Author: Stephen M. Walt
Affiliation: John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Organization/Publisher: Foreign Policy
Date/place: March 29, 2022/Washington DC, USA
Type of Literature: Article
Word count: 1732
Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/29/realist-case-ukraine-peace-deal/
Keywords: Realism, Conflict Resolution, War, Ukraine
Brief
Stephen M. Walt argues that our goal should be to find a solution that will end the war before more damage has been done, and that will also prevent any future conflicts from taking place. The author argues that conflict resolution does not go against the realist view. First, removing challenges is a clear cause that encourages great powers to take part in resolving conflicts. Second, safeguarding allies who are facing regional conflict is a win-win for both countries. Third, resolving conflict lowers the risk of escalation. Fourth, aiding in stopping war is an exemplary way for great powers to show their influence and their power in working for the common good. Fifth, trade and investment cannot flow as safely or freely during conflicts or war. According to realists, the author argues, peace promotes interdependence, in contrast to the liberal view. Finally, states should pursue conflict resolution because it decreases human suffering. Nevertheless, the author admits that states often ignore these concerns when interests may be at stake. Despite the fact that states recognize the virtues of conflict resolution, they still may benefit more from the opposite. The author forecasts that the war will probably end up with a costly dead end, until the one conducting it achieves their goal or agrees to a far from satisfactory outcome. Ukraine won’t get back Crimea or obtain full NATO membership, and the US will have to quit seeking states to join NATO.
Critical Commentary: The author explains the stance of realists in relation to conflict resolution in regards to what is taking place in the world at the moment. Realism does not support fighting wars that do not concern us. In contrast, that is the liberal view that promotes intervention. When the US invaded Iraq it was because of private interests, not state interests; the invasion was justified as part of the War on Terror by the Bush administration propaganda, representing the normative ideology of the liberal agenda. There were no signs of terrorism at the time in Iraq and its invasion was excused as a way to help a regime change to combat terrorism. The author claims that realists do take into account the virtues of conflict resolution, however, he admits to states ignoring human suffering and human dignity for their own interests and sees it as part of the “tragedy of power politics.” This does not show how conflict resolution is a priority to states, according to the realist view. It mainly shows that states will not pursue conflict resolution as long as it clashes with their own interests, even if it means reducing human suffering, something that is eminent in the world today. The author also claims that the US has always been interested in conflict resolution, which does not reflect reality as the United States has been funding, invading, and intervening in wars that have prolonged conflicts and in many cases only worsened their condition.
By: Sara El Souhagy, CIGA Research Intern
