Summary
Security and military intervention are the policies with which Moscow operates both at the national and international levels. The military incursion of Ukraine’s Crimea area has not only led to fatalities but also has portrayed Russia’s unipolarity in international politics. However, Russia has been employing the policy of strategic deterrence which involves usage of military interventions as well as non-combative tactics. The stratagem has enabled Russia to federate its supremacy over the Crimean cape and the Donbas areas with insubstantial application of military exertion. Further, the approach aims to mold the Russia’s militarization ambitions. Therefore, Russia needs to maintain its military presence in the Ukrainian territories as it sustains peace within the region and also prevents infiltration of the borders by the fighters who would later destabilize Russia.
Background
The Executive petitioned the upper house of the Federation Assembly for military intervention in the case of Ukraine’s crisis. Consequently, the policy was unanimously adopted by Russia on March 1, 2014 (Greene & Robertson, 2019). In the same year, Russia affixed Crimea from Ukraine after the much-criticized plebiscite (Borshchevskaya, 2020). As the international community and organizations continued their condemnations and sanctions against, Russia, the government further responded by sending the elite members of the Russian troop to Syria to support President Bashar Al-Assad (Nalbandov, 2016). The main reason why Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine has affected the national interest of the country is that Russia has been thrust into the front line of European politics as a belligerent authority. Therefore, the Russian policy of military intervention needs to be analyzed through the perspective of a constructivist.
Analysis
Russia continues strengthening its military power both at the local and international fronts. Obviously, this would mean that Russia will8 have ignored NATO’s call to withdraw all its troops in the Ukrainian Crimea region. In the wake of the nuclear era in the world today, it is of great importance to acknowledge that militarization both at the domestic and international levels is the key to Russia’s survival (Bacon, 2017). The current continuous uprisings and protests which are sparked by countries’ severed diplomatic ties have led to war between countries and therefore, Russia cannot take chances with the security of citizens. Moreover, military intervention policy within the domestic boundaries of Russia is of prime value as it roots out internal enemies. Clearly, dissidents who live within the territorial confines of the Russian Federal Republic might be sponsored against the present regime to sabotage it. It is important for the Russian government to adopt a liberal standpoint on matters related to the security of its citizens without the coercion of both the US and the NATO fraternity.
Moscow should do everything in its capacity to protect its borders more than meddling in other nations’ political affairs. Undeniably, this will help in restoring the confidence of NATO and other US allies in Russia. Furthermore, the world is becoming increasingly multipolar and the militarization of Russia’s foreign policies would make the former allies of Russia to isolate it among nations. International cooperation cannot be ignored today as trade and industrialization are basically dependent on such associations. Consequently, this will enable the Russian government to solve all the important local problems and issues as it focuses on the citizens and not foreign conflicts. In fact, the Russian nationals have been consumed by their local problems to the extent that they find it useless for their country to engage in external issues (Borshchevskaya, 2020). For instance, the ravaging effects of Covid-19 have made the government to employ comprehensive surveillance and control of the borders through security apparatus (Borshchevskaya, 2020). Inarguably, the most important focus that the foreign policy should have is the positive impacts on the citizens of the country and not the personal interests of individuals or groups in the nation.
The Russian government should employ diplomacy in foreign relations with other countries and also to reduce the aggression within the borders. Actually, this will foster peaceful coexistence between Russia and its neighbors. This policy option might not receive support from the government because the executive has incessantly invoked Alexander III’s declaration that, the only allies to Russia are the navy and the army (Borshchevskaya, 2020). Evidently, on an individual level, the head of state has centralized power through the militarization of key state organs by appointing retired generals into the institutions (Perović, 2018). Consequently, this has undermined diplomacy as a possible foreign policy to be used in Russia. Also, the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the national government undermines diplomacy as a strategy. A Russian scholar, Adamsky writes in his current book that the “church has become integrated into the armed forces” (as cited in Borshchevskaya, 2020, para. 25). However, diplomacy will attract domestic political backing, and also multilateral support, because many countries around the world practice pure democracy.
Recommendation
The best recommendation would be for Russia to continue reinforcing its military policy at both local and international levels. This would be advantageous because; strengthening of the army can help in suppressing internal or external rebellions, which may otherwise lead to coup attempts such as the one against President Gorbachev in 1991. Reinforcing policies in relation to international relations also means that there will be militia rebuilding and this is only possible by identifying external enemies of the armed forces. Certainly, problems that are associated with soldierly affairs such as pervasive corruption, hazing and low salaries are reduced or eliminated. The strict international policies in matters of foreign relations need to be upheld to keep the country safe and also upscale the condition of the military.
However, reinforcement of foreign and domestic policies through militarization poses numerous risks and threats to the existence of Russia as a nation. While many countries may be adopting diplomacy as a strategy in their cooperation, this particular approach seems to be an isolationist policy. In point of fact, the stratagem goes against international statutes of foreign relations and global cooperation. Therefore, the policy of strengthening of the military may further alienate Russia from the international community.
References
Bacon, E. (2017). Inside Russian politics. Biteback Publishing.
Borshchevskaya, A. (2020). The role of the military in Russian politics and foreign policy over the past 20 years. Orbis, 64(3), 434-446. Web.
Greene, S., & Robertson, G. (2019). Putin v. the people: The perilous politics of a divided Russia. Yale University Press.
Nalbandov, R. (2016). Not by bread alone: Russian foreign policy under putin. University of Nebraska Press.
Perović, J. (2018). The putin system. CSS Analyses in Security Policy, 225, 1-4. Web.