International Relations: Ukraine Crisis - Essay Example

International Relations: Ukraine Crisis al Affiliation) Key words:sanctions, political unrest, crisis, Crimea Ukraine as a country has struggled for identity ever since it gained independence in 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It has also struggled to develop strong political institutions as well as resolving internal divisions. Due to this, the country has been in a mess in terms of development of economic reforms as well as overcoming corruption through swaying away the oligarchs controlling the economy. It is estimated that 50% of the county’s economy is owned by the fifty richest people in Ukraine (Burchill, Scott, and Linklater, 1996). Evidently, it is a worrying statistic, in relation to power over its economy. In addition to this vice, the elected president then, Viktor’s family had allegedly embezzled more than $10 billion from the country. This happened even when he had reverted the patterns of corruption and other vices in the country. On top of that, the president Viktor had also imprisoned his presidential opponent YuliaTymoshenko under the guise of abuse of power. Such things suggest that the country has not been stable politically for a long time. The crisis that has erupted between them and Russia is just the fuel that has sped up the crisis seen throughout Ukraine. Through studying the theories of international relationships, we can be able to understand several issues fueling the crisis in Ukraine. This report will also try to and shed the light on the crisis and why it is going on through elaborating the specific international relations theories. Evidently, Ukraine has been rocked by demonstrations since November last year when President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the associative agreement with the AU. The agreement revolved around seeking ties with Moscow. Crossing over to this year, on February 22, the president had to be freed from protesters as they seized the Kiev offices and the parliament demanding for his resignation from office. This marked the beginning of what has now become one of the most violent demonstrations in the world. On February 26 this year, the leaders of the opposition forces decided to vote in a new president, Oleskandr Turchinov and also new ministers following the overthrowal of the former president. A few days later, Vladimir Putin the president of Russia stepped up tension in Ukraine when he ordered 15,000 troops to ready themselves for war around the border of Ukraine and Russia (Knickerbocker 2014). Vladimir’s troops on 27th February captured Crimea; a region that had strong ties with and also house the ousted president of Ukraine. In 1stMarch, Russia received the support from Moscow to invade Crimea and protect its Russian interest in the process. This evoked the White House to criticize the invasion saying that it violated Ukraine’s rights to sovereignty. On March 2nd, Crimea braced itself for war as NATO ordered Russia to remove its troops from Crimea. NATO stated that failure by Russia to remove its troops from the region will be met with further international interventions. On March 4th, the US secretary of state criticizes Putin actions and offer $1billion loan to Ukraine. A pro-Russian parliament of Crimea decided to join Russia and set for the 16th March referendum. This was not taken lightly by President Obama who called for sanctions calling the referendum a violation of international law. On March 16th, the referendum was passed and an astonishing 95% votes from Crimea decides on joining Russia and separate from Ukraine. This is made official by Putin on 18th the same month, making Crimea officially under Russia 60 years after the Soviet Union had given it to Ukraine as a gift. On March 27th 2014, the G7 leaders along with President Obama cause further tension by ordering Putin of placing further sanctions to Russia. This happens as Ukraine decides to pull out its troops from Crimea. Things seemed to be cooling off for some time but on 7th of March, violence erupted again as forces ally to Russia seize a government building in Ukraine and demanded for the referendum of separation from Ukraine .A further twist to this events happed on 12th of April when Ukraine stated that it will not be paying Russia the $2.2 billion it owes her for natural gas. This happens two days prior to Putin’s warning of cutting off the supply of natural gas to Europe if Ukraine refuses to pay the debt. The drama continued on April 15th when Ukraine decided to launch a special operation against those in support of the secession in the Crimea region (The Lancet, 2014). Following this event, it is quite evident that there is continued breach of international relations between Ukraine and Russia and those supporting either sides are not helping on the situation. To say the least, they are making it worse. The Theories Involved When looking into world affairs, there are several things to consider. These include, the parties involved; the cause of the tension; and the motivation behind it. Delving into the events above, most all of these issues are answered perfectly. It is important to know that the way people think affects their reactions to a crisis just as it happens to Ukraine. Ukraine crisis brings together several crucial and influential theories of international relations and world politics. At this point, we can discuss theories that are particularly influential to defining the crisis in Ukraine. Foremost entails nationalism. This is in reference to the tendency of the racial and ethnic groups to profess a sense of identity and use it to attain political goals using that as an excuse. This concept is at work in the current crisis at Ukraine. Evidently, it was the concept of nationalism that ignited the protests in Ukraine that thereby cost Viktor his presidential power. Due to his affiliation with the Russians over the European Union, the Ukrainian nationalism was put to action. This was due to the fears of the Ukrainians. The citizens were fearful of the fact that that relationship with Russia was going to threaten their sovereignty. This is also the case in Russia. Since there are many Russians in the Crimea region, their quest for identity caused them to support Russia. Furthermore, Putin claimed that he was concerned of the safety of these people thus trying to protect them against the extremist of the Ukrainian nation . Other than that, Russia seems to pick up its former glory of supremacy. Many countries in the world would love to see Russia coming back to the reins of world power and a start would be gaining control over Crimea and even maybe Russia as a whole. This clearly explains why this theory is in fact on the test. The second theory evident in the crisis is the Political Realism. In this case, the large emphasis on power has caused the two nations to battle it out in front of the whole world. Since international relations are a battle for power, the goal of any state is to gather as much power as they possibly can. In this case, Putin is exercising his power over Ukraine and does as he wishes. He is confident that any country that runs against him will also be losing. This is the case where he threatens to cut off gas supply to the European countries since he has superior power over them in that field. Putin was already successful in preventing President Obama and his allies over using force in Syria. This way he already demonstrated that he was willing and able to use power when required of him. A political realist is interested on gaining power over the war that is wedged. Since Putin is still pushing his power over Ukraine, it is not the case that he is interested in the war but rather the power he is going to obtain after all the ordeal is over. To a political realist it is always important to consider what will be gained and not what will be lost in terms of power. The last theory to consider when looking into the crisis in Ukraine is liberalism. Liberalism is a theory that, in a while, has been governing the world in terms of crisis management (Carlsnaes et. Al 2002). Under this theory, the issues of security are addressed by many countries collectively. This is to say that by nations collaborating during negotiations, they form a kind of force towards an opposing country. This is evident to the state of Russia as several sanctions are levied on them. Another fact on this theory is that liberals have often embraced the aggressive manner to solving international crisis. This is contrary to the commonly argued fact that liberals are anti-war and political realists are pro war. As evident in the protests, liberalization has taken root in this political world as a way of opposing the unfavorable laws or conditions of governing in countries. Conclusion By using theories and ideology, we are able to look at an international relation and discuss the several issues arising. When doing so, it is essential that people look at several factors before understanding how the international relations in a certain region in stained especially during the events of political unrest or crisis. References Burchill, Scott, and Andrew Linklater.Theories of international relations. New York: St. Martins Press, 1996. Print. Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Kappen, and Beth A. Simmons. Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE Publications, 2002. Print. Ed. "Fears over future of opioid substitution therapy in Crimea." The Lancet 383.9923 (2014): 1113. Print. Knickerbocker, Brad. "Crisis in Ukraine: Obamas Options Appear Limited." The Christian Science Monitor 1 Mar. 2014: 170. Print. Read More