Blog #1

In “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,” Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin dissect and analyze many of Mearsheimer’s assertions surrounding institutionalism. Surrounding the topic of NATO, many of Mearsheimer’s deductions can be related directly to the current situation unfolding between Russia and Ukraine on their border. Mearsheimer asserts, “NATO played a role in preventing World War II and helping the West win the Cold War” but also that  “NATO was a manifestation of the bipolar distribution of power in Europe during the Cold War, and it was that balance of power, not NATO per se, that provided the key to maintaining stability on the continent.” Institutionalists, specifically liberal institutionalists who perceive an institution as rooted within the realities of interest and power, acknowledge that NATO may not be able to create viable stability under any imaginable circumstances. This is highly relevant to the conflict occurring between Russia and Ukraine, as NATO is one of the significant catalysts affecting the situation at the border. Russia’s angle is that NATO and the United States have infringed on their initial promises made in the 1990s to not expand into any former Soviet “blocs.” The Kremlin had been increasingly worried about the eastward expansion of NATO into former Soviet regions such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. However, once Ukraine began to look as if it would join NATO and establish relations with the institution, that perceivably crossed a line with the Russian government. This led to years of tension at the Ukrainian border and conflict in Crimea, which Russia successfully attempted to annex. Currently, Russia is stationing troops on the Ukrainian border, and NATO is sending backup troops and ammunition to Ukraine in an attack. This brings us back to a point discussed by Keohane and Martin, which is Mearsheimer’s initial view that “Institutions have no independent effect on state behavior” which the article shows that this assertion can be somewhat untrue, especially when looking at NATO.

Furthermore, the current state of affairs between Russia and Ukraine being somewhat of a direct result of NATO actions further disproves Mearsheimer’s general view. Most of the tension between Russia and NATO can begin in the 1990s when from a Russian perspective, it appeared as if The United States and the Clinton administration were attempting to use NATO to enforce its vision over Europe. In the early 2000s, Vladimir Putin began to infer that certain territories, specifically Baltic nations, were joining NATO as protection against Russia. Russia ultimately wants NATO to end its eastward expansion, and deny future membership to ex-Soviet territories, in particular Ukraine. Ultimately, Mearsheimer’s argument that institutions have no independent effect on state behavior is inherently flawed, and the Russia Ukraine conflict is just one example of how institutions can create controversy and tension. 

Comments

  1. Evan GoldsteinFebruary 3, 2022 at 4:59 PM

    I completely agree. I think that the current situation between Russia and NATO is a great way to analyze Mearsheimer's assertions with regards to institutionalism. I believe that you can also make a connection between Russia's current actions in Ukraine to China's ambition in the South China Sea, specifically with Taiwan. Both nations feel threatened by US dominated alliances, with NATO in Europe and the US alliance network in the pacific. I also think that the actions of the UN in certain conflicts also disproves Mearshimer's assertions. For example, they have directly intervened in numerous conflicts and have directly influenced the actions of states in those conflicts.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog post 5

Implications of Diplomatic Risk Game  The Diplomatic Risk Game provided valuable insight as to how international political decisions are executed, morevor what leaders place emphasis on when choosing their political strategies. In a fictional game, the chosen leaders and diplomats were not concerned with the true implicit and explicit costs of war, rather, the focus was on total dominance in resources. Similarly, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to progress it can be seen that leaders like Vladimir Putin operate under those same principles.  In principle, war should operate as it did throughout the Risk Game: two nations that cannot reach an agreement go to war and the dominant nation will emerge victorious. The Risk Game allows its players to focus solely on the international dynamics and their corresponding power changes emerging post-war. In order to settle a conflict,  “both the defender and the attacker roll X dice, where X is the amount of units they ...
Read more

POLS 170 Blog Post (1)

          International Relations realism, International Relations Liberalism, and Constructivism were very apparent in the time leading up to World War I and the time period immediately succeeding it. There were many reasons for the outbreak of WWI, however, one of the major reasons was the  European powers’ building up their respective militaries. As each nation saw another improving upon a facet of its military, it began looking for ways to counter it. This was very apparent in both Germany and England engaging in a massive build up of their navies, in order to ensure that in the event of war, they would have control over the oceans. Every nation saw a build up of forces in another as a threat to its own security, thus ultimately leading to the events of WWI. Also importantly during this time period, in terms of IR realism, was the colonization of territory across the world by European powers, significantly in Africa. European nations saw how resour...
Read more

BLOG 4

   Blog #4 Max Gilbert Elon Musk and Twitter: An Unlikely, Yet Sound Partnership      As of recently, and specifically this morning, Elon Musk seems to be on the precipice of buying the social media platform Twitter for roughly 46.5 billion dollars, and taking the company private. In total, Musk is worth more than two hundred and eighty billion dollars, and is most known for electric car company Tesla, and space exploration venture "Space X." Amidst this corporate drama, there remains the question of why does he want to buy twitter, what's in it for Musk? To begin with, he has spoken about the platform's harsh moderation of content, and free-speech, and would most definitely lessen those restrictions if purchased. Furthermore, Twitter as a whole has not capitalized on it's larger than life user base, and is notoriously dysfunctional. Musk would bring a fresh mindset to the table, and provide a more in-touch view, and perspective of younger generations.  ...
Read more