This history of Ukraine's struggles also gives greater insight into Zelenski's reluctance to mobilize on the eve of the invasion as detailed here https://wapo.st/3TiWWhE
In the struggle to keep the state afloat, mobilizing unnecessarily would have been a massive setback, and if the state fell apart the Russians would have won without firing a shot. Fortunately Ukraine turned out to be more resilient than anyone imagined.
Very good piece! Yes, it’s Ukraine’s state building that explains its success.
But I don’t see how it is evidence in support of realism. As I understand realism, it does not predict state building in response to a threat. It just says - if you don’t build up your state, you’re going to get wiped out. If Ukraine had remained just as corrupt and shambolic and been wiped out, a realist would have said - “See!That’s what happens.”
It’s a bit different with basic state behavior as an international actor - I.e. balancing. If a threatened state failed to balance, you could say that’s disconfirmation of the theory. (the notorious JJM’s position). But, even here, you could say - hey, we’re not predicting states will do anything. We’re just predicting the bad consequences if states don’t follow our advice. Survival of the fittest will weed out bad deciders. That view, though, makes realism hard to falsify.
This history of Ukraine's struggles also gives greater insight into Zelenski's reluctance to mobilize on the eve of the invasion as detailed here https://wapo.st/3TiWWhE
In the struggle to keep the state afloat, mobilizing unnecessarily would have been a massive setback, and if the state fell apart the Russians would have won without firing a shot. Fortunately Ukraine turned out to be more resilient than anyone imagined.
Very good piece! Yes, it’s Ukraine’s state building that explains its success.
But I don’t see how it is evidence in support of realism. As I understand realism, it does not predict state building in response to a threat. It just says - if you don’t build up your state, you’re going to get wiped out. If Ukraine had remained just as corrupt and shambolic and been wiped out, a realist would have said - “See!That’s what happens.”
It’s a bit different with basic state behavior as an international actor - I.e. balancing. If a threatened state failed to balance, you could say that’s disconfirmation of the theory. (the notorious JJM’s position). But, even here, you could say - hey, we’re not predicting states will do anything. We’re just predicting the bad consequences if states don’t follow our advice. Survival of the fittest will weed out bad deciders. That view, though, makes realism hard to falsify.