Russia and Ukraine have had several conflicts throughout the years. In their latest conflict, and worst East-West crisis since the Cold war, Vladimir Putin gave a speech arguing Crimea should be a Russian territory. The Russian Empire seized Crimea in 1783, during the reign of Catherine the Great. Crimea was established as an, it returned to being part of Russia in 1945. In 1921, Crimea was established as an autonomous republic until 1945 when it lost its status as an autonomous republic because of the collaboration of a significant number of Crimeans with the German forces.
Crimea went back to being a part of Russia up to 1954, when then soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev returned Crimea to the Ukranian SSR . In 1991 when Ukraine became independent, there was a push for Crimea to be returned to Russia since most of its people were Russians or Russian speakers. “While being genuinely multi-ethnic, today the Crimea comprises the majority of ethnic Russians as well as Russian language speakers. According to the 1989 census, 98% of the Crimeans claimed Russian to be their language of every day communications. The move was not successful, until 2014 when Vladimir Putin successfully annexed Crimea by arguing it was a part of Russian history and most of its population was composed of Russians. Putin’s famous speech was a product of constant failed attempts to recover Crimea, which made him grow tired of accusations that they were violating international law. His speech contains the presence of three main international relations theories: Realism, Liberalism and Social Constructivism.
He uses this three theories to argue why Crimea should returned to being part of Russia, to squash accusations that they are violating international law, and to even portray Russia as a victim of the other world powers. In order to understand why Putin wants Crimea so bad we need to look at it from the realist side. Realists are always pursuing their own national interests and struggle to obtain power. Although Putin tries claim that he is doing this for the Crimeans interest, it can’t be seen in a different way. Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a defensive reaction to the West’s attempts to transform Ukraine into a bastion. ” If Russia truly cared about something else than their own interests, they would have backed off when North America and Western Europe accused them of violating international laws. Instead Putin decided to ignore them and complete the annexation of Crimea.
“Realists perceive the annexation solely as a way for Russia to flex its muscle and seek to gain power to counter the “Atlanticist” agenda of the EU/ NATO. Realism helps us to understand how international laws are not perfect or set in stone and can sometimes be ignored by major powers like Russia. The theory of realism sees Russia’s annex of Crimea as a casual event in which a strong country is looking out for itself as no one else will. To obtain a better understanding of the annexation of Crimea it is also important to look at it through the eye of Liberalism. Liberalists believe international laws are crucial to keep the peace between the countries and make them work together.
Clearly Putin does not support Liberalism as he completely ignored international laws and the warnings from the United States and Western Europe. Even more interesting is how Liberalism has been losing its purpose without an opponent. “Without an opposing ideology since the end of the Cold War, liberalism has turned in upon itself. Liberal countries have been destroying their last “illiberal” elements, such as sexism, racism and homophobia, in order to have its always-necessary opponent, and maintain purpose. This left the liberal West searching for a new opponent or enemy that liberalism so desperately needed. The Crimean annexation gave them the perfect argument to once again depict Putin and Russia as enemies.
What Russia did violated international laws, but if this is not the firs time this happens why is it that the United States and Western Europe have made it look like a horrible crime? “Dugin believes the liberal West has presented Putin and Russia as villains, not because the Russian actions in the Crimea and the Ukraine are illegitimate, but rather because liberalism once again needs an enemy. Putin’s argument is strong and persuasive. Crimea had been part of Russia ever since the end of the 18th century, it is composed of mostly Russian speakers, and the maiority of their populat lation is Russian. Most important of all, it has been stated Crimeans are actually in favor of joining Russia. “More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia.
These numbers speak for themselves. ” Russia’s annexation of Crimea seems logical and Putin presents a strong argument in favor of it; but the liberal West needs it too look like a crime. Liberalism needs and opponent to maintain purpose and that opponent seems to be Putin’s Russia. The final international relations analytical framework used by Putin in his speech is Social Constructivism. This theory helps us understand the rationality behind the Crimean annexation.
Russia’s behavior is deemed rational according to Constructivists because the Russian Federation acted “towards objects, including other actors on the basis of what value those objects have as interpreted by the society in which the actor operates. ” Crimea is of considerable value for the Russians due to its strategic location. ” Crimea is a major asset to Russia due to its location as a peninsula. It’s main city, Sevastopol, has a port that provides the Russian fleet with direct access to the Black Sea; which allows Russia’s fleet to preserve its presence in Eurasia and counter NATO.
Russia’s decision ignore the United State’s requests, was due to the fact that Russia does not see the U. S as an ally in any way; if anything a threat. “The Constructivist view points out that cooperation will differ according to the way states view each other. In this case, Russia views NATO, particularly the United States, as a major threat to its sphere of influence. ” The Social Constructivism theory claims that the perception of friends and enemies can become a determinant factor of a state’s behavior.