Realism Versus Idealism- A Comparative Analysis of the Dominant Ideology in the Russia-Ukraine-Conflict

Abstract

The Russia-Ukraine war has emerged as one of the most significant conflicts of the twenty-first century, garnering widespread attention from political analysts and scholars of international relations who are assessing the reasons for the conflict and also analysing the future course of the war. The conflict has generated significant debates regarding the sovereignty and integrity of a state, security and role of international organization such as United Nations and whether it is still relevant in the present scenario. This paper examines the conflict through the theoretical lens of the theory of Realism and Idealism in International Relations. Realism on one hand, emphasizes power politics, national interests and pursuit of strategic interests by a state while Idealism emphasizes on collective security, diplomacy and dialogue to maintain international peace and harmony among the nations. A comparative analytical approach is applied in the study to evaluate how both the theories explain the reasons and the consequences of the conflict. Realism evaluates the conflict in terms of power politics and pursuit of strategic interests by the nation for the fulfilment of its national interests. From this perspective, Russia actions can be analysed as an attempt on its part to preserve and secure its national security and protect its strategic national interests in the face of perceived external threat by the expansion of NATO into the Eastern Europe and including Ukraine as its member. In contrast, Idealism emphasizes the principles of international peace and stresses on the importance of dialogue and diplomacy for maintaining peace and stability. It also emphasizes on the utility of international organizations for maintaining peace and security. During the course of Russia-Ukraine conflict these principles were reflected as the United Nations repeatedly condemned Russia’s act of violation and aggression but Russia being a permanent member at the United Nations Security Council, these attempts by United Nations proved to be futile. The following study presents the notion that both realism and idealism offer valuable insights into the conflict, though Realism tends to provide a stronger and viable explanation of the strategic motives behind the state actions while Idealism highlights the importance of international institutions, diplomacy and legal norms. The paper concludes that an elaborate understanding of the conflict requires consideration of both perspectives.