nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How Great Power Politics is dictating Ukraine's Foreign Policy

Kingkong

One week into the Ukraine War, I strongly believed Putin via Russia was 100% behind and responsible for the Ukraine War.

What bothered me most about my belief was I could not understand Why now, What changed?

What I discovered alarmed me, Great Power Politics was at play and I had no clue on how complicated the political history of Ukraine was and how US Foreign Policy had done.

What is Great Power Politics?

Its term invented by John Mearsheimer states great powers (China, US, Russia) seek to maximize their share of the world's wealth because economic strength is the foundation of military strength. Great powers seek to prevent rival powers from dominating wealth-producing regions of the world.

This lead me to listen to a very interesting talk which in 2005 predicted the Ukraine situation.

I'll try to summaries the argument:

In 1990 the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s said “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion with Mikhail Gorbachev
At the 2008 Bucharest Summit the US insisted to declare that Ukraine would become part of NATO
At the time NATO and Russia were considered allies and worked together on some world security issues breaking trust
In response Russia said Ukraine being part of NATO creates an "existential treat" for its security. To them it was the same as the US not wanting Russia to have missiles in Cuba.
In 2014 an audio recording was leaked of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked working on their plans to bring Arseniy Yatsenyuk to power as prime minister
In response Russia then annexed Crimea because of a Naval base it had and needed it for strategic reasons ( this is often disputed)
On 28 June 2021, Ukraine and NATO forces launched joint naval drills in the Black Sea codenamed Sea Breeze 2021. Russia condemned the drills and now see Ukraine as a defacto member of NATO
7 March 2022 Russia invades Ukraine and world falls apart
US & NATO walk away from Ukraine after inferring in the first place

I would be keen to hear people views on this.

Are Great Power Politics at play and is the current crisis caused by US Foreign Policy decisions?

My second question is what does this mean for US and European relations in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=0s

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118752532#Comment_118752532

DCU myself -School of Law and Government

NATO in 2008 - I agree over time this became less of an issue. However their was no reason why the US insisted on stating this at the time. It inflamed a situation for no reason. Again its a reasonable point - but the reaction is so grossly out of proportion, that i cannot agree with this act being a 'provocation'
2014 Prime Minister - This event really matters I think, we don't know the true facts but a Democracy putting in place another Democracy which suits it needs stincts. Russia I suspect seen this as a significant threat and over reacted. But US was stupid to start it - This was a democratic revolution, IN UKRAINE, BY UKRAINIANS, FOR THE UKRAINE - once again i cannot agree with this reasoning. It may have been THE MOMENT HE (Putin) decided to do this? But in all honesty - see point one. a GROSS over reaction.
Annexed Crimea - Major over reaction by Russia here but I can understand why the naval base was so important. Again - you acknowledge its an overreaction - I will leave it there
Naval drills - I disagree here. The black sea, Turkish drone imports, US weapons and training. If Russia/China did the same drill near un Cuban water near the US they would have seen it as a major threat too. So I don't think Ukraine being seen as a defacto member of NATO by Moscow is unreasonable assertion - well we may have to agree to disagree. You should examine balance of Power Theory. Ukraine had not joined NATO - receiving some basic support from NATO (and training with them) does not change the balance as it exists in the region. The balance is entirely Asymmetrical in favor of the Russians. To claim anything else, is just looking for a reason to invade - THAT is what happened in my view.

That was the reason for arming the separatists
That was the reason for 'creating and engineering' a burgeoning internal Ukrainian conflict
It inflamed tensions between Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians
And all to build toward;
Regions declaring Independence -
requesting Assistance from Moscow -
and invasion

We had a saying in college - I never fully endorsed it btw but i think its apt.

'Realism is great (fantastic) at explaining why things happened in the past - less useful at predicting what things will happen in the future'

'Everyone is an expert on last weeks horse racing'

All IMHO - happy to discuss

Kingkong

i don’t know the specifics and context of your example so hard to comment.

The reality is neighbouring nations of great powers can’t do what they want. Not saying it fair but how world politics work. Canada, Mexico and Cuba have to keep in line with US wishes, Japan and Hong Kong need to keep within China interest. In this case Ukraine needed to keep within Russians interests.

I’ll go back the same example if Russia and China formed an alliance to put defensive base in Cuba, would the US be justified in invading Cuba to neutralise the threat?

[Deleted User]

I think there's a few things at play here and there are some things that seem to strike that Putin's motives are at least partially motivated by religion. A few days ago the head of the Russian Orthodox Church was claiming further invasions into the Baltics and other neighbouring areas. Dugin has also alluded to this in the past (and several of his key objectives have clearly come to fruition).

A few days after the invasion Putin sat in front of the oligarchs to explain his reasoning for the invasion and he certainly didn't have the same bark that he did with his staff. For Putin it could be a fundamentalist idea that Ukraine has no business being a sovereign nation and for the oligarchs they get the resources and financial return. It's all gone a bit pear shaped for them now though.

I agree that Western powers have their part to play but NATO is a red herring, they know they're not a military threat. A financial threat in terms of protecting Ukraine from the very action they've taken to get gas and oil for sure but they know they wouldn't be aggressive.

I think the naval base in Crimea was a huge bonus since it is their only sea port available all year but they still have to navigate through Turkey so it's not absolute control. There's a lot of oil in those waters though.

I get the feeling there's a lot of fear and behind the scenes sycophancy regarding Putin and he was under the impression that this would go easily and the Ukrainians would be a cakewalk like they were in 2014. I can't see the oligarchs allowing him to remain in this position for very long while their assets are sized and economy destroyed by the west.

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118753015#Comment_118753015

I’ll go back the same example if Russia and China formed an alliance to put defensive base in Cuba, would the US be justified in invading Cuba to neutralise the threat?

Well, if we rewind to 1962, and remove China; It happened. The USSR placed medium and intermediate range Nuclear Missiles in Cuba, and the world VERY NEARLY DID go to war. The back story is more complicated but - close enough.

Rational actor theory (a branch of Rational Choice Theory) explained how we got out of that one. (Effectively assuming you are dealing with someone who is actively trying to avoid a nuclear exchange - and 'wants something' - and can deal and behave rationally). You may have noticed that the US has been chattering a lot to France/Macron - this is clearly back channeling to try and ascertain whether he, Putin, is Rational

Normal Channels in this department, are - shall we say - a bit odd lately - see below official statements/translations from Foreign Ministry and associated actors (Screen grabs - hope thats ok - easier than re finding all of the links, but will do so if requested?)

Does any of these OFFICIAL statements - seem credible, or rational??? As an IR Grad - this is all unprecedented, and rapidly becoming frightening. There is one i cannot find (seemingly i didnt screen grab it) - where they state, in english - Foreign Combatants will not be given POW status during this conflict

Cyclingtourist

Nazis under the bed?

Manach

One the one hand, the current Ukrainian situation is return to a real-politik which is more akin to the Great game power politics of the European 19th Century. On the other, it destroys (along with Ukrainian infrastructure), the international legal concept of Right to protect doctrine which had been the basis for Western powers since Kosovo to send troops outside their core territory to protect peoples whose human rights were being violated. Either way, this will likely mark the start of a new bi-polar world.

Kingkong

Super interesting, we than have a different animal at play here than 1962 but the stakes were huge nuclear war by placing weapons in Cuba.

I don’t understand why US didn't remember this and just leave Ukraine alone.

I could understand rational actor theory used up until 2014 but given the over reaction in 2014 and the prior warning Putin gave do you think the US should have known or acted differently in 2021 with Ukraine?

I presume they have intel on Putin state of mind. Unless this was some sort of test the US was using.

What’s your view on Great Power Politics at play here? Are we missing a larger picture past Ukraine??

Kingkong

Thanks Manach, do you see bi-polar world as China and US or another construct perhaps West vs East ?

This could be a redefinition of our current view of great powers as it’s hard to see Russia having sufficient economic power to be viable player.

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118754290#Comment_118754290

I presume they have intel on Putin state of mind. Unless this was some sort of test the US was using. I cannot say, but i saw interviews on SKY indicating that Macron was in direct conversation with the USIC after his phone calls with Putin. The topic of 'mental state' was of primary concern. The situation is not predictable, and many who have met Putin are flabbergasted by what they are now seeing

What’s your view on Great Power Politics at play here? - At this point its all 'Loud Speaker Diplomacy' over each others heads- in terms of actual power politics. NATO has a red line, its border. Russia has hoofed and poofed in all of our direction, but they haven't set a foot toward us.

The main clash has been over economic sanctions, and military aid to Ukraine.

In terms of actual power diplomacy (What do you want. whats going on? De-escalation talks - etc) - Nothing. Russia is talking absolute nonsense, and threatening everyone. The west is almost not saying anything - Now while you would all point to the enormous amounts of things stated - i would be talking about power politics as 'BOTTOM LINES'

Statements that address the hows, whys, whats, and wheres - Russia has talked a lot of garbage on this front

West has said little if anything-

Total Loud speaker diplomacy

In effect, analogous over simplified Official Dialogue is as follows:

------------------------------------------------

Russia Invades Ukraine:

Russia: Anyone who attempts to intervene we will retaliate

West continue to Arm Ukraine. Sanctions Begin

Russia: Stop Arming the NAZIS in the Ukraine.

West: .....

Russia: We view sanctions as an act of war

West: .... Just an update.. we are not at war with Russia, nor is NATO: unless they make a move against NATO. Which they have not

Russia: This is an outrage. <continues to make nonsensical statements at NATO countries and JAPAN for some reason>

Russia: Ukraine must never join NATO and get rid of the NAZIS

EU to Arm Ukraine

Russia: You are encouraging fascists in Kiev to resist our 'special military operation'. They must Denazify and never join NATO

West: .....

Russia: Maybe Ukraine wont even be a state after this

West: .....

China: staying out of this. Russia are partners, not allies

West: Grand...

Russia: You are propagandists (nonsenical statements that the west refuses to recognize Nazis in Kiev - and of NATO Imperialism, which is classic Soviet Shpeak btw)

West: .... Just in relation to this war. We have decided to give some F16s to Poland so they can pass their Migs over to the Ukrainians

Russia: If those planes take off from NATO airspace we will view that as an act of war

West: .....

Russia: We might EVEN NATIONALIZE companies that are leaving Russia!!!!

More companies leave or suspend Operations in Russia

West: ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not meant as a joke btw - The above is how i see it. And its not actually funny. i will say i welcome the response of the west. We should not equivocate on the facts. The Ukraine is NOT Nazi Germany. And the Ukraine is a free country that has been attacked.

But in terms of Great Power diplomacy - there is very little sign of it - The Russians are shouting a lot. The west make statements that are firm on NATO and recognition of the Ukrainian state - but thats it

liamtech

Gary Kasparov put it another way. Right now Russia is behaving like a drunk in a bar. Bullying everyone and looking for a fight. Listing historical grievances.

Continuing the analogy, the west may be waiting for it to sober up, and let cooler heads prevail -

Amirani

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118753015#Comment_118753015

There are many instances of small states doing things not in the interests of their Great Power neighbours though, without leading to invasion. Suggesting that small states should abandon their agency and be content in their role as buffer states is a self reinforcing justification of offensive realism.

I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that this war is exclusively the result of actions taken by the US and Russia since 2004, it's more complex than that. Trying to blame it entirely on the US or the West is even more simplistic and unreasonable.

Kingkong

I’ll reply properly in the morning Liam. Do you think the escalations of sanctions and condemnation is the right way to handle this situation. We need to be super careful of nuclear threat here.

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118754605#Comment_118754605

I think its our imperative to do what ever we can to weaken Russia, short of escalation to Nuclear war. Beyond that i honestly cant say. Certainly the sanctions will increase, and Russia's economy will be worthless. At that point its

De-Escalate and calm down - and work out a peace deal
or Russia decides to do a North Korea, and its Cold War 2

In my view anyway

Manach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118754442#Comment_118754442

It is bipolar in terms of viewing this conflict through a classical lens. A fairly recent IP book, The Thucycides Trap, posits a future conflict between the US & China with various allies drawn in based on a similar occurance during the Penolopessan war. Russia itself, as you said is weakened from this mistaken attempt to re-establish hegomony over Ukraine and will likely suffer a degradation of power. Similar to the the classical analogy, a future Russia might seek to ally itself to China even more closely and use that country as a catspaw as Corinth used Sparta in similar circumstances.

Kingkong

It’s 100% Great Power Politics now.

The only way I see de escalation is some agreement on Ukraine Neutrality, minisk II implementation , crimea and de militarilisation. Even if Ukraine could swallow this and agree it’s still may not be enough for Russia to back off.

Russia backed and forced into a corner is not a good idea. Superpowers don’t surrender.

They need to quickly work on a a comprise with Ukraine and get it proposed in Turkey on Thursday.

Time will not make this better.

Amirani

I thought this was a good critique yesterday from Adam Tooze on the subject: John Mearsheimer and the dark origins of realism - New Statesman

Cyclingtourist

A J P Taylor The Origins of the Second World War.

For all their talk of Nazis the Russians are borrowing from the Nazi playbook. All this talk of oppressed ethnic Russians as justification for aggression is how Hitler conducted foreign relations until he under-estimated the reaction to his (co-ordinated with Soviet Russia) invasion of Poland. It's the propaganda of victimhood.

Kingkong

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118756276#Comment_118756276

Hi Amirani;

Thanks for sharing the link, I found the article very hard to read and couldn't follow to argument to be honest. I'm having a second read of it now to see if I can make sense of it.

I don't understand the anger in some IR circles have against Mearsheimer viewpoint. He called the situation correctly in 2015, as the events did unfold as he had predicted for the most part. So perhaps when dealing with Russia Offensive realism is indeed an accurate viewpoint.

Its not Mearsheimer fault Russia has picked up on it and started to use it as propaganda for its war, this is not a good thing.

What I see as the biggest weakness is Mearsheimer total lack of consideration for what the Ukrainian people want in his argument or even some discussion on moral principles or conduct.

Kingkong

I see WION news (India) did a piece on this topic recently.

https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-did-nato-push-ukraine-into-war-459651

https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-zelenskys-three-big-miscalculations-460693

Chips Lovell

Mearsheimer is given a guest editorial in the Economist this week. The general thrust of his argument is similar to what was reported by the OP.

One of main evasions required to support his thesis is the pretense that the Ukrainians themselves have no agency and any developments are instead the outcome of U.S. foreign policy, e.g.

America ignored Moscow’s red line, however, and pushed forward to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. That strategy included two other elements: bringing Ukraine closer to the eu and making it a pro-American democracy.

Weak stuff really

McGiver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058236353/how-great-power-politics-is-dictating-ukraines-foreign-policy

Mersheimer - Armchair intellectual's talking shop. Highly speculative hypothetical intellectual exercise.

The reality - Russia was and is in no way threatened by NATO or the US. The largest territory on Earth. The largest reserves of natural resources. Russia has lived in this "existentially threated by the West mode" for 300 years, it serves as internal propaganda and unifying factor amongst the serfs as well as the elites. It's a grand dellusion.

Cyclingtourist

Maybe send this guy Mearshiemer to Kyiv so he can closely study the issue.

Podge_irl

The focus on US and only US foreign policy is ridiculous. Even if we refuse to address the agency of Ukraine itself (which is grossly offensive to begin with), the EU and European nations are not US puppets.

Ultimately Ukraine wants to move its face and direction to the West because Russia is a disaster of a country. If you want to ascribe "blame" for Ukraine's pivot, ascribe it still to Putin who was overseen a country that is a textbook example of what Ukraine do not want to be.

Larbre34

Pro-American democracy?

It does amaze me what people choose not to see when opining on these broad brush geopolitical questions.

The EU has learned its lesson when it comes to America. American democracy is no longer a certainty. American partnership with Europe is no longer a certainty. The US government may spend the next two or three decades vacillating between liberal and conservative, internationalist and isolationist, centrist and hard-right. One thing is for sure, it will often suffer the paralysis of Congress set against the Presidency.

That is no good for Europe in Russia's shadow. Europe must lead its own defence, its own economy, its own energy sources, its own politics. Ukraine realises that this is the only game in town and that's what it wants to be part of.

Russia could be the wealthiest nation on Earth, a relatively sparse population sharing in massive resources, living a benign existence and trading peacefully as it desires, hosting whatever foreign companies it wishes and not those that it doesn't. Yet they have allowed one man's mental state of mind to ruin it for years to come, to wreck it for generations. Only the Russians themselves can realise that and do something about it.

scottla

I know the discussion is specifically about great war politics, but I can't help throwing in a couple of other points that may or may not be relevant. 1) While Ukraine has historically been part of Russia's sphere of influence, shouldn't the wishes of the majority of the Ukrainian people count for something in all this? 2) Autocrats have been known to launch reckless military operations at least in part to distract from their domestic political troubles.

Kingkong

I think we in the west don't really understand democracy is seen as a 1. US driven 2. an attack on core values by many other nations. For obvious reasons they don't want to loose power and like their own status quo.

The get around point 1, the UN was once highly respected and powerful. That has lost a lot of status the US didn't help it. We need stronger and better International institutions.

The problem we face is the power between democratic nations and autocratic nations, until we either learn to respect and leave well alone we will be seen as the aggressor. If we want to be the aggressor as we believe autocratic nations are evil and stand up for the human rights of these other nations we need better ways to start and then support internal civil wars.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118783071#Comment_118783071

What countries have 'the west' invaded to export democracy? I can't think of any. Regime change yes, but talk of democracy is just for domestic consumption.

Likewise Russia is interested in regime change in the Ukraine, probably with some democratic window-dressing.