INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Author: Erik Rijs THEORY AND THE EU REACTIONS Student no: TO THE RUSSIAN ANNEXATION 20172363 OF CRIMEA 1 International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea Abstract This master thesis is a research conducted to uncover the way three prominent international relations theories (structural realism, commercial liberalism and conventional constructivism) would explain the different reactions of EU nations to the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and to determine which of the three theories would be most accurate in its explanations. The reason for conducting a research like this is to put the theories to the test by taking their core principles and placing them side by side with a practical IR situation. Not only could this contribute to the development of the theories themselves, but also to the academic field of IR in general. The research was conducted by gathering different types of data regarding each EU country and then analysing it from the perspective of the three theories separately. First, data about the countries related to the core ideas of each theory was gathered: GDP and military expenditure (structural realism), share of Russian imports and exports of the total foreign trade and Russian dependency on natural gas (commercial liberalism) and the value scores on the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map (conventional constructivism). Then, information concerning the reaction of each EU country to the annexation of Crimea was gathered from news media articles, scholarly articles and official government statements. This data was analysed and across all texts re-occurring themes were identified and given a common label to be able to create a clear overview of the reactions of all EU countries. The countries were ranked according to the data gathered for each theory (i.e. for commercial liberalism the countries were ranked by economic interdependence with Russia) and displayed in a table which also showed the labels of the re-occurring themes from the reactions. Finally, the findings were analysed and discussed from the point of view of each theory by using the aforementioned tables. It was subsequently established how the theories would explain the reactions and which theory would be most accurate in doing so. The following is a simplified summary. Structural liberalism would likely highlight that countries with high relative capabilities (economic wealth and military power) mostly supported restrictive measures against Russia because they do not fear retaliations, while many countries with low relative capabilities expressed reluctance about sanctions against Russia because they would not be able to withstand economic or military counter measures and fear for their security. Commercial liberalism would point towards the fact that countries with little economic interdependence with Russia were more likely to support sanctions because they did not have as much to lose as countries 2 International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea with high economic interdependence, which mostly opposed sanctions and reacted more mildly because they wanted to preserve their economic relationship with Russia to protect their own economy. Conventional constructivism might emphasize that countries with a high score on self-expression values mostly supported restrictive measures because they differ from Russia in cultural identity and value the principles of democracy, which is why they condemned the unlawful annexation even more than countries with a high score in survival values, which share many values with Russia. Noticeable correlations were found between the core ideas of all three theories and the reactions of EU countries, but structural realism was found to be the most accurate in its explanations. There were notable exceptions to the correlation for each theory, but only structural realism was able to properly explain these exceptions. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have low relative capabilities, a high economic interdependence with Russia and a similar score on survival values. They feared for their security but strongly supported sanctions against Russia because their alignment to stronger states allowed them to do so. Italy is powerful but was reluctant towards sanctions because they feared changes in the international power balance. Austria showed reluctance because they have been a historically neutral country out of security considerations. Romania and Poland, just like the Baltic States, are quite economically interdependent with Russia but supported sanctions because they feared for their security due to their geographical proximity to Russia. Because of the strong correlation between reactions and relative capabilities, the often cited security concerns and the theory’s ability to properly explain the most remarkable reactions of EU countries, structural realism was found to be the most accurate in its explanations of the reactions. 3 International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea Table of contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Problem formulation .................................................................................................................. 5 EU-Russia relations; post-USSR ................................................................................................ 7 Theory ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Previously conducted research ............................................................................................. 16 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 18 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 21 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 39 Structural realism .................................................................................................................. 39 Commercial liberalism ......................................................................................................... 47 Conventional constructivism ................................................................................................ 54 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 64 Reflection on methodology ...................................................................................................... 69 Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 80 4 International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea Introduction International Relations theory is in a constant state of development. Over the years it has been influenced by other academic fields like philosophy, history and economics, as well as important historical events like wars and the formation of economic alliances (Jackson & Sørensen, 2016). The birth of the academic subject of IR as we know it took place after the First World War and it has continued to evolve to this day. From the classic perspective of utopian liberalism to the contemporary post-positivist approach of social constructivism, there are numerous contending schools of thought. Each of these theories seeks to make sense of the international community in which nations interact and attempts to explain the behaviour and policy decisions devised by different countries in different situations. It would be tremendously difficult, if not nearly impossible, to establish which of these perspectives is the most accurate in an absolute sense, and I hold no illusions of being able to do so. Nevertheless, the purpose of my research is to put some of the most prominent IR theories to the test and attempt to measure the extent to which they are able to accurately explain the actions of countries in a real-life situation. The theories that will be subjected to my research are the ones that have been the most influential in setting the tone in IR discourse and discussions for quite some time now; realism, liberalism and constructivism (Snyder, 2009) (Walt, 1998). Realism asserts that every nation will always seek to increase its own power and material wealth and state actors will generally shape their foreign policy accordingly. Liberalism argues that countries share common goals and interests and that good cooperation is effectuated through international trade, democratic rule and international institutions. Constructivism states that the identities of countries and state actors are socially constructed, and their behaviour and decision-making are shaped by these pre-constructed notions (Shimko, 2010). Because these three schools of thought are very complicated and consist of many different branches, it is important to specify which exact streams will be investigated. These theories and their streams, as well as the methods used to scrutinize them, will be