The Russo-Ukrainian War has fanned the flames in a discourse that has occurred since the beginning of the study of history itself. This is a conflict between the two hegemonic schools of thought within the academic field of International Relations. Realism starts with the view that nation-states, not global organisations such as the UN, are the main actors in international relations and all actors follow their rational self-interest. In addition, we all live in an anarchic global system and the primary focus of global politics is the pursuit of wealth and power. If you want to see realism in practice, also known as realpolitik, the boardgame diplomacy is an excellent example. Backstabbing, lying and gaslighting are all in the toolbox of realist statesmen, with only the desire to gain power, hold power and deny it to others.
So, if the world is full of power-hungry maniacs, why have we had an unprecedented level of peace since WW2? Liberalism has become the dominant ideology in the West’s domestic politics. Yet, the supposed inevitability of human progress, liberal democracy and perpetual peace has spread itself to international relations as well. Where the realists view war as an inevitability, liberals see peace as possible via transnational cooperation, free trade, and political alignment. Together these ideas culminate into interdependency, the idea that as the relations between states become more complex, they become less likely to use coercive or military power. Furthermore, the status of international institutions, organisations and norms is elevated in a liberal world view, as an attempt to order the world around us and solve the blight of war. In contrast, realists only recognise the limited power of these organisations amidst a sea of anarchy and chaos.
In 1991, it appeared the liberals had won. Francis Fukuyama infamously claimed in a book published the next year: “What we are witnessing, is not just the end of the Cold War, or a passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” Then 9/11 and the subsequent disastrous foreign interventions tarnished the theory that peace could be achieved by forcing others to follow your political ideology. In fact, in many of the countries where interventions occurred, the opposite happened, not least exemplified by the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to sweep into power.
So, where does this leave liberalism and realism today? One appears callous and irrelevant to the modern age of globalisation and the proliferation of transnational bodies. The other languishes indefinitely while the subversive forces of nationalism and populism eat away at it. However, both are still exceedingly relevant at explaining the causes of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which has exacerbated global economic woes and led to new geopolitical realities for Europe and the rest of the world. Many contemporary international relations experts point to realism to explain the outbreak of the War in Ukraine. Firstly, military power has been resoundingly shown to still have a place in deterrence and demonstrates that moral condemnation alone does little to prevent powers who view the West as an existential threat. The doubling of Germany’s military budget from €50bn to €100bn, a country that even now on occasion appears hesitant to support Ukraine, reflects this.
Moreover, Realists recognised the impact that NATO enlargement would have on Russia. That is not to say that Russia is justified in its aggression. Yet the fact remains that Russia would not have been as motivated to invade Ukraine if the bloc had not expanded so far eastwards without considering Russian national security interests. Alas, foreign policy communities in the US have largely rejected realism in the past three decades despite its increasing relevance. This is due to realism’s lack of focus on morals and its pessimistic view of the human condition. These ideas run counter to American exceptionalism, defined by realist scholar Stephen M. Walt as “the idea that the United States is uniquely moral and always acts for the greater good of humanity.” Therefore, American policymakers have preferred to believe that whatever they feel they should do, even if the circumstances make it difficult (such as the Iraq War), should be done.
However, the strength of Liberalism at explaining international phenomena has not totally diminished due to the Russo-Ukrainian war and other previous events. Ukraine has been steadfast in its assertion that it is defending universal European values. Consequently, the country has been able to leverage this assertion to receive huge support from NATO countries, also demonstrating the usefulness of international institutions. The EU responded in kind by giving the country membership status, although the bloc acknowledges that ascension would take time. Additionally, Russia invaded Ukraine with the understanding that the two countries had a shared history. Putin himself wrote ‘I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.’ This means that Ukraine would not assert its right to self-determination, an essential idea in Liberalism. Yet it did and in doing so defied Russia in favour of the ideology.
Ukraine demonstrates that Liberalism still has a role to play in the interaction between states and the West has been keen to promote the idea in other regions as well. I recently delivered a presentation on the International Security of the Asia-Pacific. The area has become a battleground between the USA and China with the former using its ideological advantage to promote cooperation with regional powers, including Japan, Australian and India. The US aims for a ‘free and open’ Asia-Pacific in line with liberal values and can improve security in the region using these. Unfortunately, the promotion of Liberal ideas alone is not enough to ensure peace and security. This is where realism fills the gap in advocating for the use of concepts such as military power.
Ultimately, these examples reveal the complicated nature of the world system, particularly in relation to International Affairs. While it can be easy to look at issues through a limited lens, getting an accurate understanding of International Politics requires significant discourse. Nevertheless, recent events have also revealed that the conventional liberal understanding of global political issues is breaking down. Policymakers will require greater use, comprehension and advocation of realism to deal with new international issues. There is no doubt that this will be a difficult shift considering how ingrained Liberalism is, but protracted crises will only hasten this transition.
Comments