Owing to a detailed discussion on security and its various understandings, a vivid correlation between current world politics and the need for a more critical approach to security can be seen. Being an essentially contested term, it is of paramount importance to identify the referent and threats objects in any discourse regarding security. Thus, we shall first briefly discuss the aforementioned characteristics before delving deeper into the intricacies of security and traditional warfare.
Since the beginning of the 17th century, most, if not all conflicts have emanated due to an attempt at broadening imperialism by a superpower, while the 'smaller' nations were merely considered as strategic maneuvers of the superpower itself. Most academic dignitaries deem this kind of thought as the 'western way', however, personally I consider this narrative to be contributing more towards the North vs South argument, especially in today's circumstances. Here, the categorization is not geographical, rather economical with the global North consisting of the superpowers while the global south majorly consists of developing nation with relatively lesser influence.
The essence in understanding this narrative and the root cause of the conflict lies in analyzing the historical relationship between these two kinds of nations. The global south has been stuck in an eternal struggle for commanding the respect it rightfully deserves from its northern counterparts. However, following the historical trend, the global North has perenially failed to ever recognize or respect the south, always treating them as testing grounds for their economic and militaristic policies(Barkawi, 2004). This has ultimatly led to widening of the intellectual gap that exists, fostering angst and contempt rather than understanding. Giving an example of perhaps the most well known recent conflict, the United States of America always deemed Al Qaeda's acts as 'religious extremism', rather than attempting to understand the source of this violence, which emerged from anti-colonial sentiments.
Applying the aforementioned structure to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, and one's understanding of this conflict is immediately ameliorated. While the war has been going on since 2014, it was once again brought to international notice due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The war has been one of the most deadly and arduous conflicts in recent history, with more than 360,000 injuries and yet, it shall go down in the broad spectrum of conflicts as a 'small war'(Barkawi, 2004). This is primarily due to the conflict including a superpower poised against a smaller nation. Furthermore, while the smaller nation in this case has recieved international support and aid, the narrative would have been quite different had the aggressor been a western nation.
Moreover, this conflict highlights the strategic blunders of the superpowers due to their arrogance, with the Russian forces severly underestimating the strength of Ukrainain soldiers. Russia's failed attempt at capturing Ukrainian territory is not due to lack of resources, but rather due to their lack of undertsanding of their opponent. One might even go ahead and claim that Russia's securitization theory couldn't identify Ukraine as a potential threat object, thus making this failed invasion a move solely motivated by power.
This brings us to the greatest country in the world, the United States and the power of building a narrative. From the Vietnam war to Operation Desert Storm to Operation Iraqi Freedom to the war in Afghanistan, the procedure of establishing 'world peace' and the conscious 'efforts towards liberation'- as the United States like to say- are eerily similar to that of Russia in the Ukraine war. This narrative of working towards international peace not only tarnishes and widens the gap between the North and the South, but also handicaps the superpowers from understanding that the global South's biggest efforts are towards anti-colonialism(Cox, 2010).
The understanding of security is absolutely quintessesntial, especially when conflict is knocking at your door. This usually requires the broading and deepening of security studies. However, as for Ukraine, this broadening and deepening wasn't essentially necessary in this scenario, as the nature of the conflict was quite traditional. In the name of state security, the security of the citizens is most often threatened(Krause, 2018), and realizing this, Ukraine activated the conscription law, which might seem counter-intuitive, however provided the astonishing results of the war so far. Identifying the kind of securitization approach required for the situation has allowed Ukraine to fend off, if not harm Russia even more. That being said, how long this David can contend with its Goliath will be a culmination of understanding , establishing and promoting the apt securitization approach.
Bibliography
Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 2018. “Security and ‘Security Studies’: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Security, edited by Alexandra Gheciu and William Curtis Wohlforth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Robert Cox. 2010. Robert Cox on World Orders, Historical Change and Purpose of Theory in International Relations. Theory Talks #37. E-IR. http://www.theory-talks.org/2010/03/theory-talk-37.html
Barkawi, Tarak. 2004. ‘On the Pedagogy of “Small Wars”’.International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)80 (1): 19–37.
The piece has been articulated meticulously. "Can future confrontations between superpowers and smaller nations be avoided with a more sophisticated view of security concerns that takes into account historical context and the perspectives of emerging states?" I would be grateful for your comment on this.