Explaining the Ukraine war: a case for multi-theoretical approaches in international relations

This study examines the explanatory limits of realist and liberal theories in interpreting the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its repercussions on European security. The focus is on theory-testing, using a multi-theoretical framework to evaluate four distinct perspectives: John Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism, George Friedman’s Geopolitical Determinism, Ian Bremmer’s Liberal Institutionalism, and Timothy Snyder’s Liberal Internationalism. Through qualitative, secondary-data analysis, the study assesses how each theory independently explains the war’s causes, institutional responses, geopolitical stakes, and normative dimensions, while examining their theoretical gaps. The findings reveal that no single theoretical approach sufficiently captures the complexity of the Ukraine conflict. Realist frameworks illuminate security dilemmas and great-power competition but overlook normative and institutional dynamics. Liberal frameworks highlight the role of international institutions, norms and ideology but tend to underestimate the enduring influence of coercive power and geography. The research demonstrates that a multi-theoretical approach offers a more comprehensive understanding of the war by integrating power politics, institutional factors and ideological contests. The study also contributes to international relations scholarship by reinforcing the value of analytic eclecticism and by encouraging scholars to adopt more flexible, problem-driven methodologies when addressing complex global events.