Vladimir Putin and Foreign Policy: The Annexation of Crimea

On March 18 2014, Russia, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. (Myers, Barry, 2014)  When the facts surrounding the annexation are examined, not only do Putin’s motivations remain relatively unclear, but also his philosophy on foreign policy is left open for interpretation.  Based on his actions in Crimea, does Vladimir Putin make decisions from the perspective of realpolitik, liberal internationalism, or constructivist foreign policy?

To adequately evaluate Putin’s foreign policy in terms of his engagements in Crimea, what Russia had to gain and lose from those engagements must first be considered.  In terms of gains, an annexation of Crimea could potentially provide Russia with a valuable tourist destination and resort location.  The Black Sea beaches and other amenities of Crimea attracted more than 5.9 million tourists in 2013. (Rudenko 2014)  Another Russian territory in Eastern Europe could also increase Russia’s influence in Europe as a whole.  Likewise, Russia annexing Crimea shows the European Union and its allies that Putin has no respect for international rules of engagement and that Russia’s actions cannot be easily predicted. 

However, for every modest gain there seemed to be a fairly measurable loss.  Since Crimea’s annexation, the peninsula has attracted far fewer tourists than in previous years due to a Ukrainian boycott of the region and few feasible transportation methods available for Russians willing to make the trip. (Rudenko 2014)  Crimea also receives approximately 80% of its water and 90% of its electricity from Ukraine, meaning Russia will need to compensate Ukraine for its utilities while spending even more money connecting Crimea to mainland Russia. (Winning, De Carbonnel, 2014)  Despite the fact Russia’s influence in the region over the very long term may increase with the annexation of Crimea, in the short term Russia has alienated itself from the powerful international discussions it fought so hard in which to be included.  This can be evidenced by Russia’s banishment from the G8, now G7, coalition. (Pace 2014)

So where do the gains and losses absorbed by Russia from annexing Crimea leave President Vladimir Putin’s philosophy on foreign policy in terms of the three main international relations theories? 

If Putin were a liberal internationalist, he would have failed miserably to carry out the foreign policy’s tenets.  In no way has Putin spread liberal ideas for peace and prosperity by negotiating through institutions.  Putin did the very opposite by completely forgoing any negotiation and simply relocating forces to support the Russian rebels in Crimea.  Putin only created conflict and destabilized the region while banishing his state from global institutions.

If Putin practiced Realpolitik, he would be largely interested in Russia’s national interest and security.  In other words, is Russia more powerful, from a realist perspective, as a state before or after annexing Crimea?  In the short term, Russia has damaged its economic power by incurring massive expenses with few immediate returns on investment.  However, in the long term, Crimea provides Putin and Russia with a valuable territory on the Black Sea, a potential buffer zone between Ukraine and mainland Russia, and a likely profitable tourist attraction for Russian citizens once transportation to the peninsula is made more convenient.  Militarily, Putin didn’t have to commit large assets to Crimea because of the considerable support for Russia already present in the region.  Russia has gained access to a peninsula that can be used for naval purposes and a long-term economic asset without any significant military loss.

Could Putin be a foreign policy constructivist?  He certainly does not value international organizations as influential actors on the world stage.  Conversely, Putin has proven he believes societal circumstances have changed internationally and thusly his responses to laws set into place under past circumstances should change accordingly.

            Putin is most definitely not a liberal internationalist.  However, he shares some characteristics with both constructivist foreign policy and realpolitik.  Based on his actions in Crimea, Putin likely makes his foreign policy decisions as a realist constructivist.  His stated motivations for annexing Crimea consisted of bringing a people back to Russia that had always identified themselves as Russian.  He viewed the west, mainly NATO and EU states, as the other and Russia as the self. (Myers, Barry, 2014)  Considering the annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin is a constructivist realist in terms of foreign policy.

Myers, S., & Barry, E. (2014, March 18). Putin Reclaims Crimea for Russia and Bitterly Denounces the West. Retrieved September 28, 2014.

Pace, J. (2014, March 24). G8 Summit In Sochi Canceled, G7 Leaders To Meet In Brussels Instead. Retrieved September 28, 2014.

Rudenko, O. (2014, August 25). Tourism suffers in Crimea as Ukraine shuns breakaway region. Retrieved September 28, 2014.

Winning, A., & De Carbonnel, A. (2014, June 5). Russia faces struggle to wean Crimea economy off Ukraine supplies. Retrieved September 28, 2014.

A Liberalist World

In class, we have recently discussed realism and liberalism. Realists are only concerned about the state; liberalists are more willing to think about others rather than just the state itself. In discussion class last week, we were asked if we thought the world was realist, liberalist, or constructivist. I believe the world is liberalist for several reasons. One reason is that States, like the United States, rely on other States for military support, trade, and economic support. In a realist world, States would be relying on themselves for food and supplies while not caring what was happening to the other States. But in this liberalist world, States rely and trade with each other a lot. Realists would say that the United States relies too much on China when it comes to trade not to mention that China holds a lot of United States debt. But the relationship between the United States and China may not be as dependable as some people think. Maybe China is the one that relies too much on America and if America stopped trade with China their economy could collapse or vice versa. Any trade with another State, whether to dependent or not, is beneficial for all States. Unlike realists, when another country is in need, other States are willing to help the country that needs it. When Hatti had the earthquake hit, America sent three naval ships down with lots of supplies so the people affected by the earthquake had food, water, and other supplies. If States did not depend on each other, then States might not be able to survive on their own if a massive earthquake or hurricane struck. When it comes to threats from terrorism like ISIS, States will need to work together to deal with the threats. A realist would say to leave ISIS along because they are not a threat to his or her State. No one State will be able to take on ISIS by themselves no matter how big the military. Also, not just one State is under the threat of ISIS; everyone should be worried about ISIS. If left alone, they may gain too much power or gain too many followers. Followers for ISIS are being found all over the world and not just in the Middle East. A couple days ago, a man in Oklahoma, who had converted to Islam, got fired when he was trying to convert all his coworkers to Islam. The man later returns to his old job, kills a woman, and beheads her while also injuring another woman. Is this person a follower of ISIS, or listened to appeals from ISIS that all jihadists should attack Americans, or is this a person who was slightly crazy after losing his job? If the States do not come together to work out a plan to deal with ISIS, the situation could get out of control. The United States sending drones for air strikes can only last so long. ISIS is affecting everyone; an effective plan with everyone’s cooperation will hopefully be the solution to the problem with ISIS before another world war starts.

Air Strikes Against ISIS Show Connections To Realism?

          Stories regarding the terrorist group known as ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, have been flooding major news networks for the past couple months. The United States began an aerial war against ISIS in Iraq over a month ago, but on September 22^nd the United States widened the air strikes into Syria to destroy the terrorist group. Is President Barack Obama taking a realist, liberalist, or constructivist approach in United States’ foreign policy regarding ISIS? Though the United States’ fight against ISIS doesn’t fit all aspects of a realist’s international relations theory, a realist approach strongly represents how Obama and the United States is handling the ISIS terrorists.

            Realism focuses on the international relations between recognized states. ISIS is not a state and is not formally recognized by any government; the terrorist organization is not tied to any specific land and instead flows between the states Iraq and Syria. Thus, the United States should not expect ISIS to act like a recognized state. However, this does not mean that ISIS doesn’t desire power, wealth, and security like any other state. That being said, the United States is taking a realist approach in other aspects to maintain its own security and power.

            Power is essential for a realist and military is paramount. Though no troops are on the ground, the United States is exercising its military power with the air strikes against ISIS. The aggressive air strikes projects to ISIS that the United States has cultural power as well. The United States is exerting its power on ISIS to demolish the terrorist organization and any power it holds. The nation doesn’t want ISIS to become any more powerful than it already is. If ISIS were to become any more powerful, it could pose a greater threat to the power of the United States. While exerting its power towards ISIS with dozens of air strikes, the United States is concerned about the gains it makes in relative power compared to absolute power. Realists care more about the relative gains in power. Knowing that it cannot destroy every link to ISIS, the United States cares more about how much power it has in comparison to how much power ISIS holds.

            The air strikes against ISIS exhibits the United States focusing on relative power gains by exerting its military power. Like the sound points of realism, national interest and national security are of utmost concern for the United States at the moment. The United States’ concern over national security falls into the palm of the state’s national interest. The air strikes expanded into Syria after the beheadings of several American journalists and bomb threats against the state from another terrorist organization based in Syria. The United States’ national security was at risk and it was of the state’s national interest to administer more air strikes in order to maintain its security. Although innocent people may die from the air strikes, the countrymen of the United States are more important than others – an important realist thought.

            It is not to go unmentioned that the United States isn’t the only state administering air strikes against ISIS. In fact, the United States opened their military operation with five Arab allies. The idea of this coalition is supported by realism as well. Forming alliances with other states is an example of external balancing. The United States has formed alliances with five Arab states to maintain the current balance of power between states and derail ISIS.

            When deciding between realism, liberalism, and constructivism, the United States’ execution of air strikes against ISIS falls best into the international relations theory of realism. By using the military to gain relative power and maintain the current balance of power, the United States is protecting the national interest of the state’s security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-launches-more-airstrikes-against-isis-in-syria-pentagon-says/

Is ISIL a State?

What is ISIL? ISIL or ISIS is acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013). It has been branded by the U.S., the U.N. and her allies as an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist terrorist group. The group itself however claim to be a caliphate, which claims religious authority over all Muslims in the world. At the present, it has some political authority over territories in Iraq and Syria.

The question I am proposing is, is ISIL a state? and does it have sovereignty over the people and properties within their control?

Let’s first examine the political system of ISIL. On Jun 29, 2014, ISIL proclaimed their first caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. A caliph is the political and religious leader of the Islamic state. It is basically a king and a pope. Caliph Abu Bakr is the commander in chief of ISIL’s military forces, head of ISIL’s executive and legislative branch of government as well as head of the Muslim clergy within the State. The priority of ISIL is to force on establishing its own rule on conquered territory. Unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda or the anti-Assad group al-Nusra which focuses mainly on committing military operations to overthrow or hurt their enemies.

ISIL’s legal system is consisted of the Sharia laws which comes from the Quran and the Muslim traditions and values, unlike the laws of the West which comes from the will of the people.  Their statehood is recognized by some Arab organization; The Free Syrian Army recently on Sept 12^th, 2014 signed a Non-Aggression Pact with ISIL.

So ISIL has a government and a leader, a system of laws, a state religion, a military to defend itself, and outside organizations that recognizes ISIL having these things. So is it a state?

I argue that it is, to some extent. If one compare ISIL to the Continental Army and the 13 Colonies of America in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, there are significant similarities. From the British’s point of view at those times, the American Continental Army was a terrorist army. The rebelling colonies were not recognized as states by any of the European states, except by France later on. But the Americans had a government, the Continental Congress with representatives of local governments throughout the colonies. The Americans had a system of laws which was very similar to the British system of law back then. And the people who lived in those colonies recognizes the authority of the laws created by these governments. And finally, the colonies were able to field state militias and a grand army to defend these things.

ISIL can become a state and might eventually will if they succeed in completing their agendas. At the current state, it is still a rebellion military group with all the potentials but have not yet to win the loyalty of the populace living with its territories. Without law abiding citizens, a country cannot be a state. It’ll just be a Prussian Army possessing a state. The properties, weapons and vehicles, and recruits of the ISIL are still produced and enlisted from other states outside of ISIL controlled territories. This is the main ingredient that they are missing to declare itself a true state, the ability to self sustain itself.