Search

Begin New Search Topic International Relations Political Geography Russia Content Type Commentary and Analysis Publication Year within 1 Year

1. Russia’s Stance on the North Korean Narrative of a New Cold War

Author:
Seho Jang
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Seho Jang, a research fellow in the Institute for National Security Strategy, states that North Korea is promoting strategic solidarity with China and Russia to achieve its goal of dismantling US hegemony. While Russia also shares the perception that the US-centered unipolar order is not conducive to attaining its national interests, it rarely uses the term “new Cold War” in official foreign policy discourse, reflecting its apprehension about the concept and its potential implications. He evaluates that this caution possibly originated from Russia’s historical trauma as a loser of the Cold War, making it highly likely to be opposed to the emergence of the new Cold War order led by Washington and Beijing. Dr. Chang suggests that this subtle difference could become an important inflection point as Washington’s clout in international politics decreases in the future.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Multipolarity, International Order, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, and United States of America

2. Assessing Realist and Liberal Explanations for the Russo-Ukrainian War

Author:
Christopher McCallion
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Many commentators have claimed that the Russo-Ukrainian War invalidates or refutes core aspects of realist international relations (IR) theory. However, the opposite is the case: many realists correctly predicted the war, and realism offers a compelling explanation for its causes, while explanations based on liberal IR theory are weak and often inconsistent with the evidence. By focusing on factors like the balance of power and the security dilemma, the realist explanation for the Russo-Ukrainian War emphasizes Russian security concerns in the face of NATO expansion and Western-sponsored regime change. Liberal explanations, by focusing on the internal attributes of states and their decision-makers, instead attribute the war to the pathologies of the Russian government. The dominant liberal narratives regarding the causes of the war are that Russian President Vladimir Putin has always been intent on reincorporating Ukraine into Russia and/or that the democratic example set by post-Maidan Ukraine would threaten President Putin’s own autocratic rule at home. Neither of these explanations stand up to scrutiny. For decades, a long list of policymakers, diplomats, and scholars warned against Western encroachment on Russia’s borders and cautioned that a crisis like the current war could erupt due to continued NATO enlargement. These predictions are consistent with realist theory and the explanations for the war offered by realists. Liberal IR theory encourages a crusading, messianic, and highly militarized foreign policy that consistently produces outcomes inimical to U.S. interests. Realist IR theory offers a better framework through which to understand international politics and encourages a more prudent foreign policy that defends fundamental U.S. security interests while avoiding unnecessary conflicts with other powers.
Topic:
International Relations, Realism, Liberalism, Armed Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine