Realism vs. Liberalism

In order to effectively analyse and study the intricate web of action and interaction that makes up international relations, scholars have devised theories of interaction. Sometimes called lenses, they are created to give a certain perspective from which to review the international sphere. Since the development of the first chair of International Relations (IR) in 1919, two theories have prevailed over the rest, namely Realism and Liberalism. While designed with a uniform purpose, the values and concepts prevalent in the two theories are starkly contrasting. Yet each of the theories is effective even in the contemporary setting, as can be demonstrated when rationalising the current Ukrainian crisis.
Realism
Central to all analysis in Realism is the concept of power. All interactions in the international system are a balance of relative power, with those with having greater power determining outcomes according to their own interests.1 Hans J. Morgenthau worded this assumption well:
“International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Statesmen and peoples may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity, or power itself. They may define their goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, economic, or social ideal. They may hope that this ideal will materialize through its own inner force, through divine intervention, or through the natural development of human affairs. They may also try to further its realization through non-political means, such as technical co-operation with other nations or international organizations. But whenever they strive to realize their goal by means of international politics, they do so by striving for power.”2
This quest for power, Morgenthau argues, is rooted deep within the human psyche. Thus Realists assume that all states act on selfish impulses, to further their own power or security, and that therefore states seek to make