International Relations
International Relations entails a field of study that assesses the relationships that exist between different cultures and nations. These relationships can affect various things in these countries, such as economics to security, international politics, law, governance, and diplomacy. International helps in understanding the various activities going in different countries in different parts of the world. The relationship between countries plays a vital role in the improvement of the economy of the involved nations as well as the global economy. International relations provides proper information that can help in building a meaningful relationship between nations. It can help a country to enhance its relationship with other countries in terms of economics, politics as well as legal affairs. This is achieved by the evaluation of international relations theories. International relations theories entail the study of foreign affairs from a theoretical perspective. The theories attempt to give a conceptual framework that can be used to analyze global issues. The use of a theoretical framework increases the level of understanding of international relations among countries. The theories cover essential aspects of international relations necessary to understand the link between nations. International relations theories can be used to analyze cases that involve various countries. There are various international theories, which include constructivism, liberalism, realism, and neorealism. This paper will evaluate the neorealism theory and liberalism theory and use the two theories to analyze the Ukraine crisis.
Summary of the Theories
The chosen theories are neorealism theory and liberalism theory.
Neorealism theory
Neorealism is an international theory that argues that power is the most significant factor in international relationships. This theory was developed in the year 1979 by Kenneth Waltz. The main theoretical argument of neorealism is that war is a possibility in international politics. The theory views the international system as anarchic in nature. The institutions, laws, ideologies, norms, and other factors are considered to affect the behavior of the government of various countries (Pakparvar, 2018). Neorealists argue that they do not affect the main role played by the war in international politics. Also, they do not alter the government unit’s characteristics of the involved nations. Neorealism theory focuses on how international structure (distribution of capabilities among the major powers) shapes the results. This theory insists that structural constraints determine the behavior of countries in international relations. The theory sometimes treats the weapon technology (countries that own nuclear weapons) as another vital element (Burchill, 2013). The main difference between neorealism and other older international relations theories is that it is more explicitly theoretical by its attempt to compare the great power politics with an oligopolistic market and its uncomplicated assumptions about the international relations nature.
There are two subdivisions of neorealism, which are defensive neorealism and offensive neorealism. Defensive neorealism argues that the international system anarchical structure encourages nations to maintain reserved and moderate policies to gain security (Wang 2015, p. 1). On the other hand, offensive realism states that states use domination and hegemony to maximize their influence and power to attain security. It argues that nations maximize relative power by focusing on regional harmony. Defensive neorealism purports that aggressive expansion as encouraged by offensive neorealism upsets the state’s tendency to conform to power balance, thereby reducing the main objective of the country of attaining security (Chipman, 2018). Defensive neorealism focus on structural changes such as geography and security dilemma and elite perceptions and beliefs to elaborate on the conflict outbreak.
Liberalism theory
Liberalism is an international relations theory that argues that working together minimizes conflict and maximizes prosperity. This theory bases its argument on the consent of the governed, liberty, and equality before the law. The theory revolves around the following interconnected principles. The first principle is power politics rejection as the only possible result of global relations (Cadier 2014, p. 78). Liberalism points out that the only way of gaining international relations is by rejecting power politics, which divides the states. Avoiding power politics helps the countries to work together to achieve a common objective. The second principle is mutual benefit and international cooperation (Meiser 2018, p.2). This theory focuses on working together in different countries for mutual benefit. It stresses the need for cooperation, which makes it easy for the involved countries to attain their targets. The other principle is shaping policy choices and state preferences through international organizations and non-governmental bodies (Dunne 2014, p. 116). Liberalism recognizes the role played by non-governmental actors and international organizations in formulating state policies. The theory argues that international organizations formulate proper policies after considering the various interests of the involved countries. Such policies lead to cooperation among the states resulting in better international relations.
The theory of liberalism focuses on three factors that encourage less conflict and more cooperation among countries. One of these factors is understanding the role of international institutions. International bodies, such as the United Nations, offer a proper dispute resolution forum in a non-violent manner (Gergun, 2018). This increases cooperation among different countries in the world. The second factor is international trade. The theory argues that the economies of different countries are interconnected through trade. Trade brings together various states that allow them to cooperate and work together to attain their trading goals. The other factor is the spread of democracy (Meiser, 2018, p.3). Countries with well-established democracies increase the interaction of people within the country as well as with other democratic nations. This enhances cooperation among nations, and they can carry out various activities such as trade, thus increasing international relations.
The theory believes that global institutions play a vital duty in enhancing cooperation among nations. These institutions increase interdependence among states, thus reducing the chances of occurrence of international conflict (Deborah Sanders, 2001). Interdependency allows the involved countries to interact in various ways, such as economic, cultural, military, and security. Also, the theory argues that international diplomacy can play an effective role in enhancing the interaction among countries and support non-violent solutions to problems that may arise between nations (Jackson et al., 2019). With proper diplomacy and institutions, countries can cooperate and work together to enhance prosperity and reduce conflict. This theory can be applied to enhance peace and cooperation among nations, thus achieving international relations.
Ukraine Crisis
About Ukraine crisis
Ukraine is a nation that is located between Europe and Russia, which was part of the Soviet Union until the year 1991. Since then, the country had been a democratic nation with an underdeveloped economy and foreign policy that wavers between pro-European and Pro-Russia. According to Fisher (2014), the Ukraine crisis started in 2013, November. Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president, rejected a deal for more interaction between Ukraine and the European Union. This deal could have increased cooperation with the European Union, thus improving the economy of Ukraine (Finnin, 2014). The rejection of this deal made the citizens protest, and Yanukovych tried to use violent means to put down the protest. In the crisis, Yanukovych was backed by Russia, while the protesters were supported by the United States and the European Union.
There are various big things that happened in the crisis. In February 2014, the government was toppled by the anti-government protesters and which led to the ousting of Yanukovych. In March, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea as it tried to salvage its lost Ukraine influence. In April, eastern Ukraine started to be seized by the pro- Russia separatist rebels. This led to the shooting of a Malaysian plane that killed 298 individuals on 17t July 2014. Fisher (2014) puts it clear that the fight between the Ukrainian military and the rebels intensified, and the rebels were almost losing it. In August, the Russian army invaded the east side of Ukraine to support the rebels. This damaged the relationship between Russia and the European countries (Jungmann, 2016). The crisis led to the loss of lives of over 2500 Ukrainians and left the economy of the country at a recession brink. Russia had a centuries-long history of dominating Ukraine (Finnemore Martha, 2004). Ukraine has been divided into two because some people view the country as part of Russia, while others see it as part of Europe. Putin, the president of Russia, is initiating an imperial-revival worldview that views Ukraine as a section of Russia. It seems unlikely that Crimea will get back to Ukraine from Russia. Also, it is unclear if Russia will try to annex more parts in the east of Ukraine.
Cause of the Ukraine Crisis
The root cause of the Ukraine crisis is Ukraine’s open-ended character between Russia and the European Union. Each of the two sides tried to resolve the crisis in its favor, which led to more conflict. The conflict started when the Ukrainian president rejected a deal for more interaction between Ukraine and the European Union (Wilson, 2014). The European Union was trying to stipulate the right of Ukraine to select its alliance freely. The European Union supported the protesters as it tries to end the interaction between Ukraine and Russia. The move of the European Union to support the protesters made Russia invade and support the government as it tried to protect its long-term relationship with Ukraine (McFaul, 2014). Ukraine had an open-ended character with two rival regions; Russia and Europe, which intensifies the crisis.
The causes of the Ukraine crisis can be analyzed in both neorealism and liberalism perspectives. The neorealism perspective focuses on power as the most significant factor in international relationships (Pakparvar, 2018). In the Ukraine crisis, there were two powerful countries (Russia and Europe). These two regions did not recognize the authority and decisions made by Ukraine since it was less powerful. This led to the crisis as the two powerful regions competed over Ukraine (McFaul et al. 2014, p. 168). The liberalism perspective focuses on cooperation among countries to minimize conflict and maximize prosperity. Ukraine failed to involve international bodies in solving the dispute, which intensified the crisis (Dunne 2014, p. 119). International institutions assist in resolving the conflict in a non-violent way, which could have reduced the destruction caused by the Ukraine crisis.
Who is to blame for it?
According to Mearsheimer (2014), the United States and its European allies are to be blamed for the Ukraine crisis. The leading cause of the conflict was to enlarge NATO (Waltz 2000, p.26). The European Union was trying to use this strategy to move Ukraine out of the orbit of Russia and integrate it into the European countries. Some other critical elements were the eastward expansion of the European Union and the European support of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine in the year 2004. The Russian leaders had opposed NATO since the mid-1990s (Mearsheimer 1994, p.12). These leaders had made it clear that they could not allow their strategically vital neighbors such as Ukraine to be turned into a European country. For the Russian President, the overthrowing of the democratically elected president in Ukraine was a wrong decision. Putin reacted by taking Crimea because he feared that NATO would use this area as a naval base, which could have increased the chances of Europe taking Ukraine (Brodermann, 2018). Russia got involved in the war to protect its long term interaction with Ukraine.
According to the western side, Russia’s aggression can be blamed for the Ukraine crisis. However, this statement is not true. Mearsheimer (2014) argues that the West claims that Putin had a long desire to conquer Ukraine, and that is why he annexed Crimea, and may eventually go for the whole country. They emphasize that the ousting of President Yanukovych gave a chance to Putin to order the Russian military to take part in Ukraine (McFaul et al. 2014, p. 171). This statement is not true because Russia responded to Europe’s actions of trying to take Russia.
How should/could it be resolved?
There are various ways that can be used to address the Ukraine crisis. This crisis can be addressed adequately through the liberalism perspective. The following are the ways that can be put in place to address the Ukraine problem. The first way is involving the international institutions in solving the dispute between Russia and Europe over Ukraine. Involving international bodies such as the United Nations can help in addressing this issue without violence. NATO wants to expand its boundaries while Russia has a firm stand that it cannot watch its vital neighbors being westernized (Wolff 2015, p. 1108). This results in a huge disagreement, and the international bodies can intervene to come up with a long term solution considering the interest of both parties. The second solution to address this crisis is by international economic institutions such as the World Bank to increase its financial support to Ukraine. Improving financial assistance will increase the economic stability of Ukraine (Opoka, 2016, p. 77). As a result, the country will be able to reduce the huge dependency on Russia. Ukraine will be able to formulate more independent decisions and economic affairs, and it will be able to select the best ally.
The other way is that the Western partners of Ukraine should push for direct, informal contacts with the Ukraine government. According to Guehenno (2015), this contact will help in building trust between the European region and Ukraine. It will give a good chance of future decentralization, and Ukraine will be able to accept deals from the European Union. Also, western countries can increase their economic support to Ukraine and encourage anti-corruption reforms (Opoka 2016, p. 78). This aid can influence the Ukraine government to consider trading with the European Union. The support from western countries can be highly accepted by anti-government rebels who initiated the protest after the president rejected the European Union’s deal. Another way of solving the crisis is by Ukraine considering to become a bridge between the East and West. Russia and the European countries have been great enemies for a long time (Kissinger 2014, p. 2014). The two regions have conflicting interests over Ukraine. The European Union wants to expand its boundaries to Ukraine while Russia wants to maintain its long term domination over Ukraine. Ukraine can decide to bridge the gap and conflict between Russia and the European countries (Mearsheimer, 1994. This will be achieved by engaging in trade and other forms of relations with the two countries. This will ensure that Ukraine protects the interests of the two regions, thus avoiding the crisis.
Focus of the policymakers
The policymakers should focus on both power and justice. Focusing on power will help in formulating proper policies that will protect Ukraine from the occurrence of another crisis. It will help the Ukraine government to be more powerful in the protection of the country. One of these policies which the policymakers should focus on is the trade policy. According to Basedow (2015), the trade policy played a significant role in the outbreak of the crisis since the Ukraine president was pressured by Russia to reject a trade agreement from the European Union. Focusing on the trading policies will guide how trade will be carried out between Ukraine and the neighboring countries (Dunne et al., 2013). The Ukraine government will be able to reinforce the trade policy to protect the economy of the country. The policymakers should also focus on political policies. They should formulate proper policies that will make the government of the country is more powerful. A powerful government will facilitate the making of a proper decision about the best region to make an ally (Viotti and Kauppi, 2019). Also, a strong government will be able to protect the interest of the country against exploitation from conflicting countries. As a result, the political policies could have reduced the effect of the crisis by offering a strong stand of the country.
The policymakers should also focus on justice. Justice will ensure that Ukraine uses fair means to address the crisis. This will involve the use of international institutions to formulate a proper solution to the problem. Justice will include the use of facts to come up with a solution. One of the issues in the crisis that can be solved through justice is the Russian move to take Crimea (Șerban 2013, p. 54). Crimea is a Ukraine territory, but it was taken by Russia during the crisis. Justice will allow Ukraine and the international institutions to use facts to convince Russia to return Crimea. Justice can yield proper outcomes since it does not use force or violence.
Conclusion
International Relations entails a field of study that assesses the relationships that exist between different cultures and nations. The theories of international relations help in enhancing the level of understanding of the link between countries. Countries can relate in various ways, such as economically, politically, or through laws. The paper analyzes neorealism and liberalism international theories and applies them to the Ukraine crisis. Neorealism focus on power as the most significant element in international relations. Liberalism focus on cooperation among countries to minimize conflict and maximize prosperity. Ukraine crisis was a prolonged conflict that involved Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union. The president of Ukraine rejected the European Union deal, which caused a mass protest in the country. European Union supported the protesters while Russia supported the government, which led to the crisis. The crisis was caused by the open-ended character of Ukraine to both the European Union and Russia. European Union is to be blamed for the crisis because it started the conflict, which forced Russia to react. The crisis can be addressed using various strategies such as involving the international institutions, increasing financial support to Ukraine, west pushing for direct, informal contacts with the Ukraine government and Ukraine considering to become a bridge between the East and West. Policymakers should focus on both power and justice to ensure that Ukraine gets the maximum benefit.
References
Basedow, R. (2015). How trade policy can help settle the Ukraine crisis.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. and True, J., 2013. Theories of international relations. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Brodermann, C., 2018. The Ukrainian Crisis: An Eclectic Analysis.
Cadier, D., 2014. Eastern partnership vs. Eurasian Union? The EU–Russia competition in the shared neighborhood and the Ukraine crisis. Global policy, 5, pp.76-85.
Chipman, j. (2018). A new geopolitical challenge to the rules-based order. IISS. Available at: https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2018/11/challenge-rules-based-order [Accessed 13 Feb. 2020].
Council on Foreign Relations NY, retrieved 22 July 2016 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1618198684/FD5E7091BD847E1PQ/20?accountid=8144
Deborah Sanders (2001). Defense Studies, Department Joint Services Command and Staff College, New York, Palgrave.
Dunne, T. (2014), “Liberalism” in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 6th edition, pp. 113-125, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S. eds., 2013. International relations theories. Oxford University Press.
Finnin Rory, (2014). Ukraine crisis briefing, a short history of Ukraine.
Finnemore Martha, (2004). The purpose of the intervention, changing beliefs about the use of force, Cornell University Press, United States of America.
Fisher, M., 2014. Everything You Need to Know About the Ukraine Crisis. (2014).
Gergun, A. (2018). Ukraine Between Realism and Liberalism: Avoiding The Trap of “Finlandization.” Available at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraine-between-realism-and-liberalism-avoiding-the-trap-finlandization [Accessed 19 Feb. 2020].
Guehenno, J. (2015). Overcoming the Ukraine crisis.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine/overcoming-ukraine-crisis
Jackson, R., Sørensen, G., and Møller, J., 2019. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press, USA.
Jungmann, J. (2016). The European Union’s Relations with Ukraine. [online] Projekter.aau.dk. Available at:https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/239543203/Master_Thesis_European_Studies_Julia_Jungmann.pdf [Accessed 13 Feb. 2020].
Kissinger, H., 2014. How the Ukraine crisis ends. The Washington Post, 6, p.2014.
McFaul, M. (2014). “Moscow’s Choice” in Foreign Affairs, 93:6, pp. 167-171, New York:
McFaul, M., Sestanovich, S., and Mearsheimer, J.J., 2014. Faulty Powers: Who Started the Ukraine Crisis?. Foreign Affairs, 93(6), pp.167-178.
Mearsheimer, J.J., 1994. The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), pp.5-49.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014a). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin. Foreign Aff., 93, 77.
Meiser, J. (2018). Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory. Pp. 1-4.
https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/72781
Opoka, I., 2016. International Approaches to the Crisis in Ukraine. Polish Journal of Political Science, 2(2), pp.73-117.
Pakparvar, M. (2018). Russia-Ukraine Conflict from A Neorealist Perspective. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/mohammad-pakparvar/world-intellectual-property-organization-wipo-an-introduction-ad5c27f75f50 [Accessed 13 Feb. 2020].
Șerban, I., 2013. Theories and Concepts in International Relations–from Idealism to Realism. Revista de Științe Politics. Revue des Sciences Politiques, (40), pp.52-58.
Viotti, P.R., and Kauppi, M.V., 2019. International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Waltz, K.N., 2000. NATO expansion: A realist’s view. Contemporary Security Policy, 21(2), pp.23-38.
Wang, W., 2015. Impact of western sanctions on Russia in the Ukraine crisis. J. Pol. & L., 8, p.1.
Wilson, A., 2014. Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. Yale University Press.
Wolff, A.T., 2015. The future of NATO enlargement after the Ukraine crisis. International Affairs, 91(5), pp.1103-1121.