COULD THE REALISTS BE RIGHT?
24th February 2022 marked the biggest comeback for the theory of realism in international relations. It sent shivers down every political scientist and theory enthusiasts who believed international order has moved beyond archaic modes of warfare. As Russian troops marched into Ukrainian territory unhindered. Attacking multiple cities across the country, much to the horror of world communities. Many citizens of sovereign Ukraine fled to neighbouring countries. By the end of the day the capital city of Kiev had turned into a ghost town. Meanwhile the Russian President Vladimir Putin continuously changed his stance from “helping the separatists to acquire sovereignty”, to “Demilitarising the Ukrainian forces”. As the world watched the story of Ukrainian invasion unfold, Globalists and International relations scientists wondered if war is the true nature of human civilisation?
In this article we shall be looking at the revival of realism through the lens of Ukraine and Russian conflict as the situation unfolds.
What is realism in international relation?
In the discipline of International Relations, Realism is a school of thought that emphasises a competitive and conflictual side of the discipline. It has an extremely tragic view of international order. It believes that conflict and war are rooted in human nature, all states, which are rational actors, are a priori in conflict with each other. This theory sees international system through the concept of interests defined in terms of power (Morgenthau, 2006:5). Realists believe that in the world of anarchy and conflict, where there is no higher authority to restrain actors, states act according to their self-interest. And their primary interest is survival.
If we go at the very basics of realism it is based on 4 assumptions:
First assumption is that the nation-state is the principal actor in international relations. Other bodies exist, such as individuals and organisations, but their power is limited.
Second, the state is a unitary actor. National interests, especially in times of war, lead the state to speak and act with one voice.
Third, decision-makers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest.
Finally, states live in a context of anarchy — that is, in the absence of anyone being in charge internationally. The often-used analogy of there being ‘no one to call’ in an international emergency helps to underline this point.
The above assumptions came to life as Ukraine and Russian conflict escalated within a span of 6 months from a possibility of cold war to a fully panned massive scale aggression launched by $1.4 trillion USD strong nation state. Meanwhile Ukraine being a much smaller nation in eastern Europe with a small economy of mere $3,726 billion USD has been striving hard to defend its sovereignty by the means of its independent military while strategising its international support from the west and other international organisations including United Nations of which it has also been a founding member.
In the 2014 Cremean crises, United Nations played a key role by garnering international support against Russian invasion however even back then the UN failed to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Moving forward to 2021 Ukraine being an independent nation with its rational state actors moved ahead with the plan of joining NATO which irked Russia further. As in the pursuit of national interest Ukraine continued its advances to the west, Russia warned of military action.
As a basic Principle of national sovereignty no foreign nation can determine the course of action that an independent country wishes to pursue. However Russia continued to undermine Ukrainian’s right to self assertion. Following which diplomatic efforts were mobilised. United Nations assembly was convened. Many international leaders visited Russia and Ukraine to help mediate the talks, all falling in vain when Russian military crossed the Ukranian border threatening its peace, security and sovereignty while United Nation Security Council meeting was still under way in the early hours of 24th February of 2022.
All of this reasserted the realists assumptions that in an anarchic international order with no authority superseding the nation states, war would be the ultimate outcome. And in this case as Thucydides would point out “The strong do what they have the power to do, And the weak accept what they have to accept.”
In the world of anarchy and conflict, where there is no higher authority to restrain actors, states act according to their self-interest. And their primary interest is survival. The only way to survive in anarchy is to maximise power. In fact, all social relations are built upon this concept. Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Thus power covers all social relationships that serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another. Power covers the domination of man by man; both when moral ends discipline it and when institutional safeguards safeguard it (Morgenthau, 2006:11).
Today Ukraine would ask for as many help as it wants but the bottom line is that world forces have distanced themselves from the war. The secretary general of NATO has remarked that they would not be mobilising their forces as Ukraine is not yet a part of NATO, while other world powers who were at the forefront of mediatory talks have tried to impose socio political sanctions on Russia which are too small an effort with regards to the crises unfolding. In the end it is Ukraine which has to defend its own self as a sovereign nation state. Its political leaders, citizens, military, technocrats have to fight themselves to defend their nation from the aggressor and under these circumstances it can very well be said that realistic theory in international relations is here to stay. The often-used analogy of there being ‘no one to call’ in an international emergency helps to underline this point.
Realists put a great deal of emphasis on the idea that humans are essentially held hostage to repetitive patterns of behaviour determined by their nature. Central to that assumption is the view that human beings are egoistic and desire power. As can be very well seen with regards to the actions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin who wishes to revive the hegemonic status of Russia from the cold war era. Similar to Morgenthau’s approach that emphasised power over morality merely to prove his mighty status as a global power. Realists believe that human selfishness, appetite for power and the inability to trust others leads to predictable outcomes. Perhaps this is why war has been so common throughout recorded history. Since individuals are organised into states, human nature impacts on state behaviour which has been very well defined by the recent escalation of Russia-Ukrainian crises which will change the shape of the world and theory of international relations forever. Thus to an extent we can say that realists were right. The war has occurred and it has major consequences for each one of us living in the international order.
