Russia, the west, and the Ukraine crisis: three contending perspectives

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this special issue is to examine the international dimension of the Ukraine crisis. The focus is on Moscow’s actions towards Ukraine, and what they imply for European security and Russia–Western relations more generally. This introductory article takes stock of the current debate. Three major positions are identified, here labelled ‘revisionist Russia’ (Perspective I), ‘victim Russia’ (Perspective II), and ‘troublemaker Russia’ (Perspective III). The first sees Russia as an aggressive, neo-imperialist power that wants to overturn Europe’s post-Cold War order. The second holds that Russia is a status-quo power that defends its geopolitical interests and honour against Western encroachments. The third views Russia as a mischief-maker, whose ruling elite purposefully creates external conflicts, such as the one in Ukraine, to divert attention from internal problems. This article presents the arguments of each perspective. Moreover, it discusses gaps and limitations of the existing positions along with some policy tradeoffs. Finally, it provides an overview of the entire special issue and lays out how the individual contributions that follow address the identified shortcomings.

KEYWORDS:

• Russian foreign policy
• Ukraine crisis
• European security

Acknowledgements

I owe a big thank you to the editors of Contemporary Politics, Ian Holliday and Mark Beeson for their support and encouragement of this project. Moreover, I would like to thank all the contributing authors for their dedicated efforts. My colleagues Jonas Gejl Pedersen and Jeppe Damgaard Rothuizen deserve credit for their insightful comments on this introductory article. Last but certainly not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Annette Bruun Andersen for her language corrections/suggestions on this article and editorial support in preparing this special issue.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Elias Götz is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University. His research interests span the fields of security studies, international relations theory, and Russian foreign policy. Götz holds PhD and MSc degrees from Aarhus University in Denmark, along with an MA degree from Uppsala University in Sweden and a BA degree from Tübingen University in Germany.

Notes

1. The contributors to this special issue recognize the relevance of Ukraine’s domestic developments and address them insofar as they affect Russia’s actions or the behaviour of EU-Europe and the United States. However, an extensive discussion and explanation of the political and social dynamics in Ukraine falls beyond the scope of this special issue. For insightful analyses of different aspects of Ukraine’s domestic affairs, see Kudelia and Kuzio (2015); Duvanova, Semenov, and Nikolaev (2015); and Pond (2015).

2. This does not mean that there exists no scholarly work on the topic. See, for example, the recent volume edited by Kanet and Sussex (2015).

3. Parts of the next sections draw on Götz (in press), which takes a closer look at the theoretical assumptions that underpin the various explanations of Russia’s near abroad assertion.

4. Other observers put the number of Russian troops and combat units in eastern Ukraine much higher (see, e.g. Sutyagin, 2015). But regardless of the exact number, which is contested, the basic point still stands: Russia has so far abstained from a Crimea-style invasion of eastern Ukraine.

Additional information

Funding

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University and the Royal Danish Defense College for a two-day conference that preceded this special issue.