Analyzing war, like any international phenomenon, requires an understanding of its complexities. The poverty of the debate surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine reflects, in part, certain basic conceptual misunderstandings: state vs. people, power vs. democracy, individual vs. government.
Anyone who deals with international relations (professors, analysts, diplomats) must have these concepts clear. To begin with, there is no “general theory” of international relations (IR). There are several aspects that seek to account for the complexities of the world from different elements. Every theory is a simplification of reality that helps us to describe, explain and predict the world.
realism
The best-known IR theory is realism. It is the favorite of pessimists, who look at “life as it is” and who think about the world from human selfishness. Realists basically see an international system made up of states in a permanent struggle for power and influence, faced with a world in which the law of the strongest prevails.
To survive, states need to accumulate power. The search for one’s own security causes insecurity in others. The consequence is conflict and, if all goes well, some balance of power. There is no peace outside of balance.
For realists, the main hallmark of the post-Cold War world is the consolidation of US hegemony. They expanded their military presence around the world, including NATO (Western military alliance), promoted regime changes in hostile countries, and no country in the world had the power or interest to stop them.
Realists, therefore, see Russia as a country that has declined after the end of the Cold War and that feels insecure on its borders, thanks to the expansion (military, economic, cultural) of the US. Putin, in this interpretation, seeks to limit American action in regions sensitive to Russian interests, such as the Caucasus, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Hence the military actions in Georgia (2008), Syria (2011) and Ukraine (2014). And now again.
But Russia would be wanting to ensure its security, not cause a nuclear war or genocide. In the Russia-US-NATO conflict, Putin’s “endgame” is to neutralize Ukraine. Demilitarize it and place a government allied with Russia. Is it unfair to Ukrainians and goes against their national and democratic aspirations? Of course, but it is what guarantees the stability of the region.
liberalism
Another well-known theory is liberalism. Liberals tend to be optimistic, as they believe in the potential of the individual and in human progress. They are enthusiastic about advancing democracy, international law and free trade. They think that peace and prosperity will come from this.
There are several liberal currents in IR, each with its own peculiarities. In general, they perceive the world beyond States: this international system is made up of multiple interconnected networks of governments, companies, NGOs, transnational groups, societies and individuals.
For liberals, the big (positive) change in the post-Cold War period was the acceleration of globalization and the expansion of democracy. Stubborn dictatorships would be overthrown by capitalism, elections or force. The “free world” could bring us to perpetual peace in no time.
Since 2008 at least, liberals are increasingly concerned about some global trends. Democracy has stagnated and is weakening in many countries, including the West; globalization has produced political and economic discontent; autocracies, deemed doomed to failure, are stronger than ever. The return of nationalisms and the weakening of multilateral cooperation and regional integration (such as Brexit) give the measure of the current nightmare of liberals.
Putin, in this sense, is more of a tyrant who wants to subvert the pillars of liberal democracy. It represses its own citizens, allies itself with other dictatorships such as China, and uses its cyber machine to rig elections in the West. To prevent the winds of freedom (EU-NATO) from reaching Ukraine, he runs over the neighboring country and suffocates its people.
For liberals, in this global conflict between democracies and autocracies, Putin’s goal is to demonstrate his strength against Western democracies, using Ukraine as a laboratory for the birth of a pro-Russian autocrat, as in Belarus and Central Asia.
Most media (and Twitter) coverage looks at the problem through a liberal lens. For this very reason, war became a matter of tyranny x freedom, of the State x individuals. The tragedy will only end when Putin, Xi Jinping and other dictators are defeated.
constructivism
Finally, another much-debated theory is constructivism. It perceives the world not through power, like realists, or the individual, like liberals, but through identities. Countries and societies construct narratives and images of themselves and others, composing this complex panorama of international relations.
Constructivists take into account cultural, historical and discursive aspects to understand, for example, why certain countries are friends and others rivals, even when elements such as power or democracy would suggest otherwise.
For constructivists, the post-Cold War world was marked by a transformation of identities. Before, countries were united by ideological affinities, capitalism or communism. Afterwards, other identities began to gain strength: religion, culture and history were used to redraw the world map from new alignments.
Who has never heard of Samuel Huntington’s famous thesis about the clash of civilizations? This is an application, albeit controversial and problematic, of the constructivist argument, insofar as it is argued that new patterns of interaction between countries stem from new identities.
In this world where empires seem to reappear (alongside the American empire, we have the Chinese, the Russian, the Hindu, the Ottoman), each of them wants to defend their civilizational space in an effort to transform the world into a set of civilizations led by empires, in which their own cultural and religious values prevail. Constructivism, in this key, illuminates why notions such as Christianity x Islam, West x East have returned to the order of the day.
Putin would be more than a dictator against democracy: his project is to rebuild the Russian empire based on Slavic identity and orthodox Christianity, with him as a postmodern tsar. For that, he needs to undermine the foundations of the current international order, which is based on liberal and cosmopolitan values, in which themes such as democracy and human rights are central.
The strange proximity between Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Putin, Viktor Orbán and Narendra Modi, among others, is explained by this antagonism to the current order — and the taste for civilization.
Right and wrong
There are three key points from this long introduction to IR theories:
First, different concepts lead to different perceptions of reality. Understanding the world depends on understanding the concepts at play.
Second, there is no such thing as an absolutely right or wrong theory. Each of them informs motivations and dynamics based on the variables used. Each one chooses which theory to embrace based on ethical, ideological, intellectual affinities.
Third, political decisions are also made, sometimes unconsciously, on the basis of these theoretical-philosophical simplifications. As long as there is no frank discussion about how the main actors involved see the world, any solution will be practically impossible.
