Russia and Ukraine: Three Perspectives, One Conflict
Ukraine is a country that is sandwiched between two continents: Russia and Europe. It was a member of the Soviet Union until 1991, and since then, it has been a democracy with a poor economy and a foreign policy that oscillates between pro-Russian and pro-European positions. It all started with a domestic Ukrainian crisis in November 2013, when President Viktor Yanukovych rejected the proposal for a closer European Union integration. Several significant events have occurred since then. In February, anti-government rallies overthrew the government, causing Yanukovych to flee the country. In order to reclaim its lost influence in Ukraine, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea the next month. In April, pro-Russian separatists began seizing territory in eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, on July 17, the rebels shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, tragically killing 298 people. Fighting between the insurgents and the Ukrainian military intensified, the rebels began to lose ground, and the Russian army invaded eastern Ukraine openly in support of the rebels in August. All of this has pushed the relationship between Russia and the West to its lowest point since the Cold War.
The security dilemma is the heart of structural realist theory: in anarchy, actions taken for one’s own security can threaten the security of others, leading to arms races, conflict and war. The fundamental cause of the security dilemma is uncertainty (Mitzen, 2006). Realists’ approach to resolve crises and international conflicts is based on executing countermeasures to protect their borders and essentially the ‘sphere of influence’ in the neighbouring countries. The history of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be dated back to hundreds of years, which makes it even more complex and complicated to understand or solve. The realist perspective that Putin prefers makes him take an outspoken stance against the European Union (EU) expansion and the enlargement of NATO since rising to power in 1999. Putin views the absorption of Ukraine by Western countries through NATO as a matter of national security and defence. Ukraine also as pro-serparatist areas that are used by Russia as way to initiate the invasion into Ukraine and to reunite Soviet Union territories. Protecting borders and hesitating the enlargement of foreign countries is a strategy that is often used by the United States. The United States must address the rebuilding of a sovereign Ukraine, but it must narrow its focus and delegate defence to the EU and other NATO troops. Equally, if not more important, the concept of absolute gains fails to capture the reality of interstate relationships among Third World countries themselves (Ayoob). If looked at from a realpolitik perspective, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia has proved beneficial for the United States and fared poorly for Russia.
The liberal side of the debate is not just defended by the ‘old liberal bastions’ of the US and Western Europe but instead, it is the people of Ukraine who have assembled to fight for liberal autonomy and freedom from oppression. The liberals used the pretext of ‘War on Terror’ to justify a biased and an inequitable war that undermines liberal rights and norms in the name of protection and security. Liberalism holds that what states do is mostly influenced by their internal qualities and the structure of their interconnections. The liberalist side divides the world into two sides- good and bad. The solution according to liberalists is to combat tyrants and promote democracy and institutions that promote the same ideals of equality. They believe that conflicts arise from impetuous decisions taken by democrats, leaders and aristocrats. They also maintain that when states are bound by a set of rules and the way of trade, conflicts and wars are less likely. Following the end of the Cold War, Western elites believed that realism was no longer important and that foreign policy should be guided by liberal principles and ideology. The Article 10 of the NATO Treaty states that “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.” No country is obligated to join NATO especially if their inclusion would make other countries insecure. Regardless of the details, it was irresponsible and pointless to go around and tell the world about this ambition. Any military alliance can add new members if the existing members agree, and NATO has done so multiple times. However, explicitly declaring an active and unrestricted commitment to expanding eastward was sure to inflame Russian suspicions even more. The international response to Putin's conflict in Ukraine exemplifies what free democracies can do when they work together. Consider one of the most stunning developments: the United States, the European Union, and Japan all sanctioned Russia's central bank.
Putin's annexation of Crimea is consistent with the Constructivist viewpoint. To understand Russia’s decisions, it is imperative that we understand the government’s interests in Ukraine. In general, rational actors operate in a rational manner, which is understandable to outsiders in rational terms (Robert Keohane). Constructivism offers alternative understandings of a number of the central themes in international relations theory, including: the meaning of anarchy and balance of power, the relationship between state identity and interest, an elaboration of power, and the prospects for change in world politics. Constructivism itself should be understood in its conventional and critical variants, the latter being more closely tied to critical social theory (Hopf). Constructivists believe Putin’s reactions and actions to be rational because according to them the Russian government acted toward items, including other actors, based on the perceived value of those objects in the society in which the actor functions.
Nonetheless, the conflict in Ukraine differs from the 2008 Russo-Georgian War in terms of the importance of the conflict to both the West and Russia. Pulling Ukraine out of Russia's orbit would hurt Russia and enhance NATO, whilst maintaining the status quo would allow Russia to remain a key satellite state and maintain regional influence. In the end, no matter which side of the debate you belong to, what matters is that each nation does its part to prevent wars and conflicts as much as possible.
Works Cited
Ayoob, Mohammed. 2002. ‘Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism’. International Studies Review 4 (3): 27–48.
Amirkhanov, Eltaj. (2022). Analysis of the Russia-Ukraine War (2014) from the Perspectives of Three Theories of International Relations.
Drezner, Daniel W. “Can realism explain the war in Ukraine?” The Washington Post, 3 March 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/. Accessed 3 May 2022.
Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” 1998. Accessed 29 April 2022.
Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.
Source: Moneycontrol
The security dilemma is the heart of structural realist theory: in anarchy, actions taken for one’s own security can threaten the security of others, leading to arms races, conflict and war. The fundamental cause of the security dilemma is uncertainty (Mitzen, 2006). Realists’ approach to resolve crises and international conflicts is based on executing countermeasures to protect their borders and essentially the ‘sphere of influence’ in the neighbouring countries. The history of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be dated back to hundreds of years, which makes it even more complex and complicated to understand or solve. The realist perspective that Putin prefers makes him take an outspoken stance against the European Union (EU) expansion and the enlargement of NATO since rising to power in 1999. Putin views the absorption of Ukraine by Western countries through NATO as a matter of national security and defence. Ukraine also as pro-serparatist areas that are used by Russia as way to initiate the invasion into Ukraine and to reunite Soviet Union territories. Protecting borders and hesitating the enlargement of foreign countries is a strategy that is often used by the United States. The United States must address the rebuilding of a sovereign Ukraine, but it must narrow its focus and delegate defence to the EU and other NATO troops. Equally, if not more important, the concept of absolute gains fails to capture the reality of interstate relationships among Third World countries themselves (Ayoob). If looked at from a realpolitik perspective, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia has proved beneficial for the United States and fared poorly for Russia.
The liberal side of the debate is not just defended by the ‘old liberal bastions’ of the US and Western Europe but instead, it is the people of Ukraine who have assembled to fight for liberal autonomy and freedom from oppression. The liberals used the pretext of ‘War on Terror’ to justify a biased and an inequitable war that undermines liberal rights and norms in the name of protection and security. Liberalism holds that what states do is mostly influenced by their internal qualities and the structure of their interconnections. The liberalist side divides the world into two sides- good and bad. The solution according to liberalists is to combat tyrants and promote democracy and institutions that promote the same ideals of equality. They believe that conflicts arise from impetuous decisions taken by democrats, leaders and aristocrats. They also maintain that when states are bound by a set of rules and the way of trade, conflicts and wars are less likely. Following the end of the Cold War, Western elites believed that realism was no longer important and that foreign policy should be guided by liberal principles and ideology. The Article 10 of the NATO Treaty states that “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.” No country is obligated to join NATO especially if their inclusion would make other countries insecure. Regardless of the details, it was irresponsible and pointless to go around and tell the world about this ambition. Any military alliance can add new members if the existing members agree, and NATO has done so multiple times. However, explicitly declaring an active and unrestricted commitment to expanding eastward was sure to inflame Russian suspicions even more. The international response to Putin's conflict in Ukraine exemplifies what free democracies can do when they work together. Consider one of the most stunning developments: the United States, the European Union, and Japan all sanctioned Russia's central bank.
Source: NPR
Putin's annexation of Crimea is consistent with the Constructivist viewpoint. To understand Russia’s decisions, it is imperative that we understand the government’s interests in Ukraine. In general, rational actors operate in a rational manner, which is understandable to outsiders in rational terms (Robert Keohane). Constructivism offers alternative understandings of a number of the central themes in international relations theory, including: the meaning of anarchy and balance of power, the relationship between state identity and interest, an elaboration of power, and the prospects for change in world politics. Constructivism itself should be understood in its conventional and critical variants, the latter being more closely tied to critical social theory (Hopf). Constructivists believe Putin’s reactions and actions to be rational because according to them the Russian government acted toward items, including other actors, based on the perceived value of those objects in the society in which the actor functions.
Nonetheless, the conflict in Ukraine differs from the 2008 Russo-Georgian War in terms of the importance of the conflict to both the West and Russia. Pulling Ukraine out of Russia's orbit would hurt Russia and enhance NATO, whilst maintaining the status quo would allow Russia to remain a key satellite state and maintain regional influence. In the end, no matter which side of the debate you belong to, what matters is that each nation does its part to prevent wars and conflicts as much as possible.
Works Cited
Ayoob, Mohammed. 2002. ‘Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism’. International Studies Review 4 (3): 27–48.
Amirkhanov, Eltaj. (2022). Analysis of the Russia-Ukraine War (2014) from the Perspectives of Three Theories of International Relations.
Drezner, Daniel W. “Can realism explain the war in Ukraine?” The Washington Post, 3 March 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/. Accessed 3 May 2022.
Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” 1998. Accessed 29 April 2022.
Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.
Comments
Post a Comment