Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Accounting for the Domestic alongside the International

Abstract An old debate on the value of systemic explanations of international relations (IR) reemerged in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Both scholars and popular media have spent much oxygen and ink debating arguments that assign causal primacy to NATO expansion, status reclamation, spheres of influence, dissatisfaction, or multipolarity. However, understanding conflict onset and duration requires consideration of both domestic and international causes. Though accounting for both has been relatively sparse in the public discourse of Russia’s invasion, efforts to engage both have a long history in IR scholarship. This forum addresses this omission in the Russia–Ukraine War, outlining the problems with the dominant systemically focused narrative while offering suggestions for more fruitful avenues rooted in both IR and area studies. Doing so offers a more thorough accounting of the war and emphasizes the broader interdependence between IR and area studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Studies Review
Published
2025-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf023
Primary Topic
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Accounting for the Domestic alongside the International

Thomas J. Volgy, Bohdana Kurylo, Paul Poast, Alexander Lanoszka et al.
International Studies Review
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
article

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Accounting for the Domestic alongside the International

Thomas J. Volgy, Bohdana Kurylo, Paul Poast, Alexander Lanoszka, Seva Gunitsky, Joanna Szostek, J. Patrick Rhamey
article en

Abstract

Abstract An old debate on the value of systemic explanations of international relations (IR) reemerged in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Both scholars and popular media have spent much oxygen and ink debating arguments that assign causal primacy to NATO expansion, status reclamation, spheres of influence, dissatisfaction, or multipolarity. However, understanding conflict onset and duration requires consideration of both domestic and international causes. Though accounting for both has been relatively sparse in the public discourse of Russia’s invasion, efforts to engage both have a long history in IR scholarship. This forum addresses this omission in the Russia–Ukraine War, outlining the problems with the dominant systemically focused narrative while offering suggestions for more fruitful avenues rooted in both IR and area studies. Doing so offers a more thorough accounting of the war and emphasizes the broader interdependence between IR and area studies.

International Studies ReviewVol. 27(4)
University of Arizona (US), University of Waterloo (CA), College of Europe (BE), University of Toronto (CA), Virginia Military Institute (US), University of Chicago (US), University of Glasgow (GB), London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Accounting for the Domestic alongside the International — Thomas J. Volgy, Bohdana Kurylo, et al. · International Studies Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS