Student Names:

Ebanzi
Imibongo
Mcengwa
Student no#:

201906547

Course:
Pol
322

Topic:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 reinforces realist assumptions on the
preponderance of power in world politics. Elaborate on the reasons for the Russian invasion of
Ukraine. In your answer, use the Realist theory to explain using examples, why military power
still remains important in contemporary international relations.

Introduction

In answering the question at hand, we believe that one must first understand what realism is in
international relations. What is realism in international relations construed from the vantage
point of international relations? Realism is a school of thought that emphasizes the competitive
and conflictual side of international relations, it is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism
which tends to emphasize cooperation between and among states. This explains why the realists
consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states which are concerned with their
own Security Act in pursuit of their national interests and struggle for power. It is also important
to note that realism claims to offer both the most accurate explanation of state behavior and a set
of policy prescriptions notably the balance of power between states for ameliorating the inherent
destabilizing elements of international affairs.

Realism also focuses on abiding patterns of interaction in an international system lacking a

centralized political authority there are many different realist theories within this broad tradition,
but each of them sees states as the central actors in world affairs and emphasizes that they
coexist in an anarchic social order where there is no central authority to protect them from one
another. As a result, realist theories see the insecurity of states or sub-state groups as the central
problem in international relations. In short, realism depicts the international system as a realm
where self-help is the primary motivation and states must provide security for themselves
because no other agency or actor can be counted on.

The question, therefore, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 reinforces realist
assumptions on the preponderance of power in world politics. One will therefore need to
elaborate on the reasons for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In your answer, use the Realist
theory to explain using examples, why military power remains important in contemporary
international relations. The answer is simply that realism is a theory essentially about power and
security, states relentlessly seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system. One
seeks security, seek prestige, and most of all realists say they seek autonomy because in a world
where you can never trust anyone you don't want to be interdependent.

Liberals believe in interdependence, they thinks it leads to peace however, realist tend to be very
skeptical about interdependence. This is because who wants to be mutually dependent in a world
that's very dangerous, essentially today's friend could be tomorrow's enemy and to extent that's
true. You may never know who's going to be aligned against you down the road or who's making
plans against you now so you can never have enough power and the question is how much is
enough power?

We never know who's going to be lined up against me in 10 years, thus, realists don't believe in
sort of utopian muddleheaded schemes that would provide a perpetual peace in the world based
on some notion of a natural harmony of interests among states. Instead, realists see the world in
terms of tragedy and evil, and essentially the best you can hope for is that people choose the
lesser evil and try to be as good as they can be in an evil world. The bottom line is that realists
may not be angels but in the real-world angels often turn out to be brutes. Because if you're
moralizing crusading saying we don't like your human rights policies and we don't like your
regime the way it's not democratic enough it's not liberal enough.

Then you're going to get involved everywhere and the problem with promoting democracy is it is
proving that it may not be working firstly and secondly it almost always leads to a quagmire.
Again, there is no natural harmony of interest in the world realist understand that so you just
have to live with diversity. We believe liberals don't understand that, for an example most of
American wars have been a particularly since the end of the Cold War have been all about
promoting democracy and human rights. Liberals would actually say that the only just wars are
the ones that promotes human rights, whereas a realist would say the only just wars are those that
promotes the national interest and if there are no threats in the environment then you retrench.

Essentially realism sees the world as a Hobbesian war of all against all in a state of nature, the
state of nature meaning there is no world government it's just everyone out for themselves.
Which doesn't mean that war always occurs it just means that the danger of war is always lurking
in the background of all international politics. And this would explain the rational behind Putin’s
decision to invade Ukraine.
The historical background of Russia and Ukraine and the Reason for the recent 2022 invasion of
Ukraine by Russia.

According to some scholars and Political analysts, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constitutes the
biggest threat to peace and security in Europe since the end of the Cold War. “On February 21,
2022, Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a bizarre and at times unhinged speech laying out a
long list of grievances as justification for the “special military operation” announced the
following day. While these grievances included the long-simmering dispute over the expansion
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the shape of the post–Cold War security
architecture in Europe, the speech centered on a much more fundamental issue: the legitimacy of
Ukrainian identity and statehood themselves”.

It reflected a worldview Putin had long expressed, emphasizing the deep-seated unity among the
Eastern Slavs, Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, whom all trace their origins to the
medieval Kyivan Rus commonwealth and suggesting that the modern states of Russia, Ukraine,
and Belarus should share a political destiny both today and in the future. The corollary to that
view is the claim that distinct Ukrainian and Belarusian identities are the product of foreign
manipulation and that, today, the West is following in the footsteps of Russia’s imperial rivals in
using Ukraine (and Belarus) as part of an “anti-Russia project.”

Historically these countries share a history and this history may be able to bring some light into
why Putin is so hell bent on this invasion of Ukraine. In the 9th century there was a state called
Kyevan Rus this is where it was located geographically where modern day Ukraine is, the Slavic
people lived here the city of Kiev was their capital. Between 980 and 1015 the Kyevan Rus was
ruled by grand Prince Volodymyr in Russian his name is Vladimir in Ukrainian Volodymyr, and
as fate would have it these are also the names of the presidents of these two countries today.
Russians Ukrainians and Valor Russians draw their lineage from this Slavic state. A lot changed
in the centuries that followed and for a lot of it Ukraine was under Russian rule, in the 1900s the
two were Soviet republics Russia the most powerful of the 15 republics and Ukraine the second
most powerful, it had defense industries large agricultural lands and housed much of the Soviet
nuclear arsenal.

During the Cold War Ukraine was the arch-rival of the United States, the Soviet Union collapsed
in 1991 Ukraine became independent as did Russia. Ukraine inherited much of the Soviet
nuclear arsenal but gave it up to Russia in 1994, in exchange Moscow guaranteed Ukraine’s
security and promised to respect its sovereignty. They signed the Budapest memorandum along
with these countries, Belarus, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Kazakhstan.
November 2013 victory Yanukovych was the president of Ukraine he had a reputation for heavy-
handedness corruption and above all for being openly pro-Moscow. In 2013 he rejected an EU
trade deal, this deal could have meant greater integration with the European Union, instead,
Yanukovych decided to take a $15 billion bailout from Russia which to many Ukrainians felt
like being sold to Moscow thus protests broke out. These protests were called Euromaidan euro
because these protests were about Europe and Maidan because it happened in Caves Maidan
what we today knew as the independence square where protesters chanted “signed the EU deal
Yanukovych must step down”.

Russia supported the president. However, the West supported the protesters. In February 2014
Yanukovych’s government was toppled the president was driven out of Ukraine he fled to
Russia. However, not every Ukrainian was happy with this many, in the Russian-speaking East
wanted Yanukovych to stay, when he was driven out the minority felt disenfranchised. On the
other side of the border Russia was angry it had lost its puppet state, to salvage the situation
Moscow annexed Crimea. Why Crimea? Well, Crimea is a peninsula it is located in the Black
Sea, in 1954 Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea it was given to the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Why? Khrushchev hoped
the transfer would strengthen brotherly ties between the Ukrainian and Russian people.

Both Russia and Crimea were part of the Soviet Union, so this transfer did not mean very much
when Ukraine became independent in 1991 Crimea joined it the peninsula was given special
autonomy, however, it remained home to Russian military bases. Moscow promised to respect
Crimea’s autonomy many in Russia believed Crimea should not have been allowed to join
Ukraine. In 2014 Yanukovych was ousted from power in Ukraine Russian military began seizing
government buildings in Crimea so the entire peninsula was under military occupation. A
referendum followed on the 16th of March 2014 Crimeans voted to become a part of Russia.

One would ask was this vote legitimate. It depends on who you ask for Putin this was Crimea as
liberation but the rest of the world this was Crimea annexation. The focus then shifted to eastern
Ukraine where Russia-backed separatists had seized territory, Ukrainian forces did not launch an
all-out offensive at first, but on the 17th of July 2014 when a flight carrying 298 people was shot
down by these rebels. Ukrainian forces decided to flush out the rebels the separatists began
losing ground, so the Russian army stepped in they invaded eastern Ukraine and fought
alongside the rebels, what followed was a series of talks between Russia Ukraine and the West.

They resulted in the Minsk accords “this was first signed in 2014 both sides agreed on a
ceasefire and military withdrawal Ukraine agreed to hold elections in the rebel-held areas. Eight
years on the Minsk accords remain unimplemented. Ukraine stands as the largest European
country excluding Russia, it covers an area of more than six 100,000 square kilometers with a
population of 44 million and a GDP of more than $155 billion per capita income of more than
$3700. Today Ukraine is divided between east and West in more ways than one. The West sees
itself as more European the east is closer to Russia which in terms of geography or sentiment, in
the West most Ukrainians speak Ukrainian in the east 1/3 are native Russians in West Russia has
been looked at with suspicion in east Russia has been looked at through the lens of shared history
and heritage”. (The Minsk-2 agreement)

Ukraine also remains at war its forces are fighting the rebels in the east rebel leaders are ruling at
least two regions Donetsk and Luhansk together they're known as the Donbas region. Russia has
once again sent its troops this time there stationed right at the border. What does Vladimir Putin
want? easily for NATO to stop expanding, NATO stands for North Atlantic treaty organization
it's a military alliance that these countries are the founding members of NATO, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United
Kingdom, and the United States. These countries joined it during the Cold War Greece, turkey.
West Germany, and Spain, and the rest of its member countries joined after it.
Ukraine wants to join NATO too however Putin wants NATO to exclude Ukraine and every
former Soviet state, and this is just half the story a lot is hidden in history. For starters there is
domestic politics when Putin annexed Crimea is approval rating skyrocketed, keeping the
nationalistic drum ruling helps the Russian President annexing parts of Ukraine also helps Putin
restore Russia superpower image. Back to history many Russians viewed Ukraine’s
independence as a mistake it is true that Ukraine was ruled by Russia in fact Ukraine has barely
remained independent pre-1991, there was a brief period before World War One and then
another stint in 1600, for the rest of its modern history Ukraine was under Russia. One in six
Ukrainians is an ethnic Russian, and one in three speaks Russian as a native language, so Putin is
right when he says historically, they were one.

However, claiming Ukraine on the basis of colonial history is somewhat wrong it will be like
Britain claiming India or South Africa, or Spain claiming the Philippines past imperialism cannot
justify present day expansionism. Here's what else history tells us, Ukraine was forcefully
crucified the 1700 Russian leader Catherine the great started crucifying Ukraine, ethnic Russians
were shipped to this part of the world, schools were told to teach Russian language by 1800 the
Ukrainian language was banned. In 1930s Soviet leader Joseph Stalin steered a famine in
Ukraine millions of eastern Ukrainians were killed the area was then repopulated with ethnic
Russians. In the 1940s the ethnic tartars relocated they two were replaced with Russians there is
a reason why eastern Ukraine today has so many native Russian speakers it was designed to be
that way eastern Ukraine was always dear to Russia it has cold it has iron fertile land its
historical connection with Russia was forced.

According to Jeffrey Mankoff, “Putin time and again talks about the Holy Ruse he says Russians
and Ukrainians are one people, 70% of Ukrainians reject this thought, 72% consider Russia a
hostile state today 33.3% of Ukrainians are ready to take up arms against Russia 21.7% are ready
to stage a civil resistance against Russia 67% Ukrainians want to join the EU 59% want to join
the NATO. The current Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky came to power in 2019
following a landslide victory he's a vocal critic of Russia Zalinski openly opposes the Russian
occupation of eastern Ukraine, 73% of Ukrainian voters voted this man to power”. Today
Volodymyr Zalinski represents the pulse of Ukraine, the Ukraine that wants to remain
independent of Russia. However, Vladimir Putin wants to become the man who revived Russian
imperialism, however, he does not realize the world has moved on from that way of life or has it?

The relevance of power in contemporary international relations.

According to Yannis A. Stivachtis, “Power is a fundamental concept in the social sciences and
lies at the core of the practice of international politics. Despite its significance, power has been
absent from the scholarly debate in International Relations for quite some time. The growing
worldwide influence of the "normative power Europe " in conjunction with the inability of the
U.S. to translate its material strength into desired political outcomes have put into question any
conception of power based entirely on quantifiable material resources. More than anything else,
the "paradox of American power " has raised profound questions about the nature of power in
contemporary global politics. An enhanced understanding of power in contemporary
international and world society requires one to focus on the social aspects of the concept”.

“This endeavor is essential to comprehend the shortcomings of current U.S. foreign policy and
the efforts of successive post-cold War American administrations to maintain a global hegemony
mainly through the exercise of hard power. The political and social theory provides instructive
insights into the concept of power that inform a better understanding of the relevance of the
various forms of the term in contemporary international relations. The current U.S.
Administration's view of power and legitimacy is deeply mistaken and can only lead to
dysfunctional policies and practices. Material resources are not irrelevant to power but do not
automatically produce political influence. Effective influence depends on more than military
coercion. It depends on the degree to which a state's policies”.

Power or balance of power in international relations is defined as, balance of power is the
equilibrium of power among members of the family of nations will prevent any one of them from
becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the others. The power equation between
states as based on an assessment of each states relative power capabilities and this assessment
provides the basis for the conduct of relations between them. Balance of power from a historical
perspective, from 1648 peace of Westphalia to 1789 French Revolution was a golden age of
classical balance of power when the Princess of Europe began accepting balance of power as the
supreme principle of foreign policy.

Evident use of balanced power has also been noted in the mid-17th century when it was directed
against the France of Louis the 14th, balance of power was the stated British objective for much
of the 18th and 19th century and it characterized the European international system. For example
from 1815 to 1914 the concert of Europe from 1815 to 1870 provides another good example of
major European states striving to achieve balanced power.The increasing power of Germany
began seeing a bipolar set of alliances form, leading to the world wars. After World War One the
balance of power system was attacked by proponents of cooperation and a community of power.

international relations were changed radically after World War Two by the predominance of two
superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union, with major ideological differences between
them. After the 1960s with the emergence of China and the third world or revived Europe and
Japan it reemerged as a component of international relations. With the collapse of the USSR in
1991 the United states as the sole remaining superpower. These are some balance of power
techniques one alliances and counter alliances, 2 armament, 3 disarmament ,4 intervention.

Intervention in Soviets and US incursion into Afghanistan and nonintervention in France and
Britain did not interfere in the Spanish civil war of 1936. Kinds of balance of power are simple
or complex, simple balance of power requires parity between powers but in more complex
situations competing for powers can achieve balance. For additional sources general or particular
general balance of power lacks of preponderance power, whereas particular balance of power can
imply regional preponderance subjective or objective balance of power based on appearances as
subjective and fragile. Whereas that is based on actual capabilities as objective and more stable
fortuitous or contrived fortuitous balance of power as not based on particular policies. Whereas
contrived balance of power is based on conscious policies of either or both sides.

How is power balanced often it is a matter of balancing threat rather than power so distance
interdependence and ideology matter, external balancing can take place through alliances but
risks dependency on others and requires placing trust in them. This kind of trust and dependency
was evident in North Atlantic treaty organization and Warsaw Pact. During the Cold War
internal balancing takes place by building up the capacity of the state, this has occurred with the
US, Soviet arms race in which both superpowers tried to balance power by becoming more
powerful themselves. A degree of polarization as the process that causes neutral parties to take
sides in a conflict it also causes individuals on either side of the conflict to take increasingly
extreme positions that are more and more opposed to each other.

As parties move toward these opposite poles they define themselves in terms of their opposition
to a common enemy. Trust and respect diminish and distorted perceptions and simplified
stereotypes emerged, parties assume more rigid positions and may refuse to negotiate. The study
of polarization first came to be identified with those realist writers who wrote about the structure
of the international system, the impact of military alliances on war and peace and the balance of
power. Balance of power in war the polar system would make major war less frequent since one
state can prevent others from arming for war.

War Is most likely during transitions in narratives rising power gain strength challenges
previously superior state and given the newness of capabilities war occurs because each side
thinks it can win. Morden kaplan's rules of balance of power says all states act to increase
capabilities but prefer to negotiate rather than fight, all states fight rather than pass up an
opportunity to increase their capabilities, all states stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential
state, all states act to oppose any coalition or single state which tends to assume a position of
dominance within the system, all states act to constrain states who subscribe to supranational
organizing principles, and all states permit defeated or constrained states to reenter the system as
potential partners.

Balance of power in the modern world the creation of superpowers made it impossible to
negotiate individual balance of power. The increasing disparity between states has made
maintaining the balance of power very difficult ideological positioning also makes switching
sides very difficult in the multipolar world. Functions of the balance of power, balance of power
has prevented universal empires from transforming the world by conquest it provided peace in
the absence of effective mechanisms of collective security. The need for balance of power
between big powers has proven particularly beneficial for secondary or smaller states. Balancing
power for the secondary state if they are free to choose flock to the weaker side for it as the
stronger side that threatens them, on the weaker side they are both more appreciated and safer.

States ally with those who cannot dominate them to avoid domination by those who can. There
are some criticisms of the balance of power, power not peace as the overriding concern within
the balance of power imperative war, not peace provides the best means to check instability in
the balance of power. Balance of power has resulted in the absorption and partition of smaller
states, for an example, Poland was divided by Russia Austria and Prussia in 1772 to maintain a
balance of power. States are not static units as they can increase their power through armaments
and also acquire power through development. It is difficult for states to switch sides given the
political-economic socio-cultural ties

Conclusion

We think that in international politics states usually pay attention to international law, and they
pay attention to moral precepts as long as they're in their strategic interests. However, if there's a
conflict between international law and the country’s strategic interests the country will always
privilege its strategic interests and international law and human rights will be pushed off the
table.

Therefore, we believe it's not very helpful to talk about rights when it comes to international
politics. One can talk about whether Russia has the right to have a buffer state or Ukraine has the
right to have its own foreign policy these are concepts that in our opinion gets one in
international politics into all sorts of complications. In the international system might makes
right and the United States as an example would never tolerate a situation where Canada or
Mexico invited in a legal way China to bring military forces into Toronto or Mexico City.

The US has a Monroe Doctrine which is in their strategic interest, in their Monroe Doctrine it
says no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the Western Hemisphere. And it’s
the same story as what the Russians are doing now, they are basically articulating their own
version of the Monroe Doctrine. Russia is frankly saying you cannot turn Ukraine into a western
bastion on our border, has nothing to do with rights. It really doesn't matter whether Ukraine has
the right to do this or that.

However, its exactly like the US could not just like that allow Cuba to invite the Soviets to bring
military forces into the Western Hemisphere. So, for us when we talk about great power, politics
rights in the final analysis just don't matter. However, might makes right and the United States is
a mighty powerful country. It's a mighty powerful country on purpose and it does whatever it
thinks is in its strategic interests and if the right says that's fine to do that good. But if the rights
are at odds with what's in their strategic interests, they will do what’s needed to protect their
strategic interests, and Russia is following the same logic.

References

 Chavez, A.H., 2014. The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for
International Politics.

 Biddle, S., 2010. Military power. In Military Power. Princeton University Press.

 Cecire, M., 2014. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Foreign Policy Research Institute E-
Notes.

 Ozili, P.K., 2022. Global economic consequence of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Available at SSRN.

 Leon, D., Jdanov, D.A., Gerry, C.J., Grigoriev, P., McKee, M., Penina, O., Meslé, F.,
Twigg, J.L., Vallin, J. and Vagero, D.H., 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and its
public health consequences. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe, (15), pp.1-2.

 Wiggins, B.E., 2016. Crimea River: Directionality in memes from the Russia-Ukraine
conflict. International Journal of Communication, 10, p.35.
 Malyarenko, T. and Wolff, S., 2018. The logic of competitive influence-seeking: Russia,
Ukraine, and the conflict in Donbas. Post-Soviet Affairs, 34(4), pp.191-212.

 Cross, S., 2015. NATO–Russia security challenges in the aftermath of Ukraine conflict:
managing Black Sea security and beyond. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies,
15(2), pp.151-177.

 Korostelina, K., 2010. War of textbooks: History education in Russia and Ukraine.
Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43(2), pp.129-137.

 Spegele, R.D. and Spegele, R.D., 1996. Political realism in international theory (Vol. 47).
Cambridge University Press.

 Stivachtis, Y.A., 2008. Power in the contemporary international society: International

relations meets political and social theory—a critical appraisal of US foreign policy.
Journal of Political & Military Sociology, pp.85-101.

 Wohlforth, W.C., 2011. Gilpinian realism and international relations. International

Relations, 25(4), pp.499-511.

 Mankoff, J, 2022. Russia’s War in Ukraine: Identity, History, and Conflict. The Center
for Strategic and International Studies