Introduction
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia, marked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022, represents one of the most significant geopolitical crises in recent history. This essay seeks to analyze the unfolding conflict through the lens of International Relations (IR) theories, specifically neorealism, alongside two alternative perspectives: liberal institutionalism and constructivism. Employing the levels of analysis framework—individual, state, and systemic—this study examines the motivations behind Russia’s interventionist foreign policy and the broader dynamics of the crisis. Additionally, it critically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of neorealism while exploring how alternative theories provide distinct insights into the causes, consequences, and potential trajectories of the conflict. By addressing these elements, this essay aims to offer a nuanced understanding of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and its implications for international stability.
Levels of Analysis: Understanding Conflict Dynamics
The levels of analysis framework provides a structured approach to dissecting the Ukraine-Russia conflict by focusing on individual, state, and systemic factors. At the individual level, leadership decisions play a critical role. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal worldview, shaped by a desire to restore Russian influence and counter perceived Western encroachment, has been a driving force behind aggressive policies towards Ukraine (CFR, 2023). His rhetoric often frames Ukraine as part of Russia’s historical sphere, revealing a personal stake in reasserting dominance.
At the state level, Russia’s actions reflect domestic priorities and national identity. The annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine since 2014 are partly motivated by the need to bolster national pride and secure strategic interests, such as access to the Black Sea (CFR, 2023). Moreover, internal political pressures to maintain regime stability amid economic challenges may push Russia to adopt a belligerent foreign policy as a distraction from domestic issues.
At the systemic level, the international structure heavily influences the conflict. The post-Cold War expansion of NATO and the European Union eastward is perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its security, fueling tensions with Ukraine, which sought closer ties with the West (Petrelli and Melim Santos, 2022). This systemic rivalry, rooted in a bipolar power struggle reminiscent of Cold War dynamics, exacerbates the conflict as Russia seeks to maintain a buffer zone against Western influence. Thus, the interplay of individual leadership, state interests, and systemic pressures provides a comprehensive picture of the conflict’s drivers.
Explaining Russia’s Interventionism: A Neorealist Perspective
Neorealism, a dominant IR theory, offers significant insights into Russia’s motivations for intervening in Ukraine. According to neorealism, states prioritize survival and power in an anarchic international system, often acting to maximize security (Waltz, 1979). From this perspective, Russia’s actions—such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2022—are rational responses to perceived threats posed by NATO’s expansion and Ukraine’s pivot towards the West. By controlling Crimea, Russia secures a strategic naval base in Sevastopol, ensuring military dominance in the Black Sea region (CFR, 2023). Furthermore, neorealists argue that Russia’s intervention aims to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western stronghold on its border, thereby maintaining a balance of power (FPRI, 2023).
Neorealism also emphasizes the importance of relative gains: Russia’s actions can be seen as an attempt to weaken potential adversaries while strengthening its geopolitical position. The invasion of 2022, though catastrophic in human and economic terms, reflects a calculated move to reassert influence over its “near abroad,” consistent with neorealist predictions of state behavior in a competitive system (LSE, 2023). However, while neorealism provides a robust framework for understanding security-driven motives, it may overlook cultural and ideological factors shaping Russia’s actions, a point revisited later in this analysis.
Consequences and Weaknesses of Neorealism
Neorealism’s explanation of Russia’s interventionism has significant implications but also faces limitations. One consequence of viewing the conflict through a neorealist lens is the prediction of prolonged tension, as states continuously seek power and security, potentially leading to a frozen conflict or further escalation (De Gruyter, 2022a). Additionally, neorealism suggests that diplomatic resolutions are challenging unless power imbalances are addressed, as seen in Ukraine’s reliance on Western military support to counter Russian aggression (CFR, 2023).
However, neorealism’s weaknesses lie in its overemphasis on structural factors and material power. It struggles to account for the role of identity, history, and domestic politics in shaping Russia’s policies. For instance, Putin’s personal narrative of restoring Russian greatness, tied to historical claims over Ukraine, is not easily captured by neorealism’s focus on systemic anarchy (De Gruyter, 2022b). Furthermore, the theory underestimates the influence of international norms and institutions, which have shaped global responses to Russia’s actions, including sanctions and diplomatic isolation. These aspects suggest that while neorealism offers a compelling starting point, it does not fully encapsulate the complexity of the Ukraine crisis.
Alternative Perspectives: Liberal Institutionalism
Liberal institutionalism provides a contrasting view to neorealism by emphasizing cooperation, international institutions, and interdependence. From this perspective, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is not merely a power play but a rejection of the liberal international order that promotes democratic values and collective security through organizations like NATO and the EU (Wilson Center, 2022). Liberals argue that Russia’s actions stem from exclusion from post-Cold War institutional frameworks, fueling resentment and a desire to undermine Western-led systems.
This approach critiques neorealism for ignoring the potential of institutions to mitigate conflict through dialogue and economic ties. For Ukraine, liberal institutionalism highlights the importance of Western support through NATO and EU integration as a pathway to resilience and eventual reconstruction (Carnegie Europe, 2022). In the medium term, this perspective envisions scenarios where strengthened international cooperation and economic sanctions could pressure Russia into negotiations. Over the long term, it suggests a trajectory of integrating Ukraine into Western institutions, potentially stabilizing the region, though this risks further Russian backlash if not carefully managed.
Alternative Perspectives: Constructivism
Constructivism offers another critical lens by focusing on the role of ideas, identities, and social constructs in shaping international behavior. Unlike neorealism’s materialist focus, constructivism argues that Russia’s intervention is driven by constructed narratives of historical entitlement and national identity, viewing Ukraine as an inseparable part of the “Russian world” (Petrelli and Melim Santos, 2022). This perspective critiques neorealism for neglecting how shared meanings and perceptions influence state actions, such as Russia’s portrayal of NATO as an existential threat rooted in Cold War legacies.
For Ukraine, constructivism emphasizes the importance of nation-building and the assertion of a distinct identity separate from Russia, which fuels resistance to occupation. In the medium term, this approach suggests scenarios where dialogue focusing on deconstructing hostile narratives could reduce tensions, though this is challenging given current hostilities. In the long term, constructivism envisions potential reconciliation through mutual recognition of identities, though this hinges on significant shifts in both states’ self-perceptions and external mediations.
Distinct Insights and Trajectories
Each theoretical perspective offers unique insights into the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Neorealism focuses on power and security, predicting ongoing rivalry unless structural balances shift, potentially through military deterrence or territorial concessions—though the latter seems unlikely given Ukraine’s resistance (FPRI, 2023). Liberal institutionalism, conversely, highlights the role of international cooperation, suggesting medium-term strategies like economic sanctions and long-term integration of Ukraine into Western frameworks as paths to stability. Constructivism, meanwhile, underscores identity conflicts, proposing that addressing historical grievances could pave the way for long-term peace, albeit with significant cultural and political hurdles.
These theories also inform potential resolutions. Neorealism might advocate for pragmatic negotiations respecting power dynamics, while liberal institutionalism pushes for multilateral diplomacy via the UN or EU. Constructivism, arguably the most nuanced, calls for initiatives rebuilding trust through cultural exchange or truth commissions, though such measures seem distant amid active conflict. Together, these perspectives illuminate the multifaceted nature of the crisis, urging a balanced approach to conflict resolution.
Conclusion
The Ukraine-Russia conflict, characterized by Russia’s interventionist foreign policy since 2014 and intensified by the 2022 invasion, is a complex geopolitical challenge best understood through multiple IR lenses and levels of analysis. Neorealism effectively explains Russia’s security-driven motives but falls short in addressing identity and normative factors. Liberal institutionalism and constructivism offer complementary insights, highlighting the roles of international cooperation and constructed identities, respectively. By integrating individual, state, and systemic analyses, this essay reveals the interplay of personal leadership, national interests, and global rivalries in sustaining the conflict. These diverse perspectives not only deepen our comprehension of the crisis but also suggest varied pathways forward, from pragmatic power negotiations to institutional reforms and identity reconciliation. Ultimately, addressing this conflict demands a multifaceted strategy that acknowledges both material and ideational dimensions, ensuring a more comprehensive response to one of the most pressing issues in contemporary international relations.
References
- CFR (2023) Conflict in Ukraine. Council on Foreign Relations.
- De Gruyter (2022a) Realism and the Ukraine Conflict. De Gruyter.
- De Gruyter (2022b) Critique of Realism in Ukraine. De Gruyter.
- FPRI (2023) The Realist Case for Ukraine. Foreign Policy Research Institute.
- LSE (2023) Whose Backyard? Realism and Ukraine. London School of Economics.
- Petrelli, N. and Melim Santos, A. (2022) Constructivism and the Ukraine Crisis. European University Institute.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
- Wilson Center (2022) Ukraine Between Realism and Liberalism. Wilson Center.
- Carnegie Europe (2022) Realism vs. Liberalism in Ukraine. Carnegie Europe.
