Do I believe that Ukrainian, American or European politicians are at fault for the misery, destruction and genocide on the Ukrainian land? I do not. I believe that the ones to blame are the ones who pull the trigger: Russian soldiers and Russian commanders that have given the criminal orders. However, I believe that some mistakes have been made in the decade before the war, costly mistakes that worsened the situation and bolstered the Russian confidence, the Russian state and the Russian army. I do not believe that people in question should be tried for this, but what we indeed must do, is learn from their mistakes. As the next similar situation can be not so far away, maybe in Asia, maybe in South America or maybe in Africa, its hard to predict war, genocide, tyranny and other atrocities, but it’s easy to take preventive measures, by studying previous failures. 

For example, I would like to introduce you to John. John J. Mearsheimer is an American political scientist specialising in international relations. He has taught in American universities since the early 80s, has written many books on Geopolitics, and is overall a renowned scholar in academic circles. But for the casual readers, Mearsheimer must be famous for his statements about the “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”. According to him, the main actor to be blamed for the escalation of the conflict is not Russia, whose troops have willingly crossed the border, have committed countless atrocities, and allegedly steal Ukrainian children for re-education, but rather the US foreign policy, that has pressured Russia way too much, causing a violent reaction. Why am I telling you this? Most of the readers, Ukrainian or not, certainly would know that these statements are false at best, and damaging at worst. It even can be argued that this point of view fits quite nicely into Russian propaganda, and therefore, it should be dismissed as a whole. However, even two years ago, this read of the conflict was one of the two dominating ones in academia. And even now it has plenty of followers. Why is it so? Allow me to introduce you to realism, a system of analysis of international relations that allows such critical mistakes in judgement.

The core to the understanding of Realism is understanding the concept called “Balance of Power”. Realism states that the world of international relations is in a state of anarchy. Countries try to amass power by absorbing, exploiting and exterminating each other, to not be destroyed themselves. In this system, some have been luckier than others. So-called great or super powers, a direct clash of which would cause great suffering and possibly nuclear annihilation in our modern day and age. Therefore, it is the job of diplomats, politicians, and social scientists to create a system of alliances and treaties to equalise the powers in question, so that no aggressive war could be won within the system, and therefore, no war will happen as no country would risk to disturb the system. One of the great achievements that is attributed to Realism is the period spanning between the years 1815 and 1914, the so-called great concert of Europe. An age of peace and balance. Until it wasn’t. The 99 years of peace after the Napoleonic wars led to the First World War, a war where all the great powers separated into roughly equal teams and decided to annihilate each other in the name of expanding their empires until all the aforementioned empires collapsed. Except for Britain and France. They will be able to survive just a decade or two longer. The Concert just bottled up the tension, until it erupted in a giant wave of violence and carnage to shape generations. The tension began to dissipate after the end of the Second World War. Well, at least it managed to keep peace almost a decade prior. Well, I lied. There was no peace, that many Realist thinkers like to imagine. The Crimean War, the Russo-Ottoman Wars, and the Franco-Prussian War, all happened in the so-called “peaceful” age. And they were everything but bloodless. But hypocrisy does not end here. The bloody revolutions of 1830, 1848, the Resorgimento, and the German unification, all have caused pain, suffering and death. A political and social tension, that Realism fails to address, expecting the world to freeze in place, and the world powers to just exist and stay great indefinitely, as pressure from the inside is irrelevant to Realism. And I should not even start speaking about the rest of the world. Entire continents and nations became nothing more than poker chips in a great European game of balance and power, as colonies, once acquired by one player, had to be conquered by other players as well, and later, brutally oppressed to squash any resistance, as all of that can upset the balance.

So, what have we learned about Realism? It strives for balance between great powers, at the expense of any other nation or ethnicity, as they are nothing more than bargaining chips. Political development is irrelevant. Ideal, states should not choose their alliances by political alignment, economic benefits, or basic moral judgment, but only by how it will affect the imaginary scales. If we put Mearsheimer in the context of his academic beliefs, we would be able to see the bigger picture. Of course, Ukraine should be forced to stay in the Russian sphere of influence. It would strengthen the Russian side of the scales and ensure peace. Of course, the opinion of Ukrainians and the genocidal policies of Russia should not matter in this scenario. As we try to prevent a war here. And of course, it will not cause an insurrection and lead to a more bloody and prolonged war than the one we have now. You may ask me: “And why does any of it matter? Why should I even care about what an antique scholar from the other side of the ocean thinks about my country?” Well, Mearsheimer is an advisor. He has met and advised with his expertise many powerful people, such as Victor Orban, for example. And realist understanding of geopolitics has undeniably influenced US international politics during the Obama administration, leading to a lacklustre response to the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas insurrection. I believe that is more than enough to care. Luckily, Realism is not the only system we can utilise.

I present you Liberalism, a mortal enemy of Realism and allegedly, its polar opposite. Liberalism believes that confrontation is not the only possible form of interaction between states. If Realism sees trade as essentially a pointless activity, as some would gain more power than others from the exchange, Liberalism sees trade and globalisation as the solution to state confrontations. Liberalism is more grounded in reality, in my opinion. In economics and economic theories to be specific. Liberalism states that any state need to maintain the quality of life for their citizens, and therefore, economic multi-sided, or even global, integration is the solution to prevent wars, as any war would cause massive breakdowns in the economy and even in the arms sector. One of the great successes of Liberalism is the reconstruction of Germany after the Second World War and the European Coal and Steel Community in particular, which not only unified the aforementioned coal and steel production in major Western European powers but also became the first stepping stone to the establishment of the European Union many years later. I am glad that Chancellor Angela Merkel and other politicians of Europe have chosen to deepen trade with Russia, allowing their energy sectors to become dependent on Russian exports while deepening the trade in consumer goods and consumer electronics, which could be turned to military use. This has led to the two-sided integration of the Russian state into the European economies, which depowered the rising forces of Russian militarism, authoritarianism, and pan-nationalism, leading to an era of peace and prosperity in Eastern Europe. Except, this doesn’t sound like a reality we live in, doesn’t it?

Liberalism has failed to prevent war in Ukraine no less than Realism, and despite their perceived differences, the core issues are essentially the same. Liberalism ignored the political, being adamant that a fall in the quality of life of an average Russian would somehow damage the stability of the Russian government while being oblivious to the many previous failures in sanctions imposed upon totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. And believe me, the track record is not stellar in the slightest. Sometimes, people would value symbolism over materialism, and just like many Russians celebrated the symbolic annexation of Crimea, despite the falling standard of living and increasing authoritarianism, I do not doubt that they will forgive their government many things as long as the Russian boots firmly stand on the Ukrainian soil.

Do I believe that both Realism and Liberalism are trash theories that should be in the same bin as eugenics? Of course not! Then, do I believe that international relations are a farse in general? Neither that. I believe that both Realism and Liberalism, both their basic and modern interpretations, have a place and time to be utilised. However, they are unprepared to deal with terrorists and fascists. And I would lie if I say that I know a good theory for that intent and purpose. The big two are not the only international theories. Some of the less prominent are more sound, such as constructivism, some are less, such as Marxism, and this article does not serve to define the best one, but to call attention to a problem, to faults and holes in these theories, and to urge both casual and experienced readers to think, converse, discuss and search for a solution.