This thesis is about the military conflict in eastern and southern territories of Ukraine, including the Crimean crisis and War in the Donbas area that took place from 2014 till this present time (2020). According to international law, these regions are still part of Ukraine, however, Russia de facto controls the Crimea Peninsula and the Donbass region. Due to dissatisfaction with the dismissal of Ukrainian President Yanukovych, Crimea opposed the new central government with the help of Russian military forces. Subsequently, they elected their own parliament and voted to declare independence. They then successfully held a referendum on whether to "return" to Russia which is biased and condemned by the international community. The referendum claimed to be passed with a very high number of votes although both the turnout and the votes in favor have been questioned, then Crimea officially joined the Russian Federation. The results of the Crimean referendum were not accepted by the Ukrainian government, and Russia was also sanctioned by the Western-based international community due to this crisis. What's more, part of the pro-Russian region in eastern Ukraine has also followed the independence of Crimea and intended to "rejoin" Russia Federal. After the two Minsk treaties, in spite of the fact that...

This essay aims to find a link between NATO policy in Europe from 2014-2022 to Russia’sdecision to invade Ukraine in February 2022. A process tracing methodology is used in conjunction with an offensive realist framework to demonstrate NATO’s role in influencing Russian defense policy. The investigation finds US global hegemony dictates NATOambitions, leading the Alliance to adopt aggressive policy in Eastern Europe. In turn, Russia identifies NATO as a threat in its military doctrine and proceeds to strengthen its defensive capabilities. Putin outlines Russia’s need for a buffer zone between it and NATO, a prime target for such a place being Ukraine. A failure by both parties to accommodate each others interests leaves Russia with a convincing rationale to seek military force in securing a more favorable defensive position.

西元2014年3月16日原屬於烏克蘭的克里米亞自治共和國舉行了全民公投， 其最終的結果，超過九成的選民贊同加入俄羅斯聯邦。就筆者從俄羅斯相關的外交政策觀察中發現，兼併克里米亞的積極性與主動性原因不僅僅只是為了領土的增加，更多的考量是在於地緣利益的維持與獲得。因此本文將從地緣政治的觀點切入，企圖了解克里米亞半島對於俄羅斯的地緣重要性為何？俄羅斯在2014年克里米亞事件中所扮演的角色？收回克里米亞後對於俄羅斯的地緣政治產生何種影響？ 收回克里米亞的迫切性起因在於2013年底烏克蘭親歐盟示威，俄羅斯明顯感受到來自於歐盟和北約不斷地東擴的壓力，因此不得不做出回應，以俄裔人口為居多的克里米亞成為俄羅斯發揮其影響力的首選之地。在2014年克里米亞事件中，俄羅斯的態度和作為符合國際關係中「攻勢現實主義」的圭臬，即強調大國會不斷尋求機會採取攻勢獲取最大權力，俄羅斯的主動出兵和強硬態度便是最好的佐證。 最後，本文認為2014年克里米亞事件後，即便國際社會普遍撻伐俄羅斯的行為，並祭出經濟制裁懲罰性手段，然而對於自身俄羅斯而言，不僅成功收回克里米亞，還重獲地緣政治利益，可以說是蘇聯解體後，地緣競逐中最大的一場勝利。 / On March 16, 2014, a referendum was held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which was one part of Ukraine. The final result was over a 90 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout. According to the author’s observation on some related foreign policy of Russia, the cause of the initiative and motivation of annexing Crimea is not only increasing its territory but also retaining and obtaining its geopolitical benefit. Therefore, this paper will focus on the concept of geopolitics to understand what Crimea is, why it matters, which role does Russia play during the Crimean crisis of 2014, and what will be the influence after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. In the end of 2013, Euromaidan in Ukraine was the main reason for Russia to take back Crimea urgently. Due to the expansion of EU and NATO to post-soviet countries, Russia had no choice but to react to the threat. Consequently, Russia tried to make a great impact on the status of Crimea, where ethnic Russians are dominant. In the event of the Crimean crisis of 2014, Russia’s attitude and behavior were in accordance with the principle of “Offensive Realism”, that is to say the great power emphasized on a non-stop way in search of opportunities in order to obtain the maximum authority, and Russia spontaneously sent military troops with a solid attitude to handle the situation as the best proof of evidence. Finally, the study shows that after the Crimean crisis of 2014, even though lots of countries in international community blamed it on Russia, and imposed economic sanctions on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia has successfully retaken Crimea and regained the geopolitical advantage. It was the biggest victory of the geopolitical competition since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T12:23:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - George Bronzeado de Andrade.pdf: 1377446 bytes, checksum: 4b1d8f7072c83c9f9139b14bb695d86c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-08 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The end of the 60s and early 70s is marked by the resumption of Sino-US relations under the sign of detente. At this moment in history, the United States Richard Nixon and Communist China of Mao Zedong resume interrupted a relationship for more than twenty years, marked by failure dating back to the victory of the Communist Revolution of Mao Zedong in 1949. Their reunion of two nations, who advocated socio-economic systems and differing ideologies, outside this period grassada the realistic pragmatism policies of Washington and Beijing. It's about this phenomenon that in many ways "shocked" the world, which seeks to undertake a multidimensional understanding of Sino-American resumption under the tripartite perspective of the study of history, analysis of official documents from the U. S. State Department and reading theory to explain the phenomenon of rapprochement, with emphasis on the approach of offensive realism Mearsheimer, who intuits to an American company in the Asian region towards maximizing power with the purpose of seeking regional hegemony. / O fim da década de 60 e início da década de 70 é marcada pelo reatamento das relações sino-americanas sob o signo da détente. Nesse momento da história, os Estados Unidos de Richard Nixon e a China Comunista de Mao Tsé-tung retomam um relacionamento interrompido há mais de vinte anos, marcado pela interrupção que remonta à vitória da Revolução Comunista de Mao Tsé-tung em 1949. O reencontro das duas nações, que defendiam sistemas sócio-econômicos e ideologias divergentes, fora nesse período grassada pelo pragmatismo realista das políticas d e Washington e Pequim. É sobre esse fenômeno que em muitos sentidos ―chocou‖ o mundo, que se busca empreender uma compreensão multidimensional do reatamento sino-americano sob a perspectiva tripartite do estudo da história, da análise dos documentos oficiais do Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos e da leitura teórica para explicar o fenômeno da reaproximação, com ênfase na abordagem do realismo ofensivo de Mearsheimer, que intui para empresa norte-americana na região asiática rumo à maximização de poder com fins de buscar a hegemonia regional.

A cooperação em defesa na América do Sul é explicada pela Teoria Realista Ofensiva de Cooperação em Defesa sob a Unipolaridade - aqui introduzida. Identificada uma lacuna significativa nas teorias de Relações Internacionais e nos trabalhos que buscam explicar, de forma ad hoc, a cooperação em defesa em outras regiões do mundo, nossa teoria traz explicações para (1) a motivação dos Estados para cooperar em defesa; (2) as variáveis independentes que afetam a cooperação em defesa; (3) um modelo amplo de cooperação em defesa que possa ser replicado em diferentes regiões do mundo. Demonstramos que cooperar em defesa serve para aumentar a posição relativa dos Estados participantes tanto frente aos demais Estados quanto frente à potência unipolar, sem, contudo, aumentar as pressões do dilema da segurança. Esse suposto reafirma o princípio egoísta dos Estados, de buscarem maximizar o seu poder para melhor garantir a sua sobrevivência, mas mostrando que novos tempos exigem novas formas de maximização de poder. Para tanto, demonstramos a continuidade da unipolaridade dos Estados Unidos na balança de poder global e apontamos, via 15 indicadores diferentes, que a polaridade sul-americana encontra-se em um momento de transição entre uma multipolaridade desequilibrada e uma unipolaridade brasileira, sofrendo pressões sistêmicas de ambas as configurações e corroborando as expectativas de nossa teoria. Conclui-se que o reaparelhamento ou não das Forças Armadas brasileiras levará à definição do sobe e desce das pressões sistêmicas regionais para a cooperação em defesa: se confirmada a unipolaridade, haverá maiores incentivos para as iniciativas em andamento criadas e mantidas pelo protagonismo brasileiro, como a UNASUL e o CDS. Contudo, se configurada a multipolaridade desequilibrada, os incentivos sistêmicos serão para a manutenção de uma integração baixa e instituições fracas na área de cooperação em defesa na América do Sul. / The defence cooperation in South America is explained by the Offensive Realist Theory of Cooperation in Defence under Unipolarity - hereby introduced. After identifying a meaningful gap in international relations theories and in ad hoc works which tryed to explain defence cooperation in other parts of the world, our theory brings explanations for (1) states' motivations to cooperate in defence; (2) the independent variables that affect defense cooperation; (3) a comprehensive model of defense cooperation that can be applied to different regions of the world. We have shown that cooperating in defence works for improving the relative position of the participating states vis-a-vis either the other states or the unipole without increasing the pressures of the security dilemma. This requisite reaffirms the selfish principle of states of maximising their power to better ensure their survival, but showing that new times demand new ways of power maximisation. To do so, we have demonstrated the maintenance of the United States' unipolarity at the global balance of power and shown, through 15 different indexes, that the South-American polarity finds itself in a transitory moment between an unbalanced multipolarity and a Brazilian unipolarity, suffering then pressures from both configurations and thus corroborating our theory's expectations. Our conclusion is that the refitting or not of the Brazilian Armed Forces will lead to the definition of the ups and downs of the sistemic regional pressures on defence cooperation: if it is confirmed the Brazilian unipolarity, there will be greater incentives for the ongoing initiatives created and maintened by Brazil, such as UNASUR and SDC. Nevertheless, if the unbalanced multipolarity is confirmed, the sistemic incentives will be for the maintenance of a low regional integration and weak institutions on the South American defence cooperation field.

A cooperação em defesa na América do Sul é explicada pela Teoria Realista Ofensiva de Cooperação em Defesa sob a Unipolaridade - aqui introduzida. Identificada uma lacuna significativa nas teorias de Relações Internacionais e nos trabalhos que buscam explicar, de forma ad hoc, a cooperação em defesa em outras regiões do mundo, nossa teoria traz explicações para (1) a motivação dos Estados para cooperar em defesa; (2) as variáveis independentes que afetam a cooperação em defesa; (3) um modelo amplo de cooperação em defesa que possa ser replicado em diferentes regiões do mundo. Demonstramos que cooperar em defesa serve para aumentar a posição relativa dos Estados participantes tanto frente aos demais Estados quanto frente à potência unipolar, sem, contudo, aumentar as pressões do dilema da segurança. Esse suposto reafirma o princípio egoísta dos Estados, de buscarem maximizar o seu poder para melhor garantir a sua sobrevivência, mas mostrando que novos tempos exigem novas formas de maximização de poder. Para tanto, demonstramos a continuidade da unipolaridade dos Estados Unidos na balança de poder global e apontamos, via 15 indicadores diferentes, que a polaridade sul-americana encontra-se em um momento de transição entre uma multipolaridade desequilibrada e uma unipolaridade brasileira, sofrendo pressões sistêmicas de ambas as configurações e corroborando as expectativas de nossa teoria. Conclui-se que o reaparelhamento ou não das Forças Armadas brasileiras levará à definição do sobe e desce das pressões sistêmicas regionais para a cooperação em defesa: se confirmada a unipolaridade, haverá maiores incentivos para as iniciativas em andamento criadas e mantidas pelo protagonismo brasileiro, como a UNASUL e o CDS. Contudo, se configurada a multipolaridade desequilibrada, os incentivos sistêmicos serão para a manutenção de uma integração baixa e instituições fracas na área de cooperação em defesa na América do Sul. / The defence cooperation in South America is explained by the Offensive Realist Theory of Cooperation in Defence under Unipolarity - hereby introduced. After identifying a meaningful gap in international relations theories and in ad hoc works which tryed to explain defence cooperation in other parts of the world, our theory brings explanations for (1) states' motivations to cooperate in defence; (2) the independent variables that affect defense cooperation; (3) a comprehensive model of defense cooperation that can be applied to different regions of the world. We have shown that cooperating in defence works for improving the relative position of the participating states vis-a-vis either the other states or the unipole without increasing the pressures of the security dilemma. This requisite reaffirms the selfish principle of states of maximising their power to better ensure their survival, but showing that new times demand new ways of power maximisation. To do so, we have demonstrated the maintenance of the United States' unipolarity at the global balance of power and shown, through 15 different indexes, that the South-American polarity finds itself in a transitory moment between an unbalanced multipolarity and a Brazilian unipolarity, suffering then pressures from both configurations and thus corroborating our theory's expectations. Our conclusion is that the refitting or not of the Brazilian Armed Forces will lead to the definition of the ups and downs of the sistemic regional pressures on defence cooperation: if it is confirmed the Brazilian unipolarity, there will be greater incentives for the ongoing initiatives created and maintened by Brazil, such as UNASUR and SDC. Nevertheless, if the unbalanced multipolarity is confirmed, the sistemic incentives will be for the maintenance of a low regional integration and weak institutions on the South American defence cooperation field.

A cooperação em defesa na América do Sul é explicada pela Teoria Realista Ofensiva de Cooperação em Defesa sob a Unipolaridade - aqui introduzida. Identificada uma lacuna significativa nas teorias de Relações Internacionais e nos trabalhos que buscam explicar, de forma ad hoc, a cooperação em defesa em outras regiões do mundo, nossa teoria traz explicações para (1) a motivação dos Estados para cooperar em defesa; (2) as variáveis independentes que afetam a cooperação em defesa; (3) um modelo amplo de cooperação em defesa que possa ser replicado em diferentes regiões do mundo. Demonstramos que cooperar em defesa serve para aumentar a posição relativa dos Estados participantes tanto frente aos demais Estados quanto frente à potência unipolar, sem, contudo, aumentar as pressões do dilema da segurança. Esse suposto reafirma o princípio egoísta dos Estados, de buscarem maximizar o seu poder para melhor garantir a sua sobrevivência, mas mostrando que novos tempos exigem novas formas de maximização de poder. Para tanto, demonstramos a continuidade da unipolaridade dos Estados Unidos na balança de poder global e apontamos, via 15 indicadores diferentes, que a polaridade sul-americana encontra-se em um momento de transição entre uma multipolaridade desequilibrada e uma unipolaridade brasileira, sofrendo pressões sistêmicas de ambas as configurações e corroborando as expectativas de nossa teoria. Conclui-se que o reaparelhamento ou não das Forças Armadas brasileiras levará à definição do sobe e desce das pressões sistêmicas regionais para a cooperação em defesa: se confirmada a unipolaridade, haverá maiores incentivos para as iniciativas em andamento criadas e mantidas pelo protagonismo brasileiro, como a UNASUL e o CDS. Contudo, se configurada a multipolaridade desequilibrada, os incentivos sistêmicos serão para a manutenção de uma integração baixa e instituições fracas na área de cooperação em defesa na América do Sul. / The defence cooperation in South America is explained by the Offensive Realist Theory of Cooperation in Defence under Unipolarity - hereby introduced. After identifying a meaningful gap in international relations theories and in ad hoc works which tryed to explain defence cooperation in other parts of the world, our theory brings explanations for (1) states' motivations to cooperate in defence; (2) the independent variables that affect defense cooperation; (3) a comprehensive model of defense cooperation that can be applied to different regions of the world. We have shown that cooperating in defence works for improving the relative position of the participating states vis-a-vis either the other states or the unipole without increasing the pressures of the security dilemma. This requisite reaffirms the selfish principle of states of maximising their power to better ensure their survival, but showing that new times demand new ways of power maximisation. To do so, we have demonstrated the maintenance of the United States' unipolarity at the global balance of power and shown, through 15 different indexes, that the South-American polarity finds itself in a transitory moment between an unbalanced multipolarity and a Brazilian unipolarity, suffering then pressures from both configurations and thus corroborating our theory's expectations. Our conclusion is that the refitting or not of the Brazilian Armed Forces will lead to the definition of the ups and downs of the sistemic regional pressures on defence cooperation: if it is confirmed the Brazilian unipolarity, there will be greater incentives for the ongoing initiatives created and maintened by Brazil, such as UNASUR and SDC. Nevertheless, if the unbalanced multipolarity is confirmed, the sistemic incentives will be for the maintenance of a low regional integration and weak institutions on the South American defence cooperation field.

In this theory testing case study the aim is to test which of the two competing theories, defensive and offensive realism, possess the greater explanatory power in regards to the Israeli action against Iran between 2007-2020, while subsequently assessing if either theory is applicable. Two competing analytical models, based around the seminal works of Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, and John J. Mearsheimer, will be applied upon the Israeli actions against the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli actions against Iran in Syria. The essay utilizes a wide array of sources, from news articles to academic papers, in order to provide a correct description of the events of study. This aim was conceptualized by posing a research question, followed by four competing hypotheses. These will, in conjunction with the analytical models, enable a comparison of the explanatory power the theories possess when applied upon the Israeli conduct against Iran. It is concluded in this paper that defensive realism possesses greater explanatory power when applied upon the Israeli conduct against Iran, compared with offensive realism.

The South China Sea has been already for several centuries the root of a dispute among states neighbouring along its borders, namely the People's Republic of China (China), Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia. Since the Sea is very geopolitically and geostrategically important, China attempts to claim itself to be a sovereign. However, its activities face the demands of other states, especially Vietnam and the Philippines, which are also interested in gaining control over the islands in the South China Sea. For that reason, the dispute still persists, and the continuous activities of all concerned countries have created an endless spiral of events in which it is difficult to distinguish between the action and the reaction of individual actors in the dispute. My diploma thesis therefore focuses on the analysis of actions of the three selected countries, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, from the perspective of structural realism that is split into two contradictory streams, defensive and offensive. Their different views on the world help me to clarify whether the behaviour of the chosen actors is defensive of offensive. For the analysis, the period from 2011 to 2018 was chosen. During that time, several major incidents have appeared between selected countries, especially...

A liberal understanding of international politics is currently dominant. However, it is important to note that there are still states that have not adopted this understanding, yet, which brings complications here. The current clash of these two understandings, i.e. liberalism and realism, thus constantly forms the security environment. Probably the most obvious case of the present seems to be the case of Ukraine and the related Ukraine crisis. The aim of this diploma thesis is to give a picture of the causes of the Ukraine crisis in a broader context than is generally interpreted across individual media, using an offensive-realistic framework. The motives of the individual actors of the conflict, especially Russia, will be examined in an attempt to present those motives as not primarily offensive but to some extent as defensive. Several research questions will serve me to fulfil the above-mentioned goal - How can the main causes of the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine be explained from the perspective of offensive realism? According to offensive realism, what actor is responsible for the outbreak of conflict? In terms of offensive realism, how can the motives of the key actors (i.e. Russia, the West) be explained?