Why Is Realism Waned At The End Of The Cold War?

The end of the Cold War sparked optimism for the end of power politics. The spread of democracy, liberalization of financial markets, and uncontested unipolarity of the United States supported the view that cooperation, rather than conflict, would define the new era. The long-dominant international relations theory of realism waned, while more nuanced and optimistic theories gained followings. The theory of constructivism in particular, which explains interactions in the international system as the result of malleable “social constructs” rather than an ironclad systemic structure, caught as a means of capturing the variance in states’ behaviors within the same international system and explaining how state personalities could impact state policies. The Russia-Ukraine conflict provides realists and constructivists ample room for debate. Notably, both theories claim to predict the same behavior by Russia, but for different reasons. Proponents of realism, notably University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, highlight Russia’s security concerns following the ouster of pro-Russian
Russia views Ukraine as fundamental to its national security, as the nation provides a primary land buffer against a hostile Western Europe. Absent its Ukrainian ally, Russia would be exposed to potential invasion across the Northern European Plain. Russia can never be certain about the intentions of nations in Europe (in the scope of international affairs, 1940s Germany is still recent memory); equally important, the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into central and eastern Europe presents Russia with a hostile and offensively-armed alliance encroaching on its doorstep. The collapse of the pro-Russian Yanukovych government in Ukraine became a security nightmare come true, as Ukraine’s reorientation toward Europe vastly weakened Russia’s power relative to NATO and Western