Conflict Between Russia And The West

and act according to that priority. According to this theory, states are the key actors and they mainly use military power and diplomacy in order to achieve their goal of power and security for themselves. This international relations theory can thus explain Russia’s intervention in Syria as an act of self-interest. Realism also stresses the anarchy in the international institution. A realist may therefore explain Russia’s intervention in Syria as a selfish act, hoping

While chaos continued to spread across the country, Russia began to eye the territory of Crimea, one if Ukraine’s most southwestern territories and an area that used to belong to Russia until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. By the end of February, masked Russian troops without insignias took over the Supreme Council of Crimea and several strategic sites across Crimea. This event led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea and the declaration of Crimea 's independence. This spurred the Ukraine’s provisional government to request an emergency meeting with the U.N. Security Council in which they called on Russia to stop all military action in Crimea. By Mach 1st, Russia’s parliament approves President Putin 's request to use force

The two countries, Russia and Ukraine, had different reactions towards the armed violence and impeachment of the Ukrainian president. Although the majority of the Ukrainians opposed Viktor’s decision to procrastinate the signing the EU-Ukraine integration agreement, all the ex-presidents accused for its interference with the affairs of Crimean. The former presidents of Ukraine, including Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma described the present crisis as Russia’s political interventions designed to interfere with the internal affairs of Ukraine and its relationship with the European Union (Hanschke 1). The people of Crimea have not been seeking for secession from Ukraine, but their interest is to have extended autonomy and rights to govern the Crimean affairs with minimum involvement of the government of Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, have dismissed the accusation and stated that it is pursuing the interest of the people of Crimea to join the Federation of Russia. Russia holds that the people of Crimea have the power to decide the future of their territory and Russia will be ready to respect their decision. Study shows that about 90

The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s recent accession to Russia are events that clearly highlight the underlying sources of conflict in global politics. While Russia sees its actions in Crimea as a “reunification” and the respect for the right of self-determination, the West views it as a threat to European security and a violation of territorial integrity. Crimea has been a debatable topic from the time it came under the control of the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The justification then was similar to the reasoning being used by Vladimir Putin today. Catherine declared that she was protecting ethnic Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire, much as Putin is claiming to protect Russians from Ukrainian

Such divisions open up space for outside countries to interfere with the state and begin to take or regain control; enter Russia. In March of 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine inevitably widening the growing divide within its borders. The success of Russia in the annexation of Crimea was directly due to implementation of Hybrid Warfare via military tactics and alternative information.

Under international law Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula is illegal as the Referendum held on the 16th of March by Russia infringed upon the

Man’s morality is not that of an ordinary morality, but that of a new morality. This new morality is one of selfishness, not mystical or social.

Future relationships between NATO and Russia are very uncertain. These uncertainties are due primarily to geopolitical factors like globalization, economic interdependence and international law. This leaves the world to question the possibility of a conflict arising from these clashing geopolitical factors. First, Russia, one of the major powers, has expanded economically and militarily by increasing trade, communication and even showing military force in other countries with the fight against ISIL. This expansion, known as globalization, has lead to the interdependence between states, specifically, dependence of the production process, investment, consumption, foreign trade, and inflows of foreign currency (Vorobyov 2). Next, the issue of economic interdependence has many wondering about the state of conflict between NATO members and Russia. Economic interdependence refers to a state’s need to rely on other states for resources through trade and investment. Liberalist and realist views of economic interdependence shine light on the last question about causes for concern for war between Russia and any NATO members. In the following paragraphs, these contradicting views will be closely analyzed in order to help get a sense for how interdependence between major powers will have an effect on potential future conflict. Lastly, Russia and NATO have very conflicting views when it comes to international laws and how they ought to be

I don't know the amount more straight to the point I can be. Very regularly I have seen youngsters' physical wellbeing and psychological wellness changed perpetually as a result of the impacts of substance mishandle on youthful, creating brains. However, many guardians feel overpowered. They don't comprehend what to do if their tyke is utilizing.

Purely geopolitically, Russia (particularly European Russia) along with its environs is viewed with the utmost importance in multiple schools of thinking. It dominates the “pivot area” hypothesized to be essential to dominance over Eurasia in Sir Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland theory” while Spykman’s “Rimland theory” focuses on the prevention of Russia’s naval capability and was said to have influenced Truman’s doctrine of Containment (that in itself led to numerous brutal proxy conflicts such as Vietnam and Korea). Strong effective government in this resource-rich vast area is widely cited as necessary for maintaining global peace. Hence, the breakdown of established order in such a sought after “global heartland” is rightly feared, as it could lead aggressively opportunistic players coming to positions of strength in the region, or instead provoke all out civil war both creating veritable “catastrophes” for the region so in this sense Putin was correct; the immediate aftermath of the fall of Communism was certainly expected to lead to considerable turmoil and, indeed, did so.

However, NATO and the EU, organizations that comprise of fewer members who share deeper political interests and ideologies, become central actors themselves and are not just an institutional form of the balance of powers. As Steven Erlanger writes in The New York Times, the Crimea crisis “has suddenly revived the North Atlantic Treat Organization’s central role as a counterweight to Moscow” and, that the crisis is “a

The nuclear arms race of the Cold War years has given way to a race for building alliances in this age of globalization. If we are to be successful in our pursuit of a more peaceful and sustainable world order, we must be cognizant of the opportunities to help fledgeling democracies take root. As well, we must be aware of the more nefarious motives of nations for whom state intervention is merely a thin veil for imperialistic ambitions. With this, we consider the recent events in Ukraine and its impact on our national security.

Putin’s foreign and defence policy indicates that Russia is aiming to become the regional power amongst its geopolitical neighbours and aims to accumulate more of the relative power it had lost since the decline of the Soviet Union. Kuchins and Zevelev state that one of the prime explanations for Russia’s actions is the long-standing, historical belief within the states national identity that Russia is a Great Power and its foreign policy reflects ambitions of working to regain as much of its lost power as possible to maintain this belief. This is evident through Russia’s strategic alliances and relationships it is fostering within the Eurasian continent. Putin has recently arranged many strategic ties to China, the only country with rivalling power to that of the US at this present moment. This will help to maintain Russia’s economic, energy, technological, military and geopolitical interests in the face of the sanctions and threats imposed by the US and NATO and rally strength within its regional sphere. Russia signed a $400 billion deal to export its gas to China over a thirty year period. From a realist perspective, this deal was the beneficial approach to overcoming sanctions set forth by the West that without acting on would work against any relative economic gain for

The peninsula of Crimea has historically been occupied by many different empires and states since Antiquity, the most recent inhabitants have been Russians and Ukrainians who are currently embroiled in conflict over the peninsula’s sovereignty. The peninsula’s demographics as of 2014 consist of: 65.3% Russians, 15.7% Ukrainians, 10.6% Crimean Tatars and approximately 6.8% other minorities according to a census taken. As of the time this essay was written, Russia has annexed the Crimean Peninsula and administers it as two federal subjects: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. Russia, however, opposes the term “annexation” by Western states and claims that Russia is merely complying with self-determination for the ethnic Russians living within the peninsula. Ukraine, as well as most Western powers, claim that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea is illegal under international law and asserts that numerous treaties have been broken as a result, such as: Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1991, the Helsinki Accords, Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the United Nations Charter and a treaty of cooperation and friendship with Ukraine signed in 1997. As a result of the move by Russia, the United Nations General Assembly voted the annexation as illegal and the G8 have temporarily suspended Russia from the group and issued sanctions against Russia. Reactions also ranged as far as comparing the instance to the Nazi seizure

The onset of the tension between Russia and its neighboring country Ukraine could date back to the 1920’s, when Ukraine became a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not until July 16, 1990, that Ukraine had declared sovereignty (Ukraine Fast Facts). While Ukraine had been with the USSR, they had developed historical and traditional cultural ties with Russia that are still concurrent today. Ukraine and Russia are very similar in many ways, but one of the major differences between them is not only their language, but the fact that Ukraine wants to become more like Western Europe and Russia wants to stick to old traditional values. When Ukraine had affirmed a desire to have closer ties with the European Union, Vladimir Putin proposed to buy $15 billion of Ukraine 's debt and reduce the price of natural gas supplied to the country in order to maintain that sphere of influence (Ukraine Fast Facts). Ukraine’s economic condition was not stable and making this agreement with Moscow would put Ukraine back on its feet. But in the end, Ukraine ended up signing the association agreement to draw ties with the European Union so that it can modernize with Western Europe and keep the country from being influenced by Russian policy.