Russia-Ukraine conflict: a constructivist's critique of a realist perspective

The overarching portrayal of the recent insecurity in Ukraine has evident realist underpinnings. Russia’s annexation of Crimea is deemed as being an assertion of, and an attempt to increase, their relative power and a pursuit of their self-interests. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin (Source: Google Images)

This aligns with realist theorist John Mearsheimer’s view that great powers seek to expand their military and economic capabilities when the overall benefits outweigh the costs. This state-centrism forms the foundation of traditional realist conceptualisations of international relations, where the state is the sole referent object of enquiry.

Although this is an appealing and somewhat intuitive narrative, this realist ideology presents the current insecurity in Crimea in overly simplistic and material terms, with fixed notions of the nation state, territorial boundaries and identity. However, there is sound reason to suggest that Crimea is not a realist story.

Firstly, the invasion of Crimea is not necessary in order for Russia to enhance the naval capabilities of their Black Sea Fleet, nor does it boost their economic capabilities. In actual fact, Russia faces significant costs. As result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Putin has dampened Russia’s international reputation and risks the renewal of the East versus West conflict that characterized the Cold War period. Furthermore, Russia will continue to suffer economically from the withdrawal of foreign investment and reduced access to the European energy market. It is overwhelming clear that the benefits of invading Crimea do not in fact outweigh the substantial costs.

In response to the shortcomings of dominant realist narratives in addressing the domestic realm, and their all-embodying emphasis on the material world, constructivism emerged in the 1980’s with an interest in the relationship between immaterial ideas and the physical world. The core proposition of constructivism is that normative and ideological structures are just as important as material ones in the international system. Furthermore, normative structures shape identity, which agent’s then base their interests and actions upon.

Theory in Action: Constructivism (Source: YouTube)

As an example, constructivists call upon America’s relationship with two of its neighbours: Canada and Cuba. From material evidence alone, Canada poses a greater threat to America than Cuba does, however due to the ideological differences between America and Cuba, it is in fact the latter than is deemed an enemy of America. Shared ideas about identity and logics of ideology have nurtured a strong alliance between Canada and America, highlighting the fact that "material resources only acquire meaning for human action through the structure of shared knowledge in which they are embedded". In this sense, norms and shared values condition the behavior of states.

In relation to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it is important to acknowledge the ideas that underpin Russia’s actions and the corresponding reaction from the international community.

Putin has taken advantage of “shared emotional resonance” in Russia, using the existing sense of Russian identity in Crimea to justify the annexation. Another factor at play is Russia’s territorial attachment to Ukraine. For centuries, Crimea Province was part of the Russian Republic until it was gifted to Ukraine in 1954. However despite this handover, “Siegelbaum argues that Crimea’s cultural links with Russia were far stronger, and, at the time, there were slightly more than three Russians in Crimea for each Ukrainian”. Unanimous emotional associations to the territorial identity of a state influence how people understand policy choices. Putin strategically associated his actions in Crimea with emotional attachment and ideas of identity, shaping the way that civilians understood his military efforts in Crimea. This idea of a strong Russian identity in Crimea helps to explain Russia’s interest in reclaiming it.

Geographic location (Source: NPR 2014)

Although a shift in the normative agenda now deems intervention as being legitimate under certain circumstances, institutions and multilateralism play a crucial role in legitimizing action. However Russia’s occupation of Crimea is unilateral, illegal and illegitimate, violating international norms and rules. There was no attempt at employing diplomatic approaches with Ukraine officials before resorting to occupation, setting a negative precedent of illegitimate intervention.

Protestors in Ukraine (Source: Google Images)

In terms of the reaction by the international community, it is clear that shared Western norms in relation to preserving the integrity of territorial borders, adherence to international law and political freedoms oppose Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Established Western societal and political norms can help to explain the West’s opposition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and their subsequent actions directed towards pressuring Russia to withdraw their influence in Ukraine.

Constructivism’s overarching claim that a state’s identity and subsequent actions and interests, are shaped by social norms, is evident in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The emphasis on the immaterial realm helps us to understand policy choices and state behavior. Although critical in its approach, perhaps the most profound weakness of constructivism is its inability to deviate from state-centrism, which lends itself to the traditional conceptualisations of international relations.