus, leaving states within a self-help system where they have to look out for themselves. Realists also argue that in a state of anarchy, the human nature of causing conflict will tend to prevail. From these fundamental ideas, we see that a realist would refer to India’s stance as its attempt at survival and to be secure. Here, realists would say that the war had put India in a "neither here nor there" situation and that India's abstaining from voting was merely to protect and secure the nation. Realists would also argue that India as a state was behaving in a selfish and egoistic manner by only looking at the strategic importance Russia holds for India rather than helping Ukraine from the Russian invasion and the anti-humane activities of the Russians. 

Interlinking liberalist understanding of anarchy and the analysis of India’s stance using liberalism:

As students of international relations, we know that within IR, liberalism is considered a more optimistic view when in comparison with realism. This is because liberalists believe that world peace and cooperation can be achieved through trade, democracy, diplomacy, etc. Liberalists argue that the presence of anarchy is inherent in the international system. This essentially means that states are free and are not bound to any higher authority. With this being said, a liberalist would look at India’s stance as an aim for mutual benefit and international co-operation. They would say this, taking India and Russia’s relationship into account. Here, on one hand, India is highly dependent on Russia for its military equipment, while Russia looks at India as one of its largest markets. Therefore, looking for mutual benefits and fostering international co-operation. Liberalists would also acknowledge India’s attempt to sort out the issue using diplomatic practices in order to maintain peace and avoid conflict.

Interlinking constructivist understanding of anarchy and the analysis of India’s stance using constructivism:

According to constructivists we know that the concept of Anarchy is subjective, and it is essentially what the state makes of it. This means that what a state identifies and perceives as a threat is not fixed and can change depending on the social, internal context and the intersubjective meaning that states attach to it. Constructivists recognize anarchy’s existence in the international system. But this we can say that a constructivist will look at India’s stance as a way to protect itself in the long run. They would look at this as India’s attempt to acquire different benefits from Russia and other countries.  Constructivists also argue that power is not the main driver of anarchy but is one of the things that can affect anarchy. By this they mean that international relations and order is shaped, created through time. Thus, stating that intersubjective identities come together in order to constitute the main idea of fundamental context of constructivism. Constructivist would then argue the failure to spot the intersubjective identity within India’s stance. Thereby, bringing out the idea that the constructivist framework might not be applicable within this context.

Conclusion:

While writing all of my blog posts, I realized how theories played a significant role in framing my empirical understanding and how they helped frame the way I looked at issues. Theories do help in broadening one's understanding of an issue. I’ve also realized how important it becomes to look at issues of securitization through different lenses to formulate and create policies that can bring about security. My focus through these blog posts has been to first look at the security aspect of the Russian-Ukraine crisis, then the conflict, and now finally the war, using various lenses to border my perspective and understanding.  I hope I’ve been able to give all of you lovely readers a glimpse into the theory, the ontology, and the empirics of this crisis/war.

Finally, I’d like to leave all of you with a question:

From today's blog post, do you think India’s stance is merely related to its security concerns or is there something else to it?

Bibliography:  

1. Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
2. Götz, Elias. “Russia, the West, and the Ukraine Crisis: Three Contending Perspectives.” Russia, the West, and the Ukraine Crisis (2018): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315175225-1.
3.  Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998, pp. 171–200, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171. 
4. Shankar, Priyanka. “What India.” May 9, 2022. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/9/what-india-position-russia-ukraine-war-means-european-union-ties.