Both scholars and politicians struggle to understand how the decision was made to go ahead with the annexation and for what reasons. Some scholars argue that Russia decided to annex Crimea because...Show moreBoth scholars and politicians struggle to understand how the decision was made to go ahead with the annexation and for what reasons. Some scholars argue that Russia decided to annex Crimea because of its importance as “the spiritual source” of the Russian nation, others state that Russia’s historical claim to the peninsula was the reason for the annexation (Russia possessed it until 1954 when the Soviet leadership transferred it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic). Another group claims it was a purely strategic decision since it allowed Russia to increase its military capabilities by taking over most of the Ukrainian Black See Fleet and that this was just the start of president Putin’s great power restoration campaign . Most of the explanations are rooted in either the realist theory that revolves around power maximisation and self-interest or the constructivist theory that focusses on norms and identities. This thesis will build on the realist explanations for the annexation of Crimea, by introducing an analysis through the understudied Type III neoclassical realist theory (NCR), coined by Ripsman, Taliafero and Lobell in their book ‘Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics’. The neoclassical realist theory used in this research recognises that a system-only explanation is insufficient and therefore combines systemic variables with unit-level variables in attempting to explain foreign policy choices. This thesis build on the realist explanations for the annexation of Crimea, by introducing an analysis through the understudied Type III neoclassical realist theory (NCR), coined by Ripsman, Taliafero and Lobell in their book ‘Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics’. The neoclassical realist theory used in this research recognises that a system-only explanation is insufficient and therefore combines systemic variables with unit-level variables in attempting to explain foreign policy choices. This thesis determined if the four intervening variables neoclassical realism type III identified (e.g. leader images, strategic culture, state-society relations and domestic political institutions) affected the manner in which Russia responded to certain external stimuli (geography, military technology, distribution of power, polarity of the international system, clarity of the international system and the nature of state’s strategic environment) that lead to the annexation of Crimea. This thesis found that a state's strategic environment contributed most significantly to the decision to annex Crimea, because without the political turmoil going on within Ukraine it would have been unlikely that Russia would have succeeded. The research also found that the intervening variables of leader image and strategic culture played a part in the decision making process. Even though the strategic culture helped to gain acceptance among society, it was the leader image that was most influential in shaping the ultimate decision. In the case of Russia and Crimea, it is very clear that president Putin was the actor that made the annexation a reality.Show less
