Since February 4th, 2022 everyone from scholars, government officials, news anchors, and everyday people has been looking for answers to why Russia invaded Ukraine. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that we will never know the true motives, as the answer lies with only one man, Vladimir Putin. This paper will outline how the most popular International Relations theories explain the enigma, however, there is one theory that explains the drivers of the conflict the best. The paradigm “Levels of Analysis” most clearly explains the Russian Government’s disastrous decision to attack and continue fighting Ukraine by analyzing the perceived irrational decisions of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Leadership.
The Levels of Analysis theory is used to make sense of states’ actions by examining how they make their decisions. The theory suggests there are four levels that can influence state decisions; the first is individuals, the second is bureaucracy, the third is the structure of the government, and the last is the international political environment. As a result of all the “levels of analysis”, a state’s actions might not always be in its best interest, instead they might be in the best interests of the individual or organization who made them. This can lead to a state acting irrationally.
This theory can best explain Russia’s consistent irrational behavior in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin's actions may seem completely irrational, for example invading a sovereign nation, continuing to fight a war in which he is clearly losing, and pulling out of the Ukrainian Grain Deal. However, at an individual level, many of these decisions are completely rational; Putin was probably provided with intelligence that said Russia would easily win, pulling out of the war without convincingly winning could bring the downfall of his dictatorship, and Ukraine selling grain aids their economy. Additionally, the structure of the Russian government has enabled Putin to single-handedly steer Russia into war. While this theory is the most likely, as Russia’s Government is prone to severe miscalculations and corrupt behavior, there are still shortcomings. One could argue that Putin is simply an irrational actor who is obsessed with the notion of restoring the Soviet Union, or that he is acting irrationally intentionally to scare the West into pursuing a cautious approach to Ukraine (The Madman Theory).
Another widely applied theory to this conflict is Realism, especially Defensive Realism. Realism argues that states act to protect their own interests, are always rational, and only focus on increasing their power. Defensive Realism's principal belief is that states act mainly out of fear for their security and wars are often a product of mistrust. Defensive Realists argue Russia could not trust that NATO was not going to expand into Ukraine and encroach into Russia’s backyard, as NATO has steadily grown in size since the 1990s. Therefore, the only rational action to protect Russia against NATO was to invade Ukraine and create a buffer between Russia and NATO. In fact one Realist, John Mearsheimer, wrote an article titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault” in 2014. However, this point of view is generally discredited by Russia’s continued involvement in the war in Ukraine. Assuming Russia is a completely rational actor, as Realists do, Russia should have already pulled out of the war and would not have backed out of the Ukrainian Grain Deal.
One paradigm that has done a good job of explaining the West’s response to the War is Liberalism. Liberalism states that Democratic countries attain benefits by cooperating through international organizations, establishing economic interdependence, and by having a shared ideology they are more trusting of each other. Additionally, a tenant is that non-democratic nations are usually less peaceful, as they do not have the Democratic institutions in place to protect the country from going into a war the public does not support. Most of this theory has been accurate in the Russian-Ukrainian War. NATO, which is generally composed of democratic nations and is working to defend a democratic country, has been united in its effort to thwart the Russian invasion. Most NATO countries have enacted political and economic sanctions on Russia, which have weakened the Russian Economy. In addition, Russia has virtually no democratic safeguards, which made it easy for the government to start the War without the support of the Russian population. The main critique of Liberalism, in this case, is that the unified Western front has done nothing to end the War and did not discourage Russia from launching it in the first place. Also, the economic sanctions imposed on Russia have not deterred Vladimir Putin from continuing.
The last popular International Relations paradigm is Constructivism. Constructivists believe the only things that matter in international and domestic politics are ideas and norms. The reason norms and ideas matter is that they are the root of all action. Additionally, Constructivists say people mostly act upon non-material factors rather than material ones. Constructivists would argue that Putin was ideologically driven to attack Ukraine because he believed it to be an integral part of Russia. This could be because Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union and Putin served as an operative for the Soviet Union and wants to restore it. He could also be acting on the socially constructed notion of glory or prestige. Most of Putin’s actions and public statements do suggest this theory to be true.
Overall, out of the four international relations paradigms explained in this paper, Levels of Analysis provides the most probable reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, Putin most likely acted upon poor intelligence because of his desire to restore the Soviet Union and glory. This means a blend between Levels of Analysis and Constructivist ideology is the most convincing way to explain Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. It is also important to note both Liberal and Realist theories still provide feasible explanations, just with more flaws than the other two.
Bibliography:
Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press, 1976.
Copeland, Dale. “IS VLADIMIR PUTIN A RATIONAL ACTOR?” Miller Center, 10 Mar. 2022, Accessed 14 Aug. 2023.
Goddard, Author Taegan. “Madman Theory.” Political Dictionary, 12 Aug. 2023, politicaldictionary.com/words/madman-theory/.
Drezner, Daniel W. “Perspective | Can Realism Explain the War in Ukraine?” The Washington Post, 3 Mar. 2022, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/.
X, Science. “Sanctions on Russia’s Businesses Haven’t Worked, Says Study.” Phys.Org, 5 June 2023, phys.org/news/2023-06-sanctions-russia-businesses-havent.html.
Comments