Doesn�t geopolitics matter?

The events in Europe, especially in Ukraine since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, underscore the point that established norms of international affairs are being challenged seriously. The lukewarm response from the international community to Crimea’s annexation, resulting in the interference of Ukraine’s sovereignty, has strengthened the apprehension that post-Westphalian principles emphasising opposition to the change of a country’s borders by military might are no more the order of the day. President Vladimir Putin’s move in Crimea and consequent support for the Ukrainian rebels in the eastern region bordering Russia support those fears.

 West's betrayal of Russia
International relations analysts question whether the current aggressive behaviour displayed by a resurgent Russia has a link to the West’s breach of promise it had made concerning the role of NATO in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Berlin Wall’s dismantlement (November 1989), which marked the end of 40 years of the Cold War.
 Prominent among those who place significant blame for the Ukraine crisis on the West’s betrayal of Russia in pushing forward the plan of NATO’s expansion towards Eastern Europe contrary to its promise not to do so in exchange for supporting the reunification of Germany in the wake of the Berlin Wall’s demise is John J. Mearsheimer, who is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. In his Foreign Affairs (September-October 2014) essay “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault”, he has argued that elites in the U.S. and Europe have cultivated a flawed view of international politics, and, resultantly, the West’s policy towards realism and liberal views have created blunders seen in the disastrous events in Ukraine.
 The above professor believes that it is wrong to contend that realism does not hold truth in the current era of world politics. Based on the notion that in the 21st century liberal principles viz the rule of law, economic interdependence and democracy have a domineering role in defending the freedom of Europe, the West has devised a policy accordingly to deal with the present crisis in Eastern Europe.  But the author of the above Foreign Affairs essay opines that the logic of realism has not lost its relevance as yet if the crisis in Ukraine, precipitated by a series of Russian actions, in particular, after the ouster of pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych as the Ukrainian president last February, is any guide. Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty, reflected in Crimea’s annexation, which has been its territory and a peninsula with immense strategic value to the big powers, is an example to demonstrate that ignoring geopolitics invites catastrophes.
 In this vein, the essay “The Era of Disorder” (Project-Syndicate, October 2014) by Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, presents the Russian behaviour vis-à-vis Ukraine as a challenge to the very principle, which has been the solid foundation of stability in the European continent for decades. The legal principle that territory may not be acquired by military force has been openly challenged by Russia, which sees justification in reclaiming the Crimean territory by the threat of the use of force, an action that contravenes the Charter Principles of the UN of which Russia is a member.
 Joining such chorus of disagreement with what Russia has done to Ukraine, the professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Anne-Marie Slaughter in her latest Project-Syndicate essay, “Governing a World Out of Order” has observed that “Russia is openly breaking international rules and no longer bothering to justify itself under international law”. Furthermore, she quotes Kadri Liik of the European Council on Foreign Relations, who has written, “Moscow has challenged the whole post-Cold War European order, together with its system of rules.”
 The Chicago University professor provides the reasoning for the growing resentment in Russia towards the West to the gradual enlargement of NATO, the reliable custodian for European security under U.S. leadership. In his opinion, Russia did not want NATO to grow any larger, but to the contrary, the Western security alliance, even in the post-Cold War era, expanded so widely that now it accommodates the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia as its members. More shockingly to Russia, the Bucharest NATO Summit (April 2008) declared its endorsement of the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine for NATO membership and said, “These countries will become members of NATO.” (Foreign Affairs, September-October 2014)
 Therefore, it is understandable why then Russian President Boris Yeltsin expressed his disgust at the NATO bombing of Bosnia Serbs in 1995, when he said, “This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders…The flames of war could burst out across the whole of Europe.” John J. Mearsheimer has quoted the former Russian president in his Foreign Affairs essay. The history of NATO expansion reveals that Russian concerns were ignored once more in 2009 when Albania and Croatia were admitted as its new members.
 In this regard, the 1998 interview of George F. Kennan, a veteran American diplomat, will be relevant, whose remarks are reproduced in the essay “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”. Kennan observed in 1998, shortly after the approval by the U.S. Senate of the first round of NATO expansion, “I think that the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.”
 
Great-power politics
It is beyond any doubt that the 2008 invasion of Georgia and 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s territory by Russia are the consequences of great-power politics, in which we see a sad truth that might often makes right. There is no denying the historical fact that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protect their core strategic interests. Russia can hardly be an exception to this. Geo-politics has not outlived its relevance in the 21st century, too.

The writer specializes on international affairs
 

 

Doesn�t geopolitics matter?

The events in Europe, especially in Ukraine since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, underscore the point that established norms of international affairs are being challenged seriously. The lukewarm response from the international community to Crimeas annexation, resulting in the interference of Ukraines sovereignty, has strengthened the apprehension that post-Westphalian principles emphasising opposition to the change of a countrys borders by military might are no more the order of the day. President Vladimir Putins move in Crimea and consequent support for the Ukrainian rebels in the eastern region bordering Russia support those fears. Wests betrayal of Russia International relations analysts question whether the current aggressive behaviour displayed by a resurgent Russia has a link to the Wests breach of promise it had made concerning the role of NATO in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Berlin Walls dismantlement (November 1989), which marked the end of 40 years of the Cold War. Prominent among those who place significant blame for the Ukraine crisis on the Wests betrayal of Russia in pushing forward the plan of NATOs expansion towards Eastern Europe contrary to its promise not to do so in exchange for supporting the reunification of Germany in the wake of the Berlin Walls demise is John J. Mearsheimer, who is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. In his Foreign Affairs (September-October 2014) essay Why the Ukraine Crisis is the Wests Fault, he has argued that elites in the U.S. and Europe have cultivated a flawed view of international politics, and, resultantly, the Wests policy towards realism and liberal views have created blunders seen in the disastrous events in Ukraine. The above professor believes that it is wrong to contend that realism does not hold truth in the current era of world politics. Based on the notion that in the 21st century liberal principles viz the rule of law, economic interdependence and democracy have a domineering role in defending the freedom of Europe, the West has devised a policy accordingly to deal with the present crisis in Eastern Europe. But the author of the above Foreign Affairs essay opines that the logic of realism has not lost its relevance as yet if the crisis in Ukraine, precipitated by a series of Russian actions, in particular, after the ouster of pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych as the Ukrainian president last February, is any guide. Ukraines loss of sovereignty, reflected in Crimeas annexation, which has been its territory and a peninsula with immense strategic value to the big powers, is an example to demonstrate that ignoring geopolitics invites catastrophes. In this vein, the essay The Era of Disorder (Project-Syndicate, October 2014) by Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, presents the Russian behaviour vis--vis Ukraine as a challenge to the very principle, which has been the solid foundation of stability in the European continent for decades. The legal principle that territory may not be acquired by military force has been openly challenged by Russia, which sees justification in reclaiming the Crimean territory by the threat of the use of force, an action that contravenes the Charter Principles of the UN of which Russia is a member. Joining such chorus of disagreement with what Russia has done to Ukraine, the professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Anne-Marie Slaughter in her latest Project-Syndicate essay, Governing a World Out of Order has observed that Russia is openly breaking international rules and no longer bothering to justify itself under international law. Furthermore, she quotes Kadri Liik of the European Council on Foreign Relations, who has written, Moscow has challenged the whole post-Cold War European order, together with its system of rules. The Chicago University professor provides the reasoning for the growing resentment in Russia towards the West to the gradual enlargement of NATO, the reliable custodian for European security under U.S. leadership. In his opinion, Russia did not want NATO to grow any larger, but to the contrary, the Western security alliance, even in the post-Cold War era, expanded so widely that now it accommodates the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia as its members. More shockingly to Russia, the Bucharest NATO Summit (April 2008) declared its endorsement of the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine for NATO membership and said, These countries will become members of NATO. (Foreign Affairs, September-October 2014) Therefore, it is understandable why then Russian President Boris Yeltsin expressed his disgust at the NATO bombing of Bosnia Serbs in 1995, when he said, This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federations bordersThe flames of war could burst out across the whole of Europe. John J. Mearsheimer has quoted the former Russian president in his Foreign Affairs essay. The history of NATO expansion reveals that Russian concerns were ignored once more in 2009 when Albania and Croatia were admitted as its new members. In this regard, the 1998 interview of George F. Kennan, a veteran American diplomat, will be relevant, whose remarks are reproduced in the essay Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the Wests Fault. Kennan observed in 1998, shortly after the approval by the U.S. Senate of the first round of NATO expansion, I think that the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else. Great-power politics It is beyond any doubt that the 2008 invasion of Georgia and 2014 annexation of Ukraines territory by Russia are the consequences of great-power politics, in which we see a sad truth that might often makes right. There is no denying the historical fact that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protect their core strategic interests. Russia can hardly be an exception to this. Geo-politics has not outlived its relevance in the 21st century, too. The writer specializes on international affairs