Revision summary
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Model answer
Introduction
The current Russian regime has used force, frozen conflicts and energy pressure in the post-Soviet space. The statement that this shows an intention to realise a Greater Russia on Soviet-era lines is therefore a serious claim. It should be partly accepted. The expansionist pattern is visible. The Soviet analogy is incomplete.
Body
What is visible
Georgia 2008, the seizure of Crimea in 2014, the war in the Donbas, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are not defensive border incidents. They are attempts to rewrite another state’s territory and to deny its independent foreign-policy choice, especially a path toward the European Union and NATO. Official language about ‘one people’, historical Russia, and the denial of Ukrainian nationhood is a Greater Russia script. Belarus is bound by Union-State structures and military basing. The CSTO and energy leverage over neighbours show a sphere of privileged interest. Nuclear signalling and the suspension of New START-era restraints show that the regime will raise the cost of Western help to Ukraine.
Hans Morgenthau would read this as a classic interest defined as power, dressed in national history. Kenneth Waltz would add structure: a former superpower in a unipolar-then-contested system, facing NATO’s eastward enlargement, choosing revision rather than adjustment. Those theories explain aggression. They do not excuse it.
Why ‘Soviet era’ is only a partial match
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a party-state with a planned economy, a Marxist-Leninist claim, and a Warsaw Pact of communist regimes. The present regime is nationalist, oligarchic and capitalist in property form, even when the state directs energy and war industry. It does not export a communist international. It exports influence, mercenaries, and a civilisational story of Orthodoxy and empire. Restoration of 1991 borders of Soviet control is a maximum nationalist horizon, not a return of Gosplan and the Comintern.
The Soviet Union also contained Ukraine as a Union republic with a seat at the United Nations. Putin’s war treats Ukrainian statehood as a mistake. That is imperial nationalism, closer to Tsarist and Eurasianist themes than to Lenin’s formal federalism.
Comment
Expansionist intention toward a Greater Russia in the near abroad should be accepted as a working description of the 2010s–2020s. Equating that project with a Soviet restoration overstates ideology and understates the new mix of kleptocracy, television nationalism and conventional war. NATO’s role is part of Moscow’s justification and part of the security dilemma. It does not turn the invasion into a purely defensive act. The honest comment is: sphere rebuilding, yes; USSR 2.0, no.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD R[Russian regime] --> E[Force in near abroad] E --> U[Ukraine Georgia] R --> G[Greater Russia nationalism] S[Soviet era] -.geography not system.-> G
Conclusion
The Russian regime has shown expansionist conduct aimed at a privileged sphere and at denying Ukrainian independence. That is a Greater Russia project. It is not a recreation of the Soviet system. The Soviet analogy helps as a map of geography. It misleads as a map of ideology.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Explain the various facets of the idealist approach to the study of international relations. Comment on its contemporary relevance.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q1). View answer →
-
Did NATO cause the war?
NATO enlargement is part of Russia’s stated grievance and of the security dilemma. It does not legally or morally transfer responsibility for invasion to Ukraine or to the Alliance.
-
Is Eurasianism the same as Soviet communism?
No. Eurasianism is a civilisational-imperial story. Soviet power used Marxist-Leninist language and a party monopoly.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"Deglobalisation is displacing globalisation." Comment. -
2024 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
What were the limitations of NAFTA? How did its replacement by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement counter them? Explain. -
2024 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
The return of trade barriers and economic sanctions has diminished the spirit of GATT. In this context, discuss the factors contributing to the decline of WTO in recent times. -
2024 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Do you agree with the view that the EU has thus far proved to be the most successful experiment in the regional integration processes? Account for its successes and also some of the recent challenges that it is faced with. -
2024 · Q5(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the rationale behind replacing the "Asia-Pacific" strategy with the new term "Indo-Pacific" strategy. -
2024 · Q7(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
"India and USA have become such strong strategic partners that they need not become formal allies." Comment. -
2023 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the crucial functions of empirical political theory in Comparative Politics? -
2023 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the difficulties faced by a political theorist in comparing the States?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(d) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the various facets of the idealist approach to the study of international relations. Comment on its contemporary relevance.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Idealism in IR treats law, morality, public opinion and organisations as real forces, not only military power. Kant’s perpetual peace and Wilson’s League/UN lineage are the core facets, with collective security and disarmament as programmes. It is not naive pacifism; it seeks to change incentives through institutions. Morgenthau and Waltz remain the main critique: interest, anarchy and self-help. Contemporary relevance is institutional and normative — UN, NPT, courts — not a claim that power politics has ended.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.