The Ukraine Crisis as a Geopolitical Contest: Classical Realism and Critical Geopolitics in Strategic Analysis
The Ukraine crisis, particularly since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, represents one of the most consequential ruptures in the post–Cold War international order. It has reignited concerns about military aggression, sovereignty, and the stability of regional and global security architectures. Analysts have widely interpreted the crisis through the lens of classical power politics, evoking the enduring relevance of realist paradigms in international relations. Simultaneously, the conflict has also catalyzed scholarly engagement with critical geopolitical frameworks, which interrogate the ideological, discursive, and spatial constructions that shape the strategic behavior of states.
This essay evaluates the extent to which the Ukraine crisis can be understood as a manifestation of classical power politics and assesses how both realist and critical geopolitical approaches interpret the strategic behavior of key actors—primarily Russia, the United States, NATO, and Ukraine. While realism emphasizes systemic anarchy, balance of power, and security competition, critical geopolitics foregrounds the production of geopolitical narratives, identity formation, and the socio-spatial dimensions of global conflict.
I. Realist Interpretations: Anarchy, Security Dilemmas, and Great Power Revisionism
A. Structural Realism and NATO Expansion
Neorealist thinkers such as John J. Mearsheimer argue that the Ukraine crisis is a direct consequence of Western policies that ignored the basic principles of realist international relations. According to Mearsheimer’s structural realism, the international system is characterized by anarchy, compelling states to prioritize survival through self-help and balance-of-power strategies.
From this perspective, the post–Cold War eastward expansion of NATO—incorporating former Warsaw Pact members and contemplating Ukraine and Georgia’s potential membership—constitutes a fundamental threat to Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia, as a declining great power, is acting rationally to restore a buffer zone and prevent the encroachment of Western military infrastructure near its borders. The annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Donbas are thus interpreted as defensive maneuvers motivated by security imperatives.
This reading underscores a security dilemma: NATO’s attempt to enhance Eastern European security inadvertently threatened Russia, which responded with force, thereby worsening the insecurity of all parties.
B. Classical Realism: National Interest and the Pursuit of Power
Classical realism, as articulated by Hans Morgenthau, emphasizes human nature, national interest, and the perennial struggle for power. Russia’s actions, under Vladimir Putin, are often read as expressions of imperial nostalgia, nationalistic revivalism, and the pursuit of prestige. The notion of a “Greater Russia” or Russkiy mir (Russian world) reflects Moscow’s desire to reassert civilizational influence and great power status, especially after decades of perceived Western humiliation following the Soviet collapse.
The U.S. and NATO, in turn, are seen to be engaged in power projection and containment, using alliances and economic sanctions as instruments of coercive diplomacy. The realist logic holds that the Ukraine war is a zero-sum game, wherein spheres of influence and relative capabilities determine outcomes.
II. Critical Geopolitics: Discourse, Identity, and Spatial Representations
While realism offers a state-centric and materialist explanation of the Ukraine crisis, critical geopolitics challenges the naturalization of strategic interests and territorial contestation. It interrogates how political elites, think tanks, media, and academia construct geopolitical imaginaries that legitimize intervention, exclusion, and violence.
A. Geopolitical Scripts and Identity Construction
Critical scholars such as Gearóid Ó Tuathail (Gerard Toal) analyze how the Ukraine conflict is framed through competing geopolitical scripts. For Russia, NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe is discursively constructed as existential encirclement, invoking historical traumas of invasion (e.g., Napoleonic Wars, Nazi Germany). The Kremlin’s narrative of defending Russian-speaking populations, Orthodox civilization, and anti-Western sovereignty taps into deeply embedded national myths.
Conversely, Western narratives cast Ukraine as a sovereign democracy seeking to align with liberal norms and Euro-Atlantic institutions, while portraying Russia as a revisionist aggressor violating the rules-based international order. These discursive constructions shape policy decisions, mobilize publics, and influence alliance dynamics.
B. Deconstructing Strategic Space and Power
Critical geopolitics also problematizes the very idea of “strategic space” and “buffer zones.” It argues that such concepts are socially produced rather than objectively given. The notion that Ukraine must serve as a neutral zone between NATO and Russia reflects a hegemonic spatial imagination that denies Ukraine’s agency and subjectivity.
From this view, both Western and Russian geopolitical strategies are implicated in the re-inscription of territorial hierarchies, where great powers define the legitimate boundaries of influence and intervention, often at the expense of smaller states.
III. Strategic Behavior of Key Actors: Realist Imperatives and Discursive Practices
A. Russia: Strategic Revisionism and Civilizational Geopolitics
Russia’s behavior combines realist strategic calculations with discursive legitimization rooted in identity politics. Militarily, the seizure of Crimea provided access to the Black Sea fleet and denied NATO a potential strategic foothold. Politically, it reinforced Putin’s domestic legitimacy by tapping into national pride and anti-Western sentiments.
At the same time, Russia’s information warfare, cyber operations, and appeals to cultural unity reveal a hybrid strategy that transcends conventional realist paradigms. Russia constructs itself not merely as a security-seeking state, but as the defender of a distinct geopolitical civilization.
B. NATO and the U.S.: Liberal Interventionism and Strategic Containment
For the U.S. and NATO, the Ukraine crisis presents a test of credibility and deterrence. From a realist standpoint, failure to respond to Russian aggression could embolden other revisionist powers, especially China. Hence, military aid to Ukraine and expanded NATO deployments in Eastern Europe are aimed at restoring deterrence equilibrium.
However, from a critical perspective, Western engagement with Ukraine reflects deeper liberal teleologies that assume a universal trajectory toward market democracy and ignore the political complexity of regional identities and historical legacies. The binary framing of democracy versus autocracy flattens nuance and justifies expansive security practices.
C. Ukraine: The Struggle for Sovereignty and Identity
Ukraine’s strategic behavior reflects both realist imperatives of survival and a constructivist redefinition of national identity. While seeking material support from the West to resist Russian aggression, Ukraine has also undergone a profound civic reimagining, positioning itself as a European nation aligned with liberal democratic values.
Its resistance to invasion is not only a defense of territory but of ideational sovereignty, resisting both Russian neo-imperialism and the geopolitical objectification that denies its agency.
IV. Implications for International Order and Theoretical Synthesis
The Ukraine crisis reveals the resilience of realist dynamics—military force, alliance politics, spheres of influence—but also the explanatory limits of realism in capturing the symbolic, discursive, and normative dimensions of global conflict. Critical geopolitics complements realism by exposing how geopolitical behavior is shaped by historical memory, identity construction, and narrative framing.
Together, these perspectives offer a multi-layered understanding of the crisis:
- Realism explains the strategic motivations and systemic constraints faced by states;
- Critical geopolitics reveals how meanings, myths, and maps are mobilized to legitimize action.
A synthesis of both allows for a richer analysis of international conflict that is both materially grounded and discursively aware.
Conclusion: Beyond Strategy to Meaning
The Ukraine crisis can be meaningfully understood as a manifestation of classical power politics, wherein states pursue security and influence in an anarchic system. However, it also embodies the contested politics of identity, history, and space, which cannot be fully captured by realist logic alone. Critical geopolitics exposes how the war is not only fought with tanks and treaties but also with narratives, symbols, and strategic imaginaries.
Thus, to comprehend the full complexity of the Ukraine crisis, scholars and practitioners must engage with both the realist grammar of power and the critical interrogation of meaning—recognizing that in modern geopolitics, what is at stake is not only who controls territory but who defines the world.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.