‘The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation’[i]
Thomas Hobbes hit the nail on the head when
he ascribed the notion that a free and equal man would ultimately be drawn into
competition and conflict with his neighbour. Pair this theory to the
international political landscape and one draws a surprisingly efficient manner
in which to understand decisions being made by states acting within the “state
of nature” of international politics. For instance, Russia’s recent annexation
of the Ukrainian Crimean peninsula verifies this ideology in terms of the
greater geopolitical and economic implications at hand. In order to ensure the
survival of the state (or to prohibit the erosion of), Russia’s military
invasion was used in order to hedge against the powers of the west whose
continual influence in former Soviet bloc states has been growing. Russia
viewing this as an encroachment into their territory and an advance of the West’s
front lines had no other option but to assert their maintained sovereignty over
the Crimean peninsula. Structural realism thus remains evident as the Crimean
conflict represents more of a proxy war between Russia and the west,
specifically the USA. The conflict seen among these states is nothing more than
an attempt in competition of both, wishing to hedge against the other, and
specifically, of the periphery’s attempt to erode the supremacy of the United
States of America, whose dominance has pulled away since the collapse of the
USSR. Furthermore, China’s lack of interest in picking sides to further their
“peaceful ascent” approach to a regional hegemonic power gives further credence
this theory. It seems that while states are being more or less cooperative with
the west, a steady rise in the east is coming at the expense of the once mighty
west.
Furthermore, assuming that indeed there is
no overarching higher authority governing the world (yea right UN), structural realism’s analysis functions in that it predicts the unabated annexation of
Crimea. The continuing economic erosion of the United States of America at the
hands of the Chinese and other regional hegemonies in Eurasia has been recreating the bi-polar international
political landscape not seen since the existence of the USSR. Although many
regard the cold war as a time of literal peace between the world’s superpowers,
the fact remains that within the periphery, the occurrence was quite the
opposite. Endless proxy wars such as that in Vietnam thus give credence to the structural realists perspective; state actors remain the most important components of
international relations within the international arena. Russia’s annexation of Crimea can thus be seen as
nothing more than an attempt to further hedge against the wests political
swelling in Eastern Europe and the EU and for the most part is working well.
The west’s stronghold on Eastern Europe while firm has been cast in doubt due
to the inability to ensure a peaceful and diplomatic transition of Ukraine to
the likes of the EU and greater cooperation with the west.
While sure I am of the Wests’ influence in
this world (without a doubt a power to be reckoned with), I cannot help but
imagine that USA’s return to a reclusive nation is only a matter of decades
away. The lack of the wests intervention in Syria and now in Crimea only makes
me believe that this erosion has begun to take place. International players
such as Russia and China are beginning to understand their ability (whether
economic or political) to influence the decisions of other states within the
international arena. Additionally, to me the fact that China in a matter of
years will overtake the GDP (PPP) of the USA and not to mention the potential
to grow to fourfold over it only signifies a major shift in political and
economic power to the east. This shift will most certainly have awakening
consequences to the west and create another bipolar (or perhaps more) political
landscape, one in which Russia will look to China and the East for direction.
