International Security Understandings And The Ukraine-Russia War

With war raging in Ukraine since February 2022, Russia’s role in international politics has become very clear to be a very unpredictable and that of an impulsive player. Its actions in 2014 take over of Crimea also made it clear, but a war on Ukraine to take over just seems very unlike an action of a 21st Century nation, where peace prevails mostly, and war is detested by all nations. There are many reasons that nations nowadays avoid war, deterrence is one of the most credible of the reasons but also an understanding that war is the last resort in any situation. Stifles between nations are seen to be taken care of through diplomatic means or at most little border scuffles are left to be dealt with through trade and other resource restricting sanctions on nations.

A similar case of it was when Indian and Chinese troops clashed at the Galwan valley border between the two states. The hand to hand combat between soldiers created sensations among the nationalistic spirits of the nations, however, instead of turning to war or attacking each other, India chose to ban Chinese mobile apps, companies and operations in India, hence cutting off any revenue they were generating through them from the Indian population. This way, India made its stance clear on China’s condemnable actions and how they wont be tolerated at any costs by the Indian sides.

Anarchy is just the absence of a central authority figure. The absence of such an entity in the international system is stated in IR to formulate the presence of this discipline's field of interest. Hobbes, who advocated for the formation of a powerful state based on a social compact between citizens, was concerned about anarchy. Hobbes, on the other hand, was discussing the household environment in his native England following the English Civil War. Anarchy in an international system differs from anarchy in a domestic system since the system's components are different nation-states who cannot agree on the existence of a supra-authority. Members of the international system are unable to sign a social contract in this sense. All of the mainstream IR theories take a different approach to anarchy and try to explain how it influences the conduct of diverse entities in the international arena.

Within conceptions of IR, there are two basic understandings of anarchy: one is constructivist, and the other is realist/liberal. The latter considers anarchy to be a concrete phenomenon with which to explain its impact on international relations, whilst the former considers it to be a malleable social phenomenon. States, according to a Realist or Liberal, operate under an anarchical framework in which they cannot trust one another. While Realists and Liberals may dispute on how much anarchy can be controlled, they will undoubtedly agree on the fundamental character of anarchy as a phenomenon. Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that anarchy is more of a social fact of IR than a scientific fact (as mentioned by Hopf). How India has taken a stance on the Ukraine-Russia war is an example of how it just acts as an outside observer and does not partake in any direct actions that might be opposing the historical relations India has with Russia or any current sanctions that heavily impact or restrict the Russian relations trade or political with India.

The Realist would speak in terms of interest, claiming that aiding Ukraine will not benefit India. India relies on Russia to import and maintain defence systems that are critical to its national security, and the government would not want to antagonise a major crude oil supplier like Russia at a time when domestic inflation is rising. As a result, strategic ambivalence is the optimal strategy. The Liberal would mainly agree with the Realist but would value India's commitment to resolve the problem through diplomacy and within the bounds of international law (Keohane mentioned how superpowers need rules and norms). The articulation of such themes would be vital for a Liberal because liberalism places a high value on diplomacy and liberal international norms and standards. A liberal would argue that India must act in its own best interests while simultaneously participating actively in discussion to resolve the dispute. A perception-based approach would be used heavily by the constructivist. He believes that India views Russia as a solid partner (given its history with the old Soviet Union), but America is viewed as a fickle partner with a shakier track record. If these views are correct, India will not criticise a country with whom it has a long-standing relationship (despite American pressure). Ukraine isn't a big deal in India's strategic circles; thus, it doesn't have much weight. While the US-China relationship is viewed as a limited cooperation, the ascent of China remains the key concern (rather than Russia). Perception is far more important in the analytical framework for Constructivists.

All these theories give us various points to look at a countries relations with another and how one theory helps us judge a situation that may arise between the two or how a theory influences a country’s decisions depending on the way a country wants itself to be viewed in various situations involving a global issue or a country that may be creating waves across the international community when a country, as talked about above being Russia here, takes decisions that many detest globally. How in such situations does a country like India make itself clear on its stance on the actions of another country with whom it has cordial relations to say to the least. Here, theories help us with understanding, examining and knowing what the problems and solutions can be and how they might work in favour or against the nations other policies.

Bibliography:

Hopf, Ted. 1998. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’. International Security
Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy