James M. - Blog Post 1

           The crisis that has broken out in the Ukraine between the new Ukrainian government and that of Putin’s regime in Russia has drawn quite a lot of attention in the past months. There has been much unrest among many pro-Russian Ukrainian citizens against the newer Ukrainian administration that has taken the seat of the past Russian-sympathizing one. This conflict has continued to escalate and draw more of the world’s great powers to take action against Russia. As the crisis continues, many different ways of interpreting why Russia decided to take this action against the Ukraine have been offered.  In the realm of international politics especially, it is important to understand why this would take place. In the GVPT 200 course thus far, we have learned that there are three main paradigms when it comes to analyzing international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. When looking at the crisis in the Ukraine, it becomes clear to me that the actions taken by Russia are best explained from the realist’s point of view.

            To a realist, the main concern for all states is power. All states are seeking to gain power, and to be more powerful than the states that surround them. In relation to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia may have seen that, to become more powerful, they would have to acquire the certain holding in the Ukraine. In acquiring these holdings, Russia would gain not only land, but also the potential to build up its military power, which is the main concern when it comes to power for a realist. They would gain pro-Russians as soldiers, raw materials for weapons and trade as well. This trading of raw materials could boost Russia’s economy, which would in turn lead to Russia being able to sustain an even stronger military force. Yet showing off their power is not the only reason Russia may have wanted to take over parts of Ukraine.

            Several other important aspects of realism that are shown through the Ukrainian crisis are the desire to be the hegemon, survival as the main goal of the state, relative gains, and the need to be secure. All of these ideas can be seen in the action taken by Russia. In an effort to become a more powerful actor in the region, Russia saw that they would have to make moves to gain more power. They also may have seen that to become more secure and to survive, they would need more space to use for resources and perhaps a sort of “buffer” zone to protect from the western European powers. Finally, Russia, in an effort to gain more power relative to the other states surrounding it, saw that it must take some sort of aggressive action. After all, Russia could be feeling threatened by the other major power in the area—China.

            The final point that shows how realism explains the Ukrainian crisis is that there has been no way to stop Russia using international groups such as the United Nations. Realism involves the idea that there are states in anarchy where no international policing power can control what a state does. You will never know exactly what a state will do or how it will act. In regards to Russia, they have still pressed on even though multiple sanctions have been levied against them, lending to the fact that the U.N. has no real power.

            While not every action by a country can be explained through realism, it has become fairly obvious that the actions taken by Russia against the Ukraine can most certainly fit into  the category. Realism will continue to be a paradigm that describes international relations as long as states continue to act in anarchy to gain more power.