A Comparative Analysis of the Ukraine Crisis Through the Prisms of Offensive Realism and Liberal Internationalism

Öz

In this article, the Ukraine crisis will be analyzed through the prisms of two different International Relations (IR) theories, namely Offensive Realism and Liberal Internationalism. While presenting relevant theoretical discussions, this work will specifically focus on two IR experts, John J. Mearsheimer and John G. Ikenberry, whose names have been associated with these theories. By drawing on the works of Mearsheimer and Ikenberry’s for Offensive Realism and Liberal Internationalism respectively, this work will try to make sense of the developments surrounding the Ukraine crisis, while also exploring the explanatory capacities of these two theories through a comparative approach. The insights offered by these theories in explaining
Russia’s actions and Ukraine’s motivation during the crisis will be put to test. In addition, with a focus on the West, this work also aims to offer perspectives through the prisms of these theories on ways to end the Ukraine crisis. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ukraine Crisis
• Offensive Realism
• Liberal Internationalism
• Russia
• Ukraine

Saldırgan Realizm ve Liberal Enternasyonalizm’in Merceğinden Ukrayna Krizinin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada iki farklı Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisinden yararlanılarak Ukrayna krizinin bir analizi gerçekleştirilmektedir. Bu teoriler Saldırgan Realist ve Liberal Enternasyonalist teorilerdir. İsimleri bu teorilerle özdeşleşmiş olan John J. Mearsheimer ve John G.Ikenberry’nin literatürüne odaklanılarak, gerekli teorik tartışmalar geliştirilmektedir. Saldırgan Realist teori için Mearsheimer, Liberal Enternasyonalist teori için ise Ikenberry’nin çalışmaları bu makalede mercek altına alınmaktadır. Bu teorilere dair birer perspektif sunularak, Ukrayna krizinde öne çıkan hadiselerin bir değerlendirilmesi yapılmaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı bir perspektiften, bu teorilerin Ukrayna krizi sırasında yaşanan gelişmelerin anlamlandırılmasında izah kapasiteleri de masaya yatırılmaktadır. Bu yapılırken, kriz sırasında Rusya’nın eylemlerini, Ukrayna’nın ise motivasyonunu anlama ve açıklama noktasında bu teorilerin sunduğu bakış açıları incelenmektir. Ayrıca, Batı odak noktasına alınarak, krize çözüm üretme noktasında bu iki teorinin nasıl bir perspektif sunduğu da ele alınmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ukrayna Krizi
• Saldırgan Realizm
• Liberal Enternasyonalizm
• Rusya
• Ukrayna

Kaynakça

1. (2018). NATO’s Support to Ukraine. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_11/20181106_1811-factsheet-nato-ukraine-support-eng.pdf, (26.04.2019).
2. Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books.
3. Darden, K. (2014). How to Save Ukraine: Why Russia Is Not the Real Problem, Foreign Affairs, 14 April 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2014-04-14/how-save-ukraine, (16.04.2019).
4. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and The Last Man, New York: Free Press.
5. GDP Ranking, 2016, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.xls, (05.10.2017).
6. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001a). After Victory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001b). Getting Hegemony Right, The National Interest, 63 (Spring), p. 17-24.
8. Ikenberry, G. J. (2002). America's Imperial Ambition, Foreign Affairs, 81 (5), p. 44-60.

9. Ikenberry, G. J. (2004). Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in American Unipolar Age, Review of International Studies, 30 (4), p. 609-630.
10. Ikenberry, G. J. (2009a). Introduction: Woodrow Wilson, the Bush Administration, and the Future of Liberal Internationalism, John G. Ikenberry, Thomas J. Knock, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Tony Smith, The Crisis of American Foreign Policy, (p. 1-25), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Ikenberry, G. J. (2009b). Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order, Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), p. 71-87.
12. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011a). Liberal Leviathan, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011b). The Liberal Sources of American Unipolarity, J. G. Ikenberry, M. Mastanduno and W. C. Wohlforth (ed.), International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity, (p. 216-252), New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014a). The Illusion of Geopolitics: The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order, Foreign Affairs, 93 (3), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2014-04-17/illusion-geopolitics (13.03.2019).
15. Ikenberry, G. J. (2014b). The Logic of Order: Westphalia, Liberalism, and the Evolution of International Order in the Modern Era, J. G. Ikenberry (ed.), Power, Order, and Change in World Politics, (p. 83-107), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Ikenberry, G. J. (2015a). The Future of Liberal World Order, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16 (3), p. 450-455.
17. Ikenberry, G. J. (2015b). The Future of Multilateralism: Governing the World in a Post-Hegemonic Era, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16 (3), p. 399-413.
18. Ikenberry, G. J, Wohlforth, W. C and Brooks, S. (2012). Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment, International Security, 37 (3), p. 7-51.
19. Johnston, C. (2014). Mikhail Gorbachev: World on Brink of New Cold War over Ukraine. The Guardian. 8 November 2014.
20. Keohane, O. R. (1984). After Hegemony: World Political Economy Cooperation and Discord, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
21. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War, International Security, 15 (1), p. 5-56.
22. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1993). The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent, Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), p. 50-66.
23. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006a). China's Unpeaceful Rise, Current History, 105 (690), p. 160-162.
24. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006b). Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I), International Relations, 20 (1), p. 105-123.
25. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010a). Structural Realism, Milja Kurki, S. Smith and T. Dunne (ed.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, (p. 77-94), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010b). The Gathering Storm: China's Challenge to US Power in Asia, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, (3), p. 381-396.
27. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010c). Why is Europe Peaceful Today?, European Political Science, (9), p. 387-397.
28. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2015). Don't Arm Ukraine, 09 February 2015, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/dont-arm-ukraine.html?_r=0, (01.03.2019).
29. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014a). Conference Call with John Mearsheimer on the Ukraine Crisis, Foreign Affairs, 4 September 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/conference-call-john-mearsheimer-ukraine-crisis, (12.04.2019).
30. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014b). Getting Ukraine Wrong, The New York Times, 13 March 2014.
31. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014c). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W. W Norton & Company.
32. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014d). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin, Foreign Affairs, 93 (5), p. 77-89.
33. Sakwa, R. (2016). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, London: I.B. Tauris.
34. Salimov, O. (2015). Tajikistan Paves the Way to Eurasian Union, 7 January 2015, https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/field-reports/item/13113-tajikistan-paves-the-way-to-eurasian-union.html, (08.08.2015).
35. Nienaber, M. (2019). UPDATE 2-U.S. Warns German Companies of Possible Sanctions over Russian Pipeline, https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL8N1ZD0IH, (25.04.2019).
36. Walt, M. S. (1990). The Origins of Alliances, New York: Cornell University Press.
37. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
38. Where Did Russian Federation Export to in 2016?, http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/?country=186&partner=undefined&product=undefined&productClass=HS&startYear=undefined&target=Partner&year=2016, (18.11.2017).