INR 4083 Lecture Notes - Irredentism

35 views7 pages
19 Mar 2014
School
Course
Professor
Page:
of 7
Russia Invades the Crimea 03/06/2014
**Russia didn’t technically invade because Russian troops were already stationed there
Russian Motivations
Stated motivations: protect native Russians from abuse
Same motivation used during invasion of Georgia in 2008
Other motivations?
Territorial Motivations
Strategic- Sevastopol naval base (it’ll never freeze over b/c it’s a warm water port)
Economic- new gas pipelines
Irredentism
Cement Russia’s regional power
Western Response
Security Council response?
Nothing, because Russia has veto power as one of the top 5 members
Direct military action?
Particularly from NATO
Probably not going to take action b/c Ukraine never actually became a full member
Doesn’t enjoy full protection
Costs—War is costly
Russian nukes
European dependence on Russia gas and oil
Russian’s have a massive military force
Also, the farther away the less powerful & US is pretty far
Private acknowledgement that Russia can take action in its own backyard without western interference
U.S has public acknowledgement of that (Monroe Doctrine)
What’s left?
Primarily economic/diplomatic responses
Sanctions
Condemnation
Perhaps stationing more military capabilities in Central Europe
What’s Going to Happen?
Always hard to make predictions
Lack of military confrontation is telling at this point
Best case scenario
Russia keeps the Crimea without shots being fired and does not interfere in Eastern Ukraine
Worst case scenario
Russia encourages violent protests in the East, sparking a civil conflict which prompts a Russian invasion of
Eastern Ukraine
Full scale war occurs between Ukraine & Russia
Selectorate Theory 03/06/2014
Democratic Peace Theory
This structural explanation still isn’t satisfactory
How exactly can regimes restrict the actions of a leader?
Bdm et al offer the Selectorate Theory
The Selectorate Theory
Claim: It makes no sense to classify regimes as democracies or dictatorships, as presidential or
parliamentary
These hard dichotomies are not good
A better classification is according to the size of the selectorate and the size of the winning
coalition
Selectorate: all those people in a country who have an institutionally granted right or norm that gives
them a say in choosing the government
Winning Coalition: those members (subset of selectorate) whose support is essential to keep the
incumbent leadership in office
In U.S, the selectorate is registered voters
Winning coalition for lets say President Obama, would be democrats (50+1)
Always harder to talk about when it comes to democracies
Image in PowerPoint
Driving assumption: Leaders do what is necessary to maintain power & tend to have to give back in
order to do so
The government taxes the citizens and uses these resources:
To provide privates goods to members of the winning coalition;
To provide public goods that benefit all society
To hold on to power, the leader must provide sufficient benefits to the winning coalition so that the least
satisfied member still prefers to support the leader than defect to a rival
The probability of being essential in the successor’s winning coalition is W/S
Likelihood of defection is ability to be in the winning coalition next time in order to get same benefits (if not
going to be in winning coalition if defect, don’t defect. If you’ll be in winning coalition still, than defect)