User:ApoieRacional/sandbox

Contributions to the International Relations Theory

Richard Sakwa does not identify himself with any single mainstream International Relations school, such as realism, liberalism, or constructivism. Instead, his approach is best described as a critical, historically grounded pluralism that draws eclectically from several traditions:

1. Critical Realist (in the philosophical sense) Sakwa explicitly aligns with critical realism—a philosophy of science developed by Roy Bhaskar—not to be confused with critical theory (Frankfurt School) or realism in international relations (IR). Critical realism holds that social structures exist independently of perception but are stratified and open to change through agency (Sakwa, 2021). This allows him to analyze both material power and ideational factors without reductionism. In his writings, Sakwa cites Bhaskar and uses critical realism to justify multi-layered political analysis.

2. Pluralist International Theorist

Sakwa’s core concern is the crisis of pluralism in world order. He argues that the post–Cold War liberal order imposed monism—a single model of liberal democracy and market capitalism—whereas a stable order must accommodate multiple legitimate political forms. This positions him as a theorist of normative pluralism, closer to thinkers like John Gray than to classical realists, like Hans Morgenthau.

3. Historical Institutionalism + Discourse Analysis

Sakwa blends historical institutionalism with discursive analysis, examining how elite narratives, historical memory, and institutional legacies interact with geopolitical pressures. For example, in his book "Putin: Russia’s Choice", he traces how political discourse shapes identity and policy choices in post-Soviet Russia.

4. Sakwa is skeptical of mainstream binary international relations theories.

He rejects the realism–liberalism dichotomy as inadequate and distances himself from offensive/defensive realism, arguing that state behavior cannot be reduced to power-maximization alone—legitimacy, status, and identity are equally vital.

💬 Sakwa writes: “Russia is not just a power, but a polity with its own normative claims” , reflecting his refusal to treat states as mere billiard balls.

5. Position on the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Richard Sakwa has been criticized, along with John Mearsheimer, for narratives, that allegedly try to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In reality, Sakwa rejects Mearsheimer's realist interpretation as oversimplified and tries to provide a more nuanced approach. Although both favor negotiated arrangements to reduce the risk of renewed conflict, they emphasize different priorities (neutrality/accommodation vs. negotiated security frameworks plus legal protections)

Books

His book Frontline Ukraine is about the origins of the Russo-Ukrainian War. It argues that the Ukrainian conflict was the result of internal Ukrainian issues (Ukrainian Crisis) becoming hostage to a new Cold War with Ukraine at its focal point (Ukraine Crisis). According to Sakwa, the new Cold War was the result of a profound misunderstanding between the West and Russia, with the latter being treated as a defeated power following the collapse of the USSR. Sakwa argues that it is "wrong-headed in conceptualization and dangerous in its consequences" to describe Russia as expansionist: "Russia under Putin is not a land-grabbing state, it is a profoundly conservative power and its actions are designed to maintain the status quo... [Russia] makes no claim to revise the existing international order, but to make it more inclusive and universal." Sakwa argues that Russia's war with Georgia was a breaking point in Russia-US relations, with Russia becoming more insistent on its security concerns, and a response to the shelling of Russian peacekeepers, a point confirmed by the ICRC.

In his 2017 book Russia against the rest: The post-cold war crisis of world order, Prof. Sakwa argues, that the post–Cold War international order is in deep crisis because the Western-led liberal World order tried to convert a plural, pluralistic international system into a single-model system. Russia’s confrontation with the West is therefore best understood as a reaction to Western policies (NATO expansion, EU enlargement, use of force) that undermined Russian security, status and sphere of influence. Russia is not simply a revanchist power seeking to restore the Soviet Union; rather it is a complex, “reluctant” or selective challenger to aspects of the liberal world order. He calls for a reframing of international order toward genuine pluralism and managed pluralism (a multipolar order) rather than Western hegemony masked as a universal liberal order. The book was well received by critics. It was praised for nuance, historical depth, and for avoiding simple pro- or anti-Russian caricatures. At the same time, critics cautioned, that Sakwa might have underemphasize domestic drivers of Russian policy (authoritarian consolidation, regime legitimation) and over-rationalize Moscow’s actions as part of a coherent worldview, when they may be more ad hoc or instrumental. At the same time, some reviewers say Sakwa underplays genuine authoritarian trends and human-rights problems in Russia, and that his emphasis on Western responsibility risks minimizing agency and misdeeds by Russian actors (e.g., Crimea, support for separatists). Others argue he may give too much weight to structural explanations at the expense of contingency and domestic politics in neighboring states (notably Ukraine).

His 2021 book Deception argues that investigations into Russiagate – allegations that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 U.S. presidential election – were politically biased and based on unverified documents. He said the investigations polarised the U.S. and politicised the intelligence community, which greatly damaged the country and soured U.S.–Russia relations.

Maria Lipman, a Russian journalist, political scientist and Russia expert, wrote in Foreign Affairs that Sakwa's 2021 book Deception "is an exceptionally detailed and well-documented account of all the major episodes covered by the Trump-Russia probes." In a 2023 study Oliver Boyd-Barrett said that he considered Deception "at the time of writing, to be the soundest, most empirical, and comprehensive analysis" of Russiagate."