Introduction
The recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine has created a new vector of competition between Russia and the United States. Several global geopolitical trends and domestic political factors, at different stages of history, may affect the foreign policy priorities of Russia and the United States to a greater or lesser extent. This paper will utilize the political theory of constructivism to devise a plan for the US to modify its foreign policy and prevent escalation between the two nations.
International Relations Theories
Liberalism
This essay will begin by describing the foreign policies of liberalism, realism, and constructivism. The liberal school of thought prioritizes freedom and equality in all spheres, holding that an individual’s rights are more important than the state’s requirements. It follows that global citizenship and intergovernmental cooperation can bring order to the world’s chaos (Frazier 2019).
Proponents of liberalism argue that liberal principles and institutions not only foster peace among liberal states but also encourage them to form alliances (Doyle 2008, 213). The core downfall of liberalism is the increased economic interdependency that it entails. Should their leaders become pessimistic about the survival of trading links that so dictate their prosperity and security, the states that are most reliant on others are likely to drive the system into conflict (Copeland 1996, 41). Thus, liberalism fosters cooperation, trade, and peace between liberal countries.
Realism
On the other hand, realism takes a different approach to international affairs. According to realism, states always behave in their best interests, which are continually assessed in terms of power. The world is therefore chaotic because people are egocentric and will do anything to gain power (Frazier 2019). The kind of realism that is more important to the subject of this paper is defensive realism. Defensive realism posits that states should generally adopt moderate measures as the most effective path to security.
In most cases, the stronger governments in the international system should adopt restraining military, diplomatic, and foreign economic strategies (Taliaferro 2000, 129). Realism, however, is vulnerable to security “dilemmas,” in which one actor’s attempts to unilaterally improve their security endanger the security of others, fostering mistrust and alienation (Wendt 1992, 407). Thus, defensive realism rests on the foundation of restraint to ensure national security.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a theory in international relations that stands on three key principles. Firstly, the primary determinants of international relations are states. Secondly, rather than being dependent on material factors, the structure of international relations is built on social theory and norms. Thirdly, the framework of international relations includes a significant role for states and their interests (Ahmad 2020, 1).
Contrary to the beliefs of neorealism and neoliberalism, constructivism aims to demonstrate how vital facets of international relations are “socially constructed,” meaning they take shape through ongoing social practice and interaction (Hopf 1998, 182). Shared ideas influence the formation of social structures, identities, and interests, which is a fundamental tenet of constructivist theory in international relations (Syed and Lubna 2018, 58). Thus, constructivism believes that states, as primary actors in international affairs, make decisions based on social constructs and norms, rather than material needs.
Context of the Conflict
With the main foreign policy theories defined, more context is needed in the relations between Russia and the US. According to the realist theory, Russia aims to absorb Ukraine into its sphere of influence, thereby ensuring its national security against NATO expansion (Nagourney, Bilefsky, and Perez-Rena 2023). Moreover, Russian authorities have shut down the Amnesty International office in Moscow, due to the numerous investigations of human rights violations in the country (Amnesty International 2022).
According to studies, the current approach of the US towards Russia is based on some key principles. Firstly, to remove Russia from the group of great powers, the United States no longer sees cooperation with Russia as an option. Secondly, reducing Russian capability is more crucial than preventing additional cooperation between China and Russia.
Thirdly, the US approach now places Ukraine at the top of the list and is no longer just incidental to the greater US-Russia relationship (Gvosdev 2023). Thus, experts say these advancements between the two states may lead to a new Cold War, with China and Russia consolidating forces against the NATO bloc (Osnos 2023). Thus, the recent advancement between the two blocs has fostered a new international political crisis.
Constructivist Policy Recommendations
Thus, this paper will proceed to the constructivist foreign policy recommendations for the US. Russia follows a realist strategy, seeking to incorporate Ukraine into its sphere of influence to safeguard its national security from NATO’s expansion. The US must meet this while still upholding its position in the global order.
The US should avoid hostilities with Russia to maintain its control in the Western Hemisphere and its status as a superpower. To achieve this, the United States must utilize its constitutive power to support a rising Russia that adheres to established international standards. Thus, the US needs to recognize Russia as a regional power and allow it to pursue its interests in its bordering countries. This will enable Russia to ensure its security and allow the US to maintain good relations with Russia and its ally, China.
This plan has several consequences in both the long and short terms. In the short term, withdrawing the current sanctions, as well as military aid to Ukraine, will end in Russia winning the war and absorbing Ukraine into its power bloc. As a result, Ukraine will lose its independence and its ability to integrate into NATO. On the other hand, Russia will ensure its national security, thus mitigating the chance of future conflicts on this premise.
In the long term, this will ease relations with Russia and China, thereby allowing for deeper cooperation between the two regional powers and the US. Despite that, this will begin a period of multipolarity, where Russia and China will have more leverage in international politics. However, the loss of Ukraine will not cause the US to lose control over the Western hemisphere, thus leaving the US with minimal losses.
If the aforementioned policy does not yield results, an alternative plan may be necessary. The US may adopt a realist approach, in which it competes with Russia across all fields. However, an offensive realism approach will heighten Russian security worries and probably result in armed conflict, given Russia’s fervent nationalism and regional interests. Thus, it would lead to material and human losses that the previous plan avoids.
Conclusion
To summarize, the constructivist policy for the US has several significant consequences. The loss of Ukraine, as well as the emergence of a multipolar world, will reduce the influence that the US has on international politics. On the other hand, this will facilitate a de-escalation of the conflict and lead to safer, more cooperative relations with Russia and China. Thus, to ensure a peaceful resolution, the US must withdraw all hostilities with Russia and allow it to ensure its national security.
References
Ahmad, Faqi. 2020. “The Theory of Constructivism in International Relations.” International Research Journal of Commerce and Law 8 (10): 1–8. Web.
Copeland, Dale. 1996. “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations.” International Security 20 (4): 5–41.
Doyle, Michael 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): 205–235. Web.
Frazier, Brionne. 2019. “What Is Foreign Policy?” ThoughtCo. Web.
Gvosdev, Nikolas. 2023. “The Confrontation with Russia and US Grand Strategy.” Foreign Policy Research Institute. Web.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23 (1): 171–200.
Nagourney, Eric, Dan Bilefsky, and Richard PĂ©rez-Peña. 2022. “A Year of War in Ukraine: The Roots of the Crisis.” The New York Times. Web.
Osnos, Evan. 2023. “Sliding toward a New Cold War.” The New Yorker. Web.
Amnesty International. 2022. “Russia: Authorities Close down Amnesty International’s Moscow Office.” Amnesty International. Web.
Syed, Imran, and Lubna Ali Abid. 2023. “Systemic Theorizing: Traversing Between Constructivism and Structural Realism.” Journal of Political Studies 25 (2): 55–67. Web.
Taliaferro, Jeffrey. 2000. ” Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited.” International Security 25 (3): 128–61. Web.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.