Russia/Ukraine Conflict Explained Using Realism Theory of International Relations. Are Russia and The US Destined For War?

Russia/Ukraine Conflict Explained Using Realism Theory of International Relations. Are Russia and The US Destined For War?

Solution

Realism theory of international relations is one of international relations theories that help in understanding how international systems work, as well as how countries engage with one another and how they view the world. International relations theories are usually used by diplomats and international relations experts to formulate the direction that governments ought to take regarding international political concerns or issues. However, anyone can use them to understand why their countries behave the way they do. As such, by studying main international relations theories, concerned stakeholders can better comprehend motivations and goals dictating policy decisions globally.

The three major international relations theories are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. However, this paper will concentrate on Realism theory. Realism is a major school of thought in international relations theory positing that all countries perpetually work to increase their power, and nations that manage to horde power most efficiently will thrive because those nations can easily eclipse the achievements of countries that are less powerful. As per the theory, interstate politics is a permanent bargaining game over the distribution of power, thus it describes world politics as a state of war, and a struggle for power because the nature of humanity or the structure of international order allows wars to occur. Thus, realism theory is generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict and war.

Additionally, the theory maintains that the first priority of a nation should be self-preservation and that perpetually gaining power must always be a social, economic, and political imperative. Further, the nature of realism infers that seeking a moral high ground is an objective that governments cannot achieve at all times and that deceit and violence can be very effective tools for promoting national interests. As such, with the defense of a nation being the highest priority, policies agreed upon through international organizations can be ignored, albeit to some extent, while foreign policy that is intended to improve a country’s global stature is enforced. In tandem, realism theory posits that states coexist in a context of international anarchy, which refers to the absence of a centralized authority to protect states from one another, each state has to survive on its own. Thus, states are by definition self-help agents. The theory assumes that within the hierarchy of international relations issues, national security tops the list. For them, military and related political issues dominate world politics.

Realists can be categorized into three groups based on their view of the vital causes of conflicts between nations. Classical realists maintain it results from human nature; neorealists accredit it to the anarchic state system; while neoclassical realists maintain it results from both, in combination with domestic politics. Although realism is a very diverse body of thought as can be shown by its varying branches, it is unified by the view that global politics is always and necessarily a zone of conflict among states in pursuit of power.

Let us use Realism Theory to Understand Russia’s Annexation of Crimea

In 2013, the President of Ukraine, Yanukovich, declined to sign a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU. This led to huge and violent demonstrations in the country. Consequently, Yanukovich was removed from office in February 2014 where an interim government took over, which Russia did not recognize. Thereafter, troops appeared in Crimea and took control of key government and military buildings and other facilities of strategic importance. A classical realist would present this example of Russia’s actions towards Ukraine as the former taking the chance to step in and push through with its influence, as a result of instability in Ukraine.

Further on, in March 2014, a referendum was held asking the Crimea population if they wanted to remain part of Ukraine or join Russia. The Supreme Council of Crimea claimed that the referendum was as a result of not recognizing the interim government in Kiev as legitimate. The referendum, which was supported by Russia passed and Crimea’s Supreme Council declared Crimea as independent from Ukraine which later officially became part of Russia. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, justified his country’s actions in Crimea as Russia’s moral duty to look after Russian communities living outside Russian territories and to respect the will of Crimea to re-join the motherland. The way Russia views the events after Yanukovich removal from office is that Kiev violated an agreement in which Russia recognized an independent Ukraine as long as it did not pursue anti-Russian policy and did not align itself with the West. Russia felt threatened if Ukraine was to go