CURTIN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDIA, CREATIVE ARTS
AND SOCIAL INQUIRY
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
To be attached to all assignments
(ALL SECTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED)
STUDENT NAME: Rebecca Stevens
STUDENT ID: 20589246
UNIT NAME AND NUMBER: INTR2000 Introduction into International Relations
DUE DATE:…18/04/2022
WORD COUNT: 1467
TUTORIAL DAY AND TIME: Thursday, 11am
TUTOR’S NAME:
Sarah Fulford
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOUR TUTOR’S NAME IS ON ALL SUBMITTED ASSIGNMENTS
DECLARATION:
I declare that I have retained a copy of this assignment.
I have read and understood Curtin University policies on Plagiarism
and Copyright and declare that this assignment complies with these
policies.
I declare that this assignment is my own work and has not been
submitted previously in any form for assessment.
Signature: Bec Stevens
Date:18/04/2022
Critical Analysis of Varner vs. Walt – The Invasion of Ukraine
In their articles, Varner, and Walt discuss how the actions of North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation’s (NATO) in inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the treaty provoked an
insecurity in Russia which escalated to its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the
invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. However, influenced by differing liberal and
realist ideologies, both authors offer diverse outlooks on the conflict which create
contradictory arguments. Varner criticizes the lack of action by the West ruling that if
Russia succeeds, the liberal world order will collapse. Dissimilarly, Walt argues that the
West is responsible for the conflict and thus should not interfere further to enable
Ukraine to take a neutral stance. This essay will review both author’s main arguments
with Varner’s rooted in liberalism, and Walt’s even more strongly rooted in realism and
where the two differ in defining how the West should respond. Furthermore, it will
analyse why Walt presents a more cohesive analysis whereas Varner paradoxically
diverges from his main ideas, highlighting the flaws in liberalist ideologies.
In the context of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, it is essential to clarify the
mentions of ‘the West’ as NATO, the European Union (the ‘EU’) and the United States
(the ‘US’) and ‘the East’ as Russia and its’ allies. Furthermore, the essay explores
arguments made by Walt and Varner that concern two differing paradigms – liberalism
and realism – which are two dissimilar foundations of international relations theory1.
In his argument2, Varner’s analyses the responses of world leaders and international
organisations such as NATO and the EU to the conflict – or lack thereof – as Putin’s
success and power this far exposes weaknesses and divisions in the liberal world order
which may encourage other authoritarian leaders. He conveys a list of technologic and
strategic military advantages that Russia holds over Ukraine to present his sentiment,
Meiser, Jefferey W. 2018. “Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory.” E-International
Relations Theory. 2/4-3/4.
https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/
2
Varner, Joe. 2022. “Joe Varner: Abandoning Ukraine Means Surrendering the Rules-based Liberal
World Order.” The Hub. https://thehub.ca/2022-01-26/abandoning-ukraine-means-surrendering-theliberal-rules-based-world-order/
1
‘When it comes to conflict, Russia has a huge overall numeric advantage over
Ukraine3,’ suggesting it’s almost impossible for Ukraine to win its sovereignty, hence
the need for assistance from the West. The liberal internationalist philosophy argues
liberal states can and should intervene in the sovereign affairs of others in achievement
of liberal political and economic motives4. This thinking is clear in Varner’s argument,
through his aversion toward Germany’s refusal to allow British weapon shipments to
Ukraine to overfly its territory and Turkey’s threat to cease drone sales to Ukraine as
they both wish to remain neutral with Moscow for their own economic interests5. Such
critiques of these NATO states are subjective to the liberal merits of morality, selfdetermination, and as before, liberal internationalism. Furthermore, Varner concludes
that Putin’s aim of securing the East and ‘destroying’ Ukraine’s sovereignty to maintain
Russia’s influence in the region comes at the cost of the US, NATO and EU and offers
an ultimatum that NATO either assist Ukraine in war or ‘surrender the western worldbased order to Russia and the dictators” (2022)6.
Walt’s article7 is constructed through a realist perspective to argue that big powers like
Russia tend to be anxious about their security and regional influence and thus, the US’s
and EU’s encouragement for the invitation of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
provoked Russia’s retaliation both in the conflicts of Crimea (2014) and the current
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022). Walt argues that in realism, the inevitability of war
in a world of uncertainty, states as primary actors will seek to preserve security and act
on their individual interests, therefore, given that Russia has a strategic geographic
interest in Ukraine, an expansion of NATO to its boarder would pose a direct threat to
its territory8. This argument aligns with the realist security dilemma that one nations
3
Varner
Duvetak, Richard, Jaqui True, Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklaterr, Jack Donnelly, Terry Nardin, Matthew
Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, Andrew Saramagii, Toni Haastrup and Aliana Sajed. 2022. “Liberalism.”
In Theories in International Relations, 6th ed., Edited by Richard Duvetak and Jaqui True. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vsVcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=liberal+the
ories+of+international+relations&ots=hP6xaRGWB5&sig=voi4-gKzKVeUO8Co0va8TJkMXQ#v=onepage&q=liberal%20theories%20of%20international%20relations&
f=true
5
Varner
6
Varner
7
Walt, Stephen M. 2022. “Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis.” Foreign Policy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/
8
Walt
4
desire for security becomes a source of insecurity for another state when it cannot
foresee or trust its neighbours’ objectives9. This concept motivates Walt’s argument that
Ukraine is a pawn in larger Russia-US tensions; if Russia fears an enlargement of
NATO, its neighbours have a viable reason feel apprehension correspondingly10. Walt’s
article does not afford Putin approval for his recent aggressions but rationalises his
motivations through realist concepts of amorality and the ongoing premise of
pessimism. He concludes Putin is not exclusively responsible for the conflict as the US
and European refusal to acknowledge Ukraine’s significance to Russia is the primary
factor behind such chaos and thus, should not exacerbate the conflict further.
Both Varner and Walt’s articles agree that Putin’s intentions are to dominate Ukraine in
deterrence of the West and understand that further sanctions will not discourage the
leader, however, their two main points of contention were how the West should
approach the conflict. In the introduction of his article, Varner summaries similar
aggressions occurring in the world such as Iran becoming a nuclear power, North Korea
threatening to trial nuclear weapons and China planning to dominate the South China
Sea and clusters them with Russia as the ‘worlds dictators.’11 Varner’s grouping of
these non-demographic states and framing them as ‘threatening’ and ‘illiberal’ neglects
the possibility that Putin’s engagements are in pursuit of protecting its security and
alternately structures it as a rebellion to liberal democracy rather than a retaliation12.
Contrarily, Walt uses the realist notion of states as ‘black boxes’ to argue that due to the
opportunity of war, states are competitive in security and will use force to achieve an
advantage or react toward a threat, thus losing Ukraine to the West is not a possibility
Russia will accept. Varner’s argument stems from a moral standpoint while Walt’s
recognises the presence of amorality in achieving a state’s interest. Furthermore,
Varner’s recommendation entails an anti-neutral approach, where the ‘victor’ of the
Dunne, Tim and Brian C. Schmidt. 2011. “Realism.” In The Globalisation of World Politics: An
introduction into international relations, 5th ed., edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens.
New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
10
Walt
11
Varner, 1
12
Keohane, Robert O. 2012. “Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism.” International Relations
Princeton University, Vol. 26 (issue 2): pages 126-132
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117812438451
9
conflict will determine the world order. He fears that a Russian victory will coup the
current liberal world order and thus, emphasizes the need for Washington and NATO to
deploy military assistance to Ukraine to end Moscow’s aggressions. Alternately, Walt’s
perception epitomises realist ideologies that the outcome of Ukraine – either a
successful Russian invasion or inclusion into NATO – will always create a security
dilemma for big powers involved. According to his article, it would be unreasonable for
the US to defend and support a state bordering Russia and especially given that Moscow
and NATO have differing ideologies, it is best that Ukraine be left a neutral state
without an allegiance to either side - as it was before NATO announced its membership
in 200813.
Walt’s article presents a stronger argument as he considers both a realist and liberalist
approach and rationally undermines liberalism, whereas Varner paradoxically
contradicts notions of liberalism in his perspective and places too much emphasis on
punishing Russia. Varner embodies the liberalist notion that democratic states do not
fight in his argument by vilifying and othering non-democratic states such as China and
Iran while glorifying the US, the creator of the liberal world order. Despite their
democratic legacy, they have numerously violated international law including Walt’s
example of the Obama administration exceeding its authority of UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 by assisting in the ousting of Muammar al Qaddafi as leader of Libya
(2011), hence peace keep’s choosingly14. Additionally, Varner believes NATO is
obliged to engage in armed conflict with Moscow which paradoxically diverges from
the liberalist notions of ‘non-warfare dispute resolution’, discrediting his argument.
Interestingly, Walt includes the sentiment of liberalist thought as ‘wishful’ and ‘hubris’
(2020) that alludes to the optimistic and moral grounds of the ideology. He justifies this
logically through the defining features of realism, arguing that the expansion of NATO
is a direct threat to Russian territory and thus, it is inevitable that Russia will defend its
security even through drastically violent and excessive measures because of man's
Wolff, Andrew T. 2015. “The Future of NATO Enlargement After the Ukraine Crisis.” International
Affairs, Vol.91 (issue 5): 1105-1106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12400
13
14
Walt, 3
inherit evil nature1516. A realists perspective believes that a country’s triumphs is
determined by power, thus they believe politics seeks to increase, maintain and/or
demonstrate power17. Walt makes it clear that there is no ‘innocent’ actor in this conflict
as Ukraine is a pawn in a greater tension between the West – particularly the US – and
Russia and thus, the Ukraine should become neutral. Therefore, Walt’s argument
becomes more convincing as it supports realism with rational evidence and ideology.
To conclude, through a consideration of both Varner and Walt’s arguments surrounding
the Russia-Ukraine conflict and their key points of difference, it becomes clear that
Walt provides a more convincing perspective than that of Varner’s who contradicts his
liberalist perspective himself. Varner’s argument falls short by assuming assisting
Ukraine in the war will end the conflict with a big power like Russia. Although his
intentions of morality and self-righteousness closely align with liberalism, his solution
for NATO and the US to enter the conflict contradicts the non-armed resolution
methodology of liberalism. Walt effectively presents his arguments to align with
realism and supports his debate with rational thought and evidence.
15
Walt,1
Falode, Adewunmi. 2009. “The Theoretical Foundation of Realism.” Nigerian Journal of International
Affairs, Vol. 35 (issue 2), pages: 35-47
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228277628_The_Theoretical_Foundation_of_Realism
17
Falode, 18
16
References
Dunne, Tim and Brian C. Schmidt. 2011. “Realism.” In The Globalisation of World Politics: An
introduction into international relations, 5th ed., edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and
Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Duvetak, Richard, Jaqui True, Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklaterr, Jack Donnelly, Terry Nardin,
Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, Andrew Saramagii, Toni Haastrup and Aliana
Sajed. 2022. “Liberalism.” In Theories in International Relations, 6th ed., Edited by
Richard Duvetak and Jaqui True. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Falode, Adewunmi. 2009. “The Theoretical Foundation of Realism.” Nigerian Journal of
International Affairs, Vol. 35 (issue 2): 35-47
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228277628_The_Theoretical_Foundation_of_
Realism
Keohane, Robert O. 2012. “Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism.” International Relations
Princeton University, Vol. 26 (issue 2): pages 126-132
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117812438451
Meiser, Jefferey W. 2018. “Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory.” EInternational Relations Theory. 2/4-3/4. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducingliberalism-in-international-relations-theory/
Varner, Joe. 2022. “Joe Varner: Abandoning Ukraine Means Surrendering the Rules-based
Liberal World Order.” The Hub. https://thehub.ca/2022-01-26/abandoning-ukrainemeans-surrendering-the-liberal-rules-based-world-order/
Walt, Stephen M. 2022. “Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis.” Foreign Policy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/
Wolff, Andrew T. 2015. “The Future of NATO Enlargement After the Ukraine Crisis.”
International Affairs, Vol.91 (issue 5): 1105-1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/14682346.12400