Introduction
The international relations theory is a discipline in which international relations are considered from a theoretical point of view. This discipline traces and analyzes the general patterns of international relations in concepts. The three most popular international relations theories are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. It is noteworthy that theories of opposite ideas in international relations often coexist in geopolitics, for example, constructivism, institutionalism, marxism, and others. However, if one considers the various order of states, there may be a conflict, mainly in terms of safety and the ratio of forces. The war between Russia and Ukraine and concerns about the Third World War can be explained from the point of view of theories of international relations
Aim of the Paper
Because all theories are simplifications, no single approach to international politics can explain everything that happens at any given moment in the past, present, and future. That is, it is impossible to accurately predict what will happen in the coming weeks and months or to offer a precise plan of action that is guaranteed to lead to success. However, the existing theories can still help explain how the tragedy happened in Ukraine. It will also help explain what is happening now, warn of opportunities and potential pitfalls, and suggest general directions for the future.
The war has destabilized the established world order, and there are opinions that the situation can change positively and negatively. The purpose of this article is a qualitative analysis of the war with three theories of international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. This research work answers the following question: what are the main factors contributing to the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia, and what consequences does this have for the world?
Conceptual clarification
International relations can be defined as various political, economic, social, and environmental relationships between sovereign countries globally, at regional, or international levels. All theories of international relations at some level of analysis inevitably raise the question of the best course of action in a given situation. Adherents of all currently existing theories agree with this: liberals, realists, and constructivists. Different approaches, of course, emphasize different questions to be answered and arrive at different conclusions as to the type of action required1. In one way or another, all of them have as their conclusion certain recommendations regarding the necessary steps. It does not depend on whether the theories are interested in:
- the problems of preserving peace,
- changing the world order,
- developing international institutions,
- preserving the environment, or
- overcoming global discrimination,
- as well as resorting to different methods, for example, the balance of power free trade, demand for a revision of the treaty system.
The nature of international relations theory presupposes an explanation (among other epistemological reasons) of both empirical and normative principles.
Realism
Political realism is associated with the balance of power, national interest, and purpose in international relations. The traditions of political realism, or the classical tradition, in the history of socio-political thought have the longest history of all schools and trends in the study of international relations. The theory recognizes the absence of binding global authorities: there is no global sovereignty or world government1. Sovereign states in their relations are not subject to the authority of the general government. As a result of the fact that each state has its concept of building power, conflicts arise.
Liberalism
Liberalism is a theory of thought within international relations theory that can be seen as revolving around three interrelated principles:
- Rejection of the politics of force as the only possible outcome of international relations. Liberalism questions the security/warfare principles of realism.
- Emphasizing mutual benefit and international cooperation.
- Liberalism implements international organizations and non-governmental actors to shape government preferences and policy choices.
This school of thought emphasizes three factors that promote greater cooperation and less conflict between states.
Constructivists
Constructivists criticize traditional theories for overestimating some factors and underestimating others equally important. Thus, classical realists are criticized for individualism since their actors are independent of the influence of structures. Traditional theories are criticized for materialism, while constructivists offer a different position. The theory admits the possibility of independent activity of actors but still prefers the determining influence of social causes on their individuality1. Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how the basic aspects of international relations, contrary to the assumptions of neorealism and neoliberalism, are socially constructed; that is, they are shaped by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction.
Discussion
The first explanation for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, according to realism, is that it was the result of Western expansion that upset the balance between east and west. The war was a natural response to the expansion of NATO and the EU. Some realist thinkers believe that the US and its European allies bear much responsibility for the crisis. In addition, Ukraine’s accession to NATO meant that Russia would share an ominously long border with an institution that it believes is important to its security. From a realist perspective, states will secure or protect their interests. This mentality led to the need to keep Ukraine on its side at any cost, the cost of which was war.
The liberal point of view suggests that an illegitimate internal system, lack of communication, weak domestic or international institutions contribute to war. In this case, Russia’s internal system benefits elites within the country, and then these elites influence how foreign policy works. On the other hand, the theory also considers western expansion as a subject of study. Since the 2000s, NATO and the EU have been trying to expand at the expense of Eastern Europe, which was once a Soviet sphere of influence, so Russian dissatisfaction has become a natural reaction. From a liberal point of view, states must unilaterally or multilaterally restrain themselves from over-expansion.
The constructivist theory has some similarities with the liberalist point of view in that it tries to see the problem by first explaining how Russia’s internal system affects its foreign policy. The theory holds that Russia’s identity creates its interests, so it is considered the result of its nature whenever Russia fights such a war. In this case, Russia’s identity is perceived as nationalist and militaristic. Thus, constructivism continues to use some of the concepts of historical sociology to explain the problem.
Analysis
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so as long as there is no direct conflict between Russia and NATO, there is no reason for this crisis to escalate into a full-blown world war. However, the conflict may lead to a serious global crisis, especially in developing countries. The escalation of the conflict in Ukraine could have serious consequences for European interests in the Middle East and North Africa. It could further disrupt energy supplies, exacerbate food insecurity, and help regional states gain leverage over the US and Europe. An all-out war between Russia and Ukraine could also lead to a sharp rise in world energy prices and wheat. That could have devastating humanitarian consequences for the already fragile states of the Levant and North Africa, whose governance problems could worsen.
Conclusion
All three theories represent different points of view with certain similarities. Everyone has their own valuable opinion, which contributes to understanding the complexity of this issue. Within the realist theory, it is concluded that the war occurred due to the excessive expansion of Western institutions. The liberalist point of view adds that the war was a consequence of the lack of communication between East and West is crucial to understanding this war. The constructivist theory goes to the analysis of the issue from a historical point of view.
Although the current situation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine does not lead to the outbreak of the Third World War, the situation of many countries is under threat. It is especially true for developing countries, which are in great economic dependence both on Russia and Ukraine and NATO countries and the United States. Three key areas will be affected in any case: energy, agriculture, and refugees (humanitarian crisis).
Recommendations
Many countries are neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, because state leaders are afraid of losing partners in the face of Russia, Ukraine, NATO, or the US. Given that the entire continent will collectively suffer if oil prices continue to rise due to the war, the position of African leaders is understandable. The fallout from the conflict could make African economies hit by the pandemic even worse. Therefore, maintaining neutrality on such an acute issue seems the most rational.
Reference
Koval, Nadiia, Volodymyr Kulyk, Mykola Riabchuk, Kateryna Zarembo, and Marianna Fakhurdinova. “Morphological Analysis of Narratives of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict in Western Academia and Think-Tank Community.” Problems of Post-Communism, 2022, 1–13. Web.
Natsios, Andrew S., and Sarah M. Misemer, eds. Putin’s New Russia: Fragile State or Revisionist Power? Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, 2022.
Sørensen, Georg, Jørgen Møller, and Robert H. Jackson. Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.