Essay: The Ukrainian Crisis

What is war? Is it a crisis between two nations over power? Is it a battle for Independence? Well war is a very interesting topic for discussion and is more than a battle between two nations. According to Essentials of International Relations, war is defined as an “organized and deliberate political act by an established political authority, which must cause 1000 or more deaths in a twelve-month period, and which requires at least two actors capable of harming each other”(Mingst 253).  Each war is different in their own ways ranging from the actors involved to the factors to why these wars were caused like the war against ISIS in the Middle East and the Ukrainian Crisis. Both wars are different because they each have different causes on an individual, state, and international level and they also are occurring in different regions (Ukrainian Crisis takes place in Eastern Europe and the war against ISIS is in the Middle East). The Ukrainian Crisis was discussed and was a major battle between Russia and Ukraine over whether to join a popular organization, which was the EU. Every country like the US, and Russia have different responses to each war. The Ukrainian Crisis should be responded by force, diplomacy, and deterrence. Without this plan, the war between Ukraine and Russia will continue and eventually will cause World War III.
The Ukrainian Crisis was a major battle that has affected the relations of Eastern Europe for a few years. This crisis started in 2013, where it was revealed that president Viktor Yanukovych decided to cancel its process to join the EU. After this was revealed, this resulted in mass protests wanting the president to resign as President. This news was also spread to Russia, a big ally of Ukraine, and this resulted in Russian President Vladimir Putin, throwing economic sanctions on Ukraine by threatening to cut off their oil if they plan to join the EU. Besides mass protests, this has also caused a battle over the Crimean region resulting in the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
There are many different ways how war can be fought and these strategies are conventional warfare, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), unconventional warfare, and terrorism.  Conventional warfare has been described as a type of war strategy where people from other political communities fight each other. According to the textbook, the weapons are restricted and this has been explained in the quote, “Weapons of choice have ranged from swords and shields to bows, guns, and cannons; to industrialized armies field infantry and riding tanks”(Mingst 270). Weapons of Mass Destruction are a way where communities fight each other using high-risk weapons such as nuclear weapons. These types of weapons were first introduced in World War II where an atomic bomb was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has led to opposition between the West and countries such as Russia and Iran, who both believe in nuclear proliferation, a treaty that “spreads nuclear weapons to other countries”(Mingst 271).  Unconventional warfare has been described as a strategy that is the opposite of conventional warfare where the true ways of war such as fighting for a purpose are ignored and when defeat is inevitable, that group that is about to be defeated refuses to accept it. Finally terrorism is the last form of war strategy, where an attack occurs that kills innocent civilians who did not cause the war and results in a huge number of casualties.
In my opinion, I believe that Ukraine should use conventional warfare against Russia and this is because Russia is a very big powerhouse in terms of international relations and what I mean is that they have a powerful army and they have a President who has been described a power-hungry person who wants to impose sanctions on Ukraine to look intimidating to other world leaders. We also have to consider the Just War Theory when we think about which war strategy to use. Just War Theory or Just War Tradition is described as a theory that asks two questions, which are, “What constitutes an appropriate justification to enter into war,”(Mingst 283) and “What constitutes moral and ethical conduct once the decision to go to war has been made”(Mingst 283). Conventional warfare is the only type of warfare that should be used because it is just two communities fighting with each other with a cause and restricts the weapon use to guns, cannons, and infantry, which do not violate Just War Theory, in fact it answers both questions in the Just War Theory that we have a common cause and have considered moral and ethical standards. WMD and terrorism do not work because they both result in a huge amount of casualties where the majority are innocent civilians who died for no reason, which ultimately violate the moral and ethical question of Just War Theory.  Finally, unconventional warfare also should not be used as well because the textbook clearly states that, “Unconventional Warfare is distinguished in general by a willingness to ignore conventions of war”(Mingst 273). This ultimately means that we are violating Just War Theory by refusing to follow the moral and ethical standards and violating a cause for war, and essentially means that Ukraine can use any weapon that they and they should not be allowed to choose what they want.
The world needs to be involved in this war to make sure that Russia and Ukraine can find common ground in regards to this crisis, which is why the UN needs to engage in traditional or collective diplomacy and this is because as a member of the UN Security Council, Russia can work with the other states in the council such as China, UK, and the US to help Ukraine come to an agreement with Russia. With traditional diplomacy, you are able to negotiate an agreement based on the quote; “Traditional diplomacy entails states trying to influence the behavior of other actors by negotiating, by taking a specific action or refraining from such an action or by conducting public diplomacy”(Mingst 146). This works instead of unilateral diplomacy because in unilateral diplomacy, each state works individually to come up with their own agreement and in this case, this does not work because Russia can use this to their advantage by putting more economic sanctions on Ukraine such as oil, to even look more greedy, and we need to find a way to solve a problem that does not involve looking after themselves.
In terms of sanctions involved, Russia has already forced sanctions on Ukraine and according to Sergei Lavrov, in an article by the Washington Post, “Ukraine sits back and does nothing,” forcing the sanctions to remain in place, he charged. “Europe,” he confidently asserted, “no longer wants to be held hostage to this situation.”(Editorial Board 1). Russia should discontinue these sanctions against Ukraine because this crisis should be approached using collective diplomacy. Some approaches require the use of sanctions but the liberalist is the only approach that works in this case, and this is explained in the quote, “Despite these modifications, liberals are still wary of sanctions, believing instead that diplomacy is a more effective way for states to achieve international goals,”(Mingst 149).  The use of economic sanctions against Ukraine has only accelerated this war and has not been effective in finding a resolution, which is why the sanctions against Ukraine should be removed and the UN should negotiate a resolution using traditional diplomacy.
Deterrence plays a huge role in this process to solve the Ukrainian Crisis. According to the textbook, the assumptions of deterrence theory are, “Decision Makers are Rational”, “Alternatives to war are available,” and “The threat of mutual destruction is great,” (Mingst 295). Based on the assumptions of deterrence theory, we can assume all of the actors are rational people such as the UN Security Council, and it shows that there are other alternatives to war such as collective diplomacy. Without this theory serving as a major role, this plan would not exist and the war would be continuing. According to the textbook, “If all countries know that aggression will be punished by the international community, then would-be aggressors will be deterred from engaging in aggressive activity.” By using this plan, we can ultimately assume that Russia will limit the amount of aggressive tactics to intimidate Ukraine until they reach negotiations.
The Ukrainian Crisis should be responded by force, diplomacy, and deterrence. Without this plan, the war between Ukraine and Russia will continue and eventually will cause World War III.  Without this plan, Russia would continue to fight Ukraine and would eventually cause the US and other nations to intervene, which is not what we want. Some wars in history have used force and diplomacy to intervene such as World War I, where US, France, Russia, and Germany fought in the war and then the leaders of France, England, and US engaged in collective diplomacy to enforce the treaty of Versailles. If this worked in World War I, and if we apply these tactics to the Ukrainian Crisis, then we can end this crisis.