Focusing The Ukraine And Russia Conflict On International Relations

Focusing the Ukraine and Russia conflict on international relations

Analyzing the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, its conflict, the context and the form of interaction of all the actors involved, it could be taken as a focus on international relations, in this particular case, the current of realism with some dyes of interdependence betweenthe states. Both countries have been in a continuous touch, stretch and loosen throughout history. The conflict has been latent and touching the door of this relationship where private interests take importance in the elaboration of foreign and domestic policy used by each of those involved. However, the need of one with the other, mainly due to economic and geographical issues, helps that hostility and strength not be used in an excessive way. But it is for this same reason that other actors in even other regions have come to have influence in this conflict, aggravating or giving a more complication dye to the situation where power is the main objective of each actor.

Ukraine has been quite fragmented since the collapse of the Soviet Union, between giving up its past (Russia) or taking the opposite path. But according to BBC News Mundo (2018) it has been more inclined to the West and this is taken from Kremlin as a "danger to your safety". As Cabral F says. (2015) The current of realism has as a perspective that “the goal of all countries is security in a hostile and anarchic environment. Policies will be guided in the search for national security ”.

But that is not all since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not only for security issues that can take a realistic approach but there are several obvious elements without deepening it in it.

As explained throughout the work, the struggle for the territory has been what aggravated the conflict between these two countries, especially at the time Russia is attached to Crimea. This territory with great geopolitical importance is key to increasing the power of Kremlin, both by expanding its domain and by the factors of access to the sea that are translated into greater economic strength. Cabral f. (2015) points out that for the realistic current international relations are seen as a power struggle continues between the states in which the most important thing is to see who manages to accumulate more. In addition, the military strategy plays a primary role in that achievement of power and it is just what both Ukraine and Russia have used in the Crimea region. One to defend the territory that according to them belongs to them and another to reaffirm their alleged annexation in 2014, but both have increased their military presence in the area.

As mentioned earlier, in the relationship and conflict between Russia and Ukraine other actors have been involved. They have sought to take their cake from power that realism presents in this situation, or limit that of their opponents. Among them, the West, mainly Germany and the United States can be clearly pointed out. The first for economic issues related to the acquisition of a safe and quality gas from Russia;and the other for issues of influence, trying to limit it to Russia to avoid its scope of power. Both can be incorporated into a neorealist current either by economic or political issues because according to idem, contemporary realists have “incorporated more economic elements into their analysis and seek to extend their knowledge about the basic structure of the RR.II ". In this way they no longer remain locked in the fact that conflict and power is the only thing present within the world board. Even if it predominates in most cases, there are new factors capable of moving the pieces that make it up.

Although the actors within the conflict have their friction in different heights, there is a certain degree of interdependence between them. The same has put a barrier at the level of intensity of the problem. States have interest in common or at least one point where they intertwine and must give up, to a certain degree, their power in favor of managing them in a mutual way. This is where realism can be seen with that touch of interdependence that its nuances reflects to obtain a good analysis of the conflict.

Each actor is aware that in the new world order there is no way to survive if they work individually and in isolation. This is even able to cause two states that are in a constant conflict such as Ukraine and Russia, have to work together on issues such as gas distribution for Europe. According to Fonseca, B. The Kremlin needs Ukraine to take advantage of gas and Ukraine. Of course, things can change and this "joint work" of interdependence always comes under the framework of realism, moved by interest behind that in this case they are very evident.

It is clear that in this conflict the states play the main role (another clear aspect of the current of realism) and that everything moves in relation to power and some other economic or political factors. However, you can still argue more about the environment of constant hostility posed by the current in which the work is focusing. And without taking into account the moments in which these two nations work together for reasons of obligatory interdependence, the situation is very rugged.

Both actors move (many times with the help of others, being another case of interdependence) under the precept of attacking their opponent. This can be seen evidently in the construction of the Kerch bridge, made by Moscow to close an important narrow for the Ukrainian trade. Also in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk that BBC News Mundo states that they are regions in continuous combat, where more than 10,000 people have died and that it is mainly due to the fact that these two areas are under the power of prorous separatists since April 2014.

However, it is worth mentioning that Russia is most likely promoting these pro -Russian movements within Ukraine, even putting the possibility on the table that the revolts are financed, it is necessary to say that the Kremlin what it seeks is to constantly attack its goalTo weaken it. One more characteristic of what can be called realism in its purest state, where the combat is playing the door again and again.

Locating the Ukraine-Russian conflict in a Cold postwar international relations approach, it could be seen that he has a strong relationship with the words exposed by Samuel Huntington in his book "Civilizations shock". To understand it, the presence of the West must be included in the analysis in an open way in everything related to the conflict between the two leading states.

Primordially, you can glimpse how Huntington’s words, S. They are fulfilled when he said that the main rivalry would be seen between the East and West with the vision of dismissalizing a world that had been governed by its rules for a long time. Indeed, there is a situation in which much of the reasons for the Ukraine and Russia conflict are driven by the influence that these two civilizations want to impose in a territory that is part of a fracture between civilizations.

An area that is not clear to which side and that is extremely divided, has led to both internal and external conflict. What Huntington calls a micro -level shock, is being present in the Ukrainian territory, and is largely derived from a macro level clash between the states of Washington and Moscow (without taking into account other actors such as several members of theEuropean Union, such as Germany, Belgium and France).

According to Huntingto, the new conflict that was going to mark the International Relations of the cold postwar. In fact, it was part of the reason since although economic factors still have great relevance and make many times the guideline of how international relations are now operating, now the clash of cultures can be seen without capujos, particularly in a conflict like this.

The way in which the two great civilizations of the East and West move their foreign policy to take advantage and expand their influence in a country like Ukraine is a clear exponent of this. But something that is even more interesting is to see the way that although the Ukraine and Russia relationship is quite complicated, with friction, in constant conflict and it has been considerable time in tension, the war has not exploited as such.

It may be perhaps because now it is not so simple. But it may also have to do with the postulated in "clash of civilizations" where it was stated that those states and groups belonging to the same civilization have less possibilities of such violent clashes.

It is more common to make less use of violence or actions more linked to diplomacy or strategy. And although it is true that Ukraine does not belong completely to the East, it cannot be said that it is from the West, but rather it is in that fracture and having a common cultural base with the Kremlin, it seems that the actions of the two are determined moreStates, as Huntington did.

It can then be analyzed that from Huntington’s vision, Ukraine is a split country. This is because they are not fully clear if their society belongs to one culture (East) or another (West). In addition, in the same way that countries such as Mexico and Turkey in the past, it is usually thrown more into the winning side (West) although its roots, elite or strong groups inside keep them tied. The Ukraine and Russia conflict finds its origin here and can be strongly affecting the first. Therefore it is important that they decide which part of the balance is better to get to not finish matches.