Conflict Between Russia And The West

The foreign policies of Russia also compliments in many ways its domestic policies, both in the apparent want for dominance and security in the focal point on sovereignty. These aims lead to an importance on bringing back Russia’s international status and removing positions of power that Western states have had in Russia

For example, Russia helped to clear unexploded ordnance left behind by NATO’s bombing during the Kosovo war of 1999, and in 2014, helped fly in emergency relief when floods hit the region. Since then, Russia has regularly been helping with forest fires, providing tents for migrants and training emergency responders. To the citizens, Russia’s consistent involvement, on top of its historically strong ties, creates a sense of trust and goodwill. This also increases their likelihood of buying into Russian propaganda against the West. Although the EU has provided $3.16bn in aid since 2000, an amount that dwarfs Russia’s in comparison, a recent poll showed that Serbs wrongly believe Russia to be one of their main benefactor and 64% view NATO as a threat. However, this does not mean that Serbia is entirely pro-Russia, as 40% of the population is in favour of joining the EU.

Such divisions open up space for outside countries to interfere with the state and begin to take or regain control; enter Russia. In March of 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine inevitably widening the growing divide within its borders. The success of Russia in the annexation of Crimea was directly due to implementation of Hybrid Warfare via military tactics and alternative information.

Purely geopolitically, Russia (particularly European Russia) along with its environs is viewed with the utmost importance in multiple schools of thinking. It dominates the “pivot area” hypothesized to be essential to dominance over Eurasia in Sir Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland theory” while Spykman’s “Rimland theory” focuses on the prevention of Russia’s naval capability and was said to have influenced Truman’s doctrine of Containment (that in itself led to numerous brutal proxy conflicts such as Vietnam and Korea). Strong effective government in this resource-rich vast area is widely cited as necessary for maintaining global peace. Hence, the breakdown of established order in such a sought after “global heartland” is rightly feared, as it could lead aggressively opportunistic players coming to positions of strength in the region, or instead provoke all out civil war both creating veritable “catastrophes” for the region so in this sense Putin was correct; the immediate aftermath of the fall of Communism was certainly expected to lead to considerable turmoil and, indeed, did so.

The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s recent accession to Russia are events that clearly highlight the underlying sources of conflict in global politics. While Russia sees its actions in Crimea as a “reunification” and the respect for the right of self-determination, the West views it as a threat to European security and a violation of territorial integrity. Crimea has been a debatable topic from the time it came under the control of the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The justification then was similar to the reasoning being used by Vladimir Putin today. Catherine declared that she was protecting ethnic Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire, much as Putin is claiming to protect Russians from Ukrainian

Under international law Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula is illegal as the Referendum held on the 16th of March by Russia infringed upon the

In considering Russia’s actions, Russia’s constant counteracts with the West, international law, international conflict it could be presumed that Russia is aligned with the realism ideologies. I believe that Putin has had a realist approach in how he has led Russia. To better argue my stance, I will use Syria and Ukraine as my focal points to better argue why Russia has had a rather realist approach in international politics. I will touch base on anarchy, self-interests and more importantly, security.

As Keohane argues, under a bipolar structure, relative gains become the most apparent and easily calculated, forcing cooperation to a minimum. However, Keohane stresses, “this does not by any means undermine prospects for cooperation in general” (Keohane, Mitigation, p. 155). The UN does little to constrain Russia’s behavior and to influence the outcome becauase of its wide and diverse membership and the lack of common interests between the key decision makers – the Security Council. In essence, the UN takes on the same bilateral nature of its members, resulting in indecisive action. Russia’s veto of the UN resolution that declared Crimea illegal on March 15 is a clear example of this. As realists would say, the UN as an international organization is simply another measure of national sovereignty: “the Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality” (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter I Article II). No state is willing to make a decision that will undermine its own sovereignty.

With the current civil war in Ukraine unfolding and Russian involvement being well known, the average person would consider this a very simple situation of Russia flexing its might. While there is some truth for Russian involvement being exactly that, the reasoning for Russia’s foreign policy is a much more complex situation that cannot be summarized into one definitive reason. In fact there are a variety of factors that could be categorized into three groups known as the three levels of analysis, International, Domestic, and Individual.

The peninsula of Crimea has historically been occupied by many different empires and states since Antiquity, the most recent inhabitants have been Russians and Ukrainians who are currently embroiled in conflict over the peninsula’s sovereignty. The peninsula’s demographics as of 2014 consist of: 65.3% Russians, 15.7% Ukrainians, 10.6% Crimean Tatars and approximately 6.8% other minorities according to a census taken. As of the time this essay was written, Russia has annexed the Crimean Peninsula and administers it as two federal subjects: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. Russia, however, opposes the term “annexation” by Western states and claims that Russia is merely complying with self-determination for the ethnic Russians living within the peninsula. Ukraine, as well as most Western powers, claim that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea is illegal under international law and asserts that numerous treaties have been broken as a result, such as: Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1991, the Helsinki Accords, Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the United Nations Charter and a treaty of cooperation and friendship with Ukraine signed in 1997. As a result of the move by Russia, the United Nations General Assembly voted the annexation as illegal and the G8 have temporarily suspended Russia from the group and issued sanctions against Russia. Reactions also ranged as far as comparing the instance to the Nazi seizure

The onset of the tension between Russia and its neighboring country Ukraine could date back to the 1920’s, when Ukraine became a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not until July 16, 1990, that Ukraine had declared sovereignty (Ukraine Fast Facts). While Ukraine had been with the USSR, they had developed historical and traditional cultural ties with Russia that are still concurrent today. Ukraine and Russia are very similar in many ways, but one of the major differences between them is not only their language, but the fact that Ukraine wants to become more like Western Europe and Russia wants to stick to old traditional values. When Ukraine had affirmed a desire to have closer ties with the European Union, Vladimir Putin proposed to buy $15 billion of Ukraine 's debt and reduce the price of natural gas supplied to the country in order to maintain that sphere of influence (Ukraine Fast Facts). Ukraine’s economic condition was not stable and making this agreement with Moscow would put Ukraine back on its feet. But in the end, Ukraine ended up signing the association agreement to draw ties with the European Union so that it can modernize with Western Europe and keep the country from being influenced by Russian policy.

Future relationships between NATO and Russia are very uncertain. These uncertainties are due primarily to geopolitical factors like globalization, economic interdependence and international law. This leaves the world to question the possibility of a conflict arising from these clashing geopolitical factors. First, Russia, one of the major powers, has expanded economically and militarily by increasing trade, communication and even showing military force in other countries with the fight against ISIL. This expansion, known as globalization, has lead to the interdependence between states, specifically, dependence of the production process, investment, consumption, foreign trade, and inflows of foreign currency (Vorobyov 2). Next, the issue of economic interdependence has many wondering about the state of conflict between NATO members and Russia. Economic interdependence refers to a state’s need to rely on other states for resources through trade and investment. Liberalist and realist views of economic interdependence shine light on the last question about causes for concern for war between Russia and any NATO members. In the following paragraphs, these contradicting views will be closely analyzed in order to help get a sense for how interdependence between major powers will have an effect on potential future conflict. Lastly, Russia and NATO have very conflicting views when it comes to international laws and how they ought to be

Russia’s action in Crimea was a response to the threat of NATO’s further expansion along Russia’s western border. Russia seized Crimea to prevent a new government from joining NATO and that Kiev might evict Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from its long-standing base in Sevastopol. Russia wanted to recapture Crimea for the former territories of the Soviet Union. The government never accepted the loss of Crimea so they were determined to restore it in part by expanding Russia’s borders. The government improvised broader designs and presented the response to the unforeseen of Crimea, and this was an impulsive decision on Russia’s part rather than the careful move of a strategist with geopolitical ambitions.

The nuclear arms race of the Cold War years has given way to a race for building alliances in this age of globalization. If we are to be successful in our pursuit of a more peaceful and sustainable world order, we must be cognizant of the opportunities to help fledgeling democracies take root. As well, we must be aware of the more nefarious motives of nations for whom state intervention is merely a thin veil for imperialistic ambitions. With this, we consider the recent events in Ukraine and its impact on our national security.

The national grand strategy of a state indicates what is most important to the state’s interests and the means with which they plan to successfully achieve these goals factoring in the resources available to them, threats to their interests and all dimensions of strategy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia was left to face the international system in a newly independent form and henceforth it’s grand strategy had to be altered to suit new circumstances. In his foreign and defence policy, Putin creates an appropriated form of realism that takes the theoretical framework’s motivations for international actions and uses them to achieve a grand strategy that works in the interests of forming a stronger post-soviet Russia