By Prithvi Naresh Rathod
Realism devalues the role of norms as a big constraint in the great-power behaviour, but in reality, norms have actually played a significant role in explaining the effective response to Russia’s invasion.
Right after the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, an old video of Prof. Mearsheimer has been doing rounds on social media which clearly justify Russian actions in Ukraine. The video got so popular that in fact, the Russian Foreign Ministry also reshared the video in order to justify their actions. This can be taken as a good example of how precisely ‘academia’ explains the ‘real world’. This has opened up a new discussion among the IR Theorists who are presenting their analysis of events based on some theory or the other. In my opinion, realism can explain the overall conflict very well, but still other aspects of the war can also be explained by Liberalism.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine
The Russian invasion of Ukraine can be explained well by Realism since it portrays a world without any central authority which can protect states from each other. This makes the states worry about a dangerous aggressor that might threaten them in the future. This forces the states, especially great powers, to be concerned about their security and leads to great power competition. This is the concept of classical realism called the ‘security dilemma’. To understand this concept, we need to go back to the US move for expansion of NATO in the 1990s by offering countries like Georgia and Ukraine a theoretical chance to join NATO. This triggered a security dilemma for Russia that led to the Russian invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. The security dilemma arises because the steps taken by one state to make itself more secure often makes other states less secure. In the end, both countries end up being poorer and less safer than they were before. This explains why Eastern European states wanted to get into NATO and why Russian leaders became insecure due to it.
The Western response the Invasion
The Western response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine can again be explained by Realism. The quick response by the west can be understood by the concept of ‘alliance politics’. Russia’s actions threatened the West which thus commanded a swift response by displaying a balancing behaviour. This alliance politics worked since shared values bring alliances closer and abiding; but serious commitments to collective defence security is possible only if there is perception of a common threat. The level of threat, in turn, depends on the power, proximity, and the enemy’s capabilities and intentions.
I believe that Liberal institutionalism helps us understand the unified Western response more aptly. If an institution like NATO did not exist, the response couldn’t have been so effective. Even though International institutions cannot resolve conflicts of interest or stop great powers from acting as per their wishes, they still facilitate effective collective responses.
The shortcomings of Liberal Institutionalism
In the recent past, there have been instances when the international institutions and international law have proved to be weak when it comes to keeping the great powers in control. Even in 2022, economic interdependence did not stop Russia from launching its invasion of Ukraine, despite the costs that it will have to face as a result. Even the public opinion could not stop Russia. The General Assembly’s one-sided 141-5 vote (with 35 abstentions) condemning the Russian invasion didn't have much impact either. This war has thus demolished the liberal belief that war was no longer “thinkable” in Europe.
The shortcomings of Realism
Realism devalues the role of norms as a big constraint in the great-power behaviour, but in reality, norms have actually played a significant role in explaining the effective response to Russia’s invasion. Russia had trampled over most of the norms pertaining to the use of force and that partly explains why countries and corporations around the world have judged Russia so harshly and their rapid response. This shows that even if nothing can stop a country from violating global norms, obvious transgressions will customarily affect how its intentions are judged.
This whole tragic war could have been avoided if the US and its NATO allies had not given way to liberal idealism. If they would have stuck to the core insights of realism, this crisis would not have occurred and Russia would have never invaded Crimea and Ukraine would have been safe. According to Realism, wars occur because the international system is anarchic and states compete for power and may use force to make themselves more secure or gain advantages. Also, since there is no way that the states can know exactly what other states may do in the future, this makes them more reluctant to trust each other and thus encourages them to sidestep against the possibility that another more powerful state may try to harm them at some point in the future. This is exactly what makes us understand the behaviour of Russia in response to the NATO expansion by the US and its allies.
Prithvi Naresh Rathod is pursuing MA in Politics (with specialization in International Studies) at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.