John Mearsheimer And Jeffrey Mankoff's Analysis

Regarding Russian intervention in Crimea, both John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Mankoff emphasize the importance of this region to Russia’s overall strategy. Despite a general agreement on Russia’s intentions, they pursue different arguments regarding the catalyst of this intervention. Both scholars discuss the role of the West in this intervention; however, Mearsheimer’s use of offensive realism constitutes most of his argument on why the West played a fundamental role in the Crimean invasion. Contrarily, Mankoff alludes to the power-hungry nature of Putin and its disdain for the West as main proponents of the invasion. While both articles provide strong analysis of the Crimean intervention, Mearsheimer’s explanation of the West’s role in this situation provides a more sound argument. Furthermore, Mankoff’s lack of acknowledgement towards the Western …show more content…
Overall, the assumptions inherent in offensive realism touted by Mearsheimer align more with the Russian response to Crimea, and the West’s attempt to “westernize” Russia’s neighbors further solidifies his argument. Similar to Mearsheimer, Mankoff discusses the general disdain for the West that Russia fosters, and furthermore explains the importance of Ukraine and other neighboring countries to Russia’s well being. One of the main differences, however, is that Mankoff finds the motives of Russia to be irrational and unwarranted. Specifically, Mankoff notes, “By annexing Crimea and threatening deeper military intervention in eastern Ukraine, Russia will only bolster Ukrainian nationalism and push Kiev closer to Europe, while causing other post-Soviet states to question the wisdom of a close alignment with Moscow.” Essentially, intervention in Ukraine will only cause Russia to lose its influence in its neighboring countries. While this may be true, the act cannot be deemed irrational, and furthermore should not be considered as detrimental to Russian interests.