Although realism is often associated with mid-20th century conflicts, the persistent struggle between Russia and Ukraine reveals that the world hasn't entirely moved past power-centric dynamics. Beginning long before the seizing of Crimea in 2014, it is clear that Russia has acted in self-interest- out of a desire for power and what they believe is their own- alongside the fear of democratic and Western-aligned allies - fearing that Ukraine would join NATO. Therefore, realism mirrors many aspects of the conflict, and realist theory can provide insight into the motives of Russia’s invasion; however, the outbreak of conflict was multifactorial and realist theory cannot comprehensively explain the complete picture.
Realism partially explains the motives behind Russia’s actions, due to their origin in self-interest. Realism asserts that the international system is inherently anarchic, with no central authority to enforce order. States, as primary actors, are driven by national interests and the pursuit of power to ensure their survival and security. Realists would argue that by offering Ukraine the chance to join NATO in 2008, the US triggered Russia’s security, thus causing the invasion. As Hans J. Morgenthau writes, realism “assumes that the character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” In this case, the previous act was the support of NATO, the result was Russia’s insecurity and desire to invade Ukraine.
The only two ex-Soviet countries Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine underscore how the promise of NATO in 2008 incited the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cabled in 2008 from Moscow, then-ambassador to Russia and current CIA director William Burns stated “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Demonstrating the significance of the perceived threat to Russia of the notion of Ukraine in NATO. However, this seems very pessimistic to view forms of interdependence as the sole reason for conflict, and, as Professor Randall Schweller humorously noted, when realists enter a bar they order “a vodka half empty.” They seek to blame the whole conflict on interdependence, but is it fair to blame everything on the US and NATO?
What realism fails to consider is that the conflict was created by Putin and the state’s desire to recapture what they believed was truly theirs (from the Russian perspective). As demonstrated by Henry Kissinger to the Washington Post in 2016, “To Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country.” While many of Henry Kissenger’s arguments were from the realist perspective, he realized the Russian motive to restore what they believed in as being their own. Kissinger has also stated, “The vast majority of leading figures in Russia, regardless of their political beliefs, refuse to recognize the collapse of the Soviet empire or the legitimacy of the successor states, especially Ukraine, the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy.” Therefore, the motive to invade Ukraine was not simply started by NATO and the US, but by the Russian government’s imperialistic perspective on Ukraine. Without a doubt, Russia felt threatened by NATO, but, also without a doubt, Russia has always seen Ukraine as its own and sought to recapture it. As Obama noted in 2015, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” Even if the NATO decision did not occur, Russia would’ve still sought to capture Ukraine, for they believed the land was their own, as Kissinger implied. As Kissinger noted when interviewed by Der Spiegel in July 2022, the war is about “the balance of power,” but, on another level, it is a “civil war.” Nevertheless, it is clear Russia’s war on Ukraine is born from self-interest, for Russia both fears democratic neighbors as well as wants to capture what it believes is its own.
However, while realist theory can apply to the causes of the conflict, it does not apply to providing solutions to the conflict. Because realists argue against interdependence, they would argue Ukraine should never join NATO, and that the US should stop providing aid in the conflict, but an enactment of this would be detrimental. Even Kissinger himself agreed that -with the conflict as it was in 2023- “the idea of a neutral Ukraine under these conditions no longer makes sense.” To achieve some level of safety in Ukraine, NATO must back Ukraine.
Therefore, it is evident that Russia solely acts out of self-interest seeking to gain more power and what they believe is their own. However, while realist theories suggest no involvement from NATO, for Ukraine’s survival NATO is critical.
Comments