Introduction
The Russian illegal war of aggression after launching a Bomb over Ljubljana, Slovenia’s capital city, has shattered peace across Europe. The United States has been left in a state of impasse as it must defend Slovenia since it’s a member state of NATO. Notably, NATO’s Strategic Concept perceives Russia as the most significant and direct threat to security, peace, and stability across the Euro-Atlantic area. I believe that the bomb attack against Slovenia is a way for Russia to institute spheres of influence and control over NATO member states through aggression, subversion, coercion, and annexation. As a result of the nuclear explosion, the heightened tensions between the US and Russia have been precipitated by Moscow’s support for the separatist movement in Republika Srpska and its protestation of NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea. The US-Russia relationships have been strained since the Cold War, according to McFaul (2016), and its response might further strain the relationship. In this paper, we provide a critical and in-depth analysis of the advice that will be given to the President of the United States (POTUS) on the best decision of the United States, the policies that will guide the nation, and a vivid description of the most rational policy to follow. In particular, the report will outline how the US should respond through a détente with Russia and focus on gradually withdrawing the naval fleet in the Black Sea.
I would advise the President to rule out the Russian explanation and publicly declare the US will carry out its own thorough investigation. For now, the US should refrain from retailing with launching a bomb over a Russian city but instead keep the fleet in the Black Sea. At the same time, the US should seek to establish some temporary détente with the Russians that would allow the gradual withdrawal of the fleet in a way that would not look like a victory for Russia. Drawing upon Classical realism as a framework for analysis, the realist perspective would allow the US to recognize the power dynamics at play and thus advocate for a gradual withdrawal of the fleet at the Black Sea to mitigate the risks involved and prevent further escalation of the conflict.
Theoretical Framework
The classical realism principles are critical for dealing with international affairs as they reflect power interests. Realism assumes that states are unitary and their actions are driven by the need for power and a desire to protect national interests. It is grounded in political realism, highlighting that tensions and competition for power among people are rooted in human nature (Lomia, 2020). Niccolò Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher, sees power as essential to sustain states in politics and international affairs. However, as Lomia (2020) argues, they are morally ambiguous and pragmatic actions taken to retain power and stability.
Machiavelli emphasizes that as states struggle to maintain national identity and independence, power is valued over morality. Hans Morgenthau identifies the principles of classical realism as state-centric, the primacy of power, political realism, morality in politics, the balance of power, prudence, and judgment, and utopianism critique (Zhang, 2017). The political scholar argues for a state-centric approach that considers states as rational, unitary agents pursuing their interests in international relations. He supports Machiavelli’s idea that classical realism is about nations balancing power dynamics, moral principles, and national interests. Therefore, classical realism requires nation-builders to cultivate skills such as governance and leadership to help them navigate international relations.
Classical realism principles apply to understanding the U.S.-Russia crisis after the Ljubljana nuclear explosion. The principle of power dynamics is present in this case as it exemplifies power politics (Zhang, 2017). Russia is looking to establish strategic dominance in Europe and the Black Sea. Power struggles are seen as the Russian military fights for dominance with the NATO naval base in Romania. Classical realism, as highlighted by Zhang (2017), reveals the US interests, which are directed towards supporting the US position in the Black Sea for the protection of its interests and those of its NATO allies, significantly influencing the choice of its strategy about Russia after the subsequent explosion. The balance of power in classical realism is one of the critical factors that can be employed to ensure peace and orderliness in society (Lomia, 2020). Supporting the classical realist theory, the USA and NATO’s actions may affect the ambition of forming the world under the control of a single state, Russia.
The other important element of classical realism in the case study is international relations and détente, elements critical in balancing and managing conflict. The report recommends using détente in dealing with political difficulties with Russia since it is a diplomatic method that supports discussions and pragmatic interactions to restore the balance of power and decrease political tensions. Consequently, the classical realism theoretical framework is one of the most significant conceptual frameworks that can help in solving the U.S.–Russia crisis. It gives information that enables the US to act during a time of complexity when trying to balance the geopolitical conflict of handling the Russian nuclear explosion that led to mass genocide while representing NATO interests.
Analysis and Policy Recommendation
Need for a thorough investigation.
The US is in a difficult position in determining which course of action to take, and the first step should be conducting an in-depth investigation into the incident. Machiavellian ideas on international relations realism can help the US conduct an inquiry and understand the best possible cause of action. The first factor to consider should be state behaviour about human nature (Jackson & Moore, 2016). There is apparent distrust between the US and Russia, and consequently, NATO, as a result of the strong naval presence in the Black Sea, which Russia has been fighting against. It is essential to conduct independent verification of the incidents to ensure that the explosion is not an accident, as the Russian President claims, but rather retaliation against NATO for its presence in the Black Sea region. POTUS has scepticism towards the explosion, and Machiavelli’s realist principles can help identify whether it was an act motivated by a pursuit of power and Russia’s self-interests. Through prudence and vigilance principles, the US can navigate geopolitical issues and identify the strategic implications of the Ljubljana explosion. Investigating the incident helps identify the motives behind the actions while protecting its interests as a member of NATO.
The US is facing an ethical dilemma and can incorporate realist views as recommended by Machiavellian prudence to develop the correct response. While NATO principles dictate retaliation, the US must maintain stability and order. During its fact-finding process, the US should seek to preserve its moral responsibility of upholding international rule of law and justice. From a realist perspective, the US needs to consider how any attempt to retaliate might impact its relationship with adversaries and allies. Investigating the incident helps ensure that the decision the US makes addresses the explosion while maintaining power balance in the long term.
Conducting an investigation has significant short- and long-term outcomes and benefits. The first outcome is verifying facts, which involves an unbiased account of the reasons for the bombing. The Russian President explains it as an accident by a nervous commander aboard a Russian cruiser in the Black Sea Fleet, frightened by NATO naval maneuvers at Deveselu, who unintentionally released a Kalibr cruise missile and quickly lost contact with it. The investigation can prove that the missile unfortunately hit Slovenia on its own, meaning it was an accident, not a targeted attack. It might also confirm the suspicion of POTUS that Russia targeted Slovenia with an upgraded Kalibr missile with a warhead of 1 to 20 megatons. This can be supported by the fact that, after the explosion, Russia insisted on the NATO navy leaving the Black Sea.
The US can use the investigation outcomes to seek the best possible benefits based on the scenarios. The benefits of an investigation include accountability, clarity, and diplomacy. After identifying whether Russia is responsible for the attack, the US can hold it accountable. Accountability includes ensuring the affected victims receive justice and compensation. The US can use the findings to show deterrence that acts of attack have consequences, maintaining its responsibility to NATO principles. The action taken will inform the diplomatic actions to be taken to maintain order while holding Russia responsible.
Gradual Withdrawal of Naval Fleet in the Black Sea
After verifying the facts, the US can use Morgenthau’s concept to understand how to best approach Russia’s protests against its NATO navy troops in the Black Sea. According to Morgenthau, no central authority exists for maintaining order in an anarchic international system (Molloy, 2004). It can only be achieved if power is balanced by ensuring no single state dominates. The power balancing theory has strategic implications for the decision to maintain NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea. If the US shows commitment to its allies, it deters any future aggressive actions. According to McGeachy et al. (1952), the power consolidation has been followed by aggressive policies looking to make Russia a global power, as evidenced by its Eastern Ukraine military intervention and Crimea annexation. Morgenthau’s power theory recommends a solid response to the nuclear bombing to send a clear message that acting with impunity cannot be tolerated. It will reassure its allies of its commitment to their defence values and prevent Russia from dominating the region.
Although maintaining its presence post-bombing of Ljubljana helps balance power, it has significant benefits and risks. Because the Black Sea is a strategic position for NATO, maintaining a naval presence there helps prevent further aggression. Despite my belief that sending ships into the Black Sea was provocative, the fact that Russia has missiles that can fly undetected is worrying, and NATO needs to protect itself and its allies. The region remains strategically positioned to access Europe and Asia, allowing effective projection of power. Morgenthau’s theory suggests that maintaining NATO’s naval position in the region balances power and secures its interests. The risks of maintaining their naval presence include escalating the tensions already facing the US and Russia. The presence of NATO in the Black Sea might result in further military confrontation that might strain US-Russia relations further and attract other partners sympathetic to Russian interests.
The presence of NATO in the Black Sea can be considered a violation of the Montreux Convention. According to Dremliuga (2015), the Black Sea is a significant target of international politics. Turkey has sovereignty over the straits and is empowered to prohibit non-Black Sea naval trade in certain situations, notably during wartime or an impending threat. A NATO naval presence, especially through non-Black Sea states, can be presented as violating the Montreux Convention. According to the provisions of the convention, non-Black Sea states are only allowed to stay for a maximum of 21 years, a violation POTUS should seek to eliminate. Violating the convention can cause further disputes with Black Sea power states. If the US supports NATO’s decision to remain in the Black Sea, military confrontations can increase. Turkey can play a crucial role in minimizing these adverse effects because of its strategic role as a keeper of the Black Sea straits.
POTUS needs to reconsider NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea through Turkey’s strategic position in the Black Sea. Turkey plays a better role because, as much as it is a NATO member state, it has an interest in managing peaceful relations with Russia. Instead of taking actions that would jeopardize Turkey’s position with the Montreux Convention, POTUS should trust that Turkey can represent the interests of its allies while managing its bilateral relations with Russia. This diplomatic engagement is the best strategy to ensure NATO complies with the convention while addressing security concerns about Russia by letting Turkey establish a naval presence. It will also promote multilateral cooperation by using Romania and Bulgaria, who are members of NATO and the Black Sea, to support Turkey in enhancing security. The tensions would be better dealt with if there were no traces of the naval presence of non-Black Sea states as suggested by Naumescu (2020).
Another strategy for POTUS to manage the situation is through strategic calibration, where NATO controls the number of naval deployments in the region for non-member states. It is crucial to maintain open communication and transparency with Turkey and Russia about their presence and intentions for deploying naval teams in the region. Therefore, POTUS needs to re-evaluate its position in the Black Sea by representing its interests through Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria, limiting the number and frequency of naval troops, and keeping open communication on the activities it conducts in the region to prevent tensions and conflict escalations.
Seeking a détente with Russia
POTUS can seek a détente with Russia by understanding the Ljubljana explosion from a Cuban missile revolution crisis (Blight et al. 2012). It provides insights into how the issue can be managed through strategic concessions and diplomacy to prevent further escalations. The Cuban missile crisis was a conflict between the US and Russia, involving a 13-day confrontation after Russia deployed missiles in Cuba. The crisis almost became a nuclear war if negotiations between the two presidents were not set. Part of the negotiation involved an agreement for the US not to invade Cuba and the withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba (Scott & Hughes, 2015). The negotiations also included open communication through the Moscow-Washington hotline, resolving the crisis.
The resolution to the Cuban missile crisis can be applied to the nuclear explosion in Ljubljana. POTUS needs to suggest concessions and diplomacy as a strategy for de-escalating the tensions with Russia. The agreements can include conversations about NATO naval presence in the Black Sea, as the Russian President mentioned removing them to avoid such catastrophic accidents. It does not mean eliminating military retaliation, but it should be integrated with diplomatic engagement (Scott & Hughes., 2015). Naval presence in the Black Sea can be maintained, but it needs to adhere to the Montreux Convention and be done in a way that minimizes its tensions with Russia. Based on their effectiveness in the Cuban missile crisis negotiations, reciprocal concessions during the backdoor negotiations can facilitate a peaceful resolution. The importance of direct communication during the resolution cannot be overstated (Blight et al., 2012). Therefore, POTUS must use the Cuban missile crisis to find solutions that maintain stability without escalation, such as strategic concessions, diplomacy, and direct communication.
POTUS can also rely on Morgenthauian diplomacy and Machiavellian flexibility to secure NATO interests and eliminate the risk of violent escalation with Russia. Machiavelli advocates for leadership pragmatism and adaptability, emphasizing the significance of remaining flexible in dealing with a complex political landscape (Jackson & Moore, 2016). In the context of the Ljubljana bombing, POTUS can suggest strategic adaptability and tactical pragmatism. Morgenthauian diplomacy encourages dialogue to balance power and build coalitions (Molloy, 2004). The dialogue should include addressing concerns about the Black Sea NATO presence and exploring mutual security measures to reduce conflict. Building coalitions with other global powers gives POTUS the bargaining power to negotiate a unified action with Russia. As much as POTUS will prioritize avoiding conflict, the strategies chosen should secure its interests and those of its allies. Combining flexibility and diplomacy necessitates a complex conception of national interests, extending beyond urgent security concerns to include long-term stability and international order.
Robust strategy for nuclear deterrence
The US should contemplate the need to incorporate a robust strategy for nuclear deterrence since prioritizing it will enhance its nuclear deterrence capacities to efficaciously deter Russia and other potential adversaries from participating in further acts of aggression. The article by Rabbani (2017) asserts that “the fear of assured destruction would persuade enemies of the futility of using nuclear weapons” (p.10). He adds that “a state under attack must be able to guard its ability to strike back instantaneously, and this could happen only if its retaliatory systems survive” (p.11). Based on the theory of nuclear deterrence, the costs associated with nuclear attacks deter the instigation of nuclear attacks, and these weapons give nations the ability to induce unacceptable damage (Rabbani, 2017). That is, the costs of launching a nuclear bomb outweigh the benefits, and in the event that Russia initiates nuclear strikes, the Kremlin will be assured of unacceptable damage. The deduction is that nuclear artillery will be regarded as an instrument of peace, and states with nuclear weapons will refrain from attacking other such states. If the United States develop similar arsenals to those deployed by Russia in Ljubljana, the US will be assured a long spell of fundamental security and need not fear of conquest (Rabbani, 2017). In this particular case, it is evident that Russia has nuclear arsenals that have shrunk in size, surged in stealthiness and amplified in accuracy due to technological revolutions. Therefore, the US should enhance retaliatory capabilities by incorporating advanced technologies as the heart and soul of nuclear deterrence (Rabbani, 2017).
Pursue diplomatic dialogue with Russia
In response to the Ljubljana bomb attack, it would be essential for the US to target de-escalating the mounting tensions. The US government must seek to maintain the Euro-Atlantic region, and this would require pursuing diplomatic dialogue. The government must carry out a balance of power calculation in statecraft due to the existing power dynamics. Despite holding a tough stance on American position in the media, power brokers should move to solve the diplomatic issues without letting the public know. A diplomatic dialogue, as illustrated in Classical Realism, could allow the US to prioritize its interests irrespective of the current development. The pursuit of self-interest could motivate both nations to reach a consensus and cease the escalating war. In this process, the US government must not entertain any thoughts of undermining its strategic interests to ensure it maintains the power dynamics and stability of the region. The pragmatic approach described by Machiavelli regarding statecraft allows nations to adapt and remain flexible even in dire times because of the ever-changing circumstances. The US government needs to allow a pragmatic give-and-take negotiation, pursue its area of common interest, and explore the mutually beneficial outcomes.
In this endeavour, the US should refrain from engaging Russia in bilateral talks or using multilateral forums such as the United Nations (UN) or NATO, as it could lose its credibility. I believe that the best way to ensure a diplomatic dialogue with Russia would be implementing Track II diplomacy as it entails unofficial and non-governmental channels of communication between parties. The benefit of informal diplomacy is that it will save the US from ridicule from the public and NATO members and establish its dominance without much public involvement. The unofficial diplomatic dialogue should focus on integrating candid discussions that seek to find out the number of nuclear weapons under Russia’s possession and, at the same time, explore the most creative solution to the problem.
Also, Track II diplomacy can potentially bridge the prevalent communication gaps between the US and Russia for an extended duration. The US could use this opportunity to address the issue of nuclear security while at the same time marinating its credibility due to high sense of trust and support from the public. The government should take advantage of the informational channels of dialogue to reinforce its diplomatic efforts while buying time to understand the threat posed by Russia not only to the Euro-Atlantic area but also to the world. The end game should be generative new and creative ideas that will establish a consensus with Russia regarding arms control, crisis management, and regional power balance. The US could also involve non-governmental actors in the informal dialogue to legitimize its foreign policy actions while at the same time demonstrating commitment towards inclusivity, transparency, and democratic ideals and principles. Mohan (2019) argues that situations can be constructed to model different alliances and address territorial disputes or any other conflicts. Thus, a diplomatic dialogue with Russia presents a chance for the US to address this conflict accordingly.
The most rational policy to follow
The most rational policy that the US could follow is the gradual withdrawal of the naval fleet from the Black Sea. The US made a rushed decision to support the deployment of the naval fleet into the Black Sea. However, it must maintain a public stance of resolve and commitment to NATO allies while engaging Russia in private negotiations by offering a pragmatic approach to de-escalating tensions and thwarting further resentment. The willingness of the US to support the gradual withdrawal of the naval fleet would create a platform for constructive negotiations directed at addressing the witnessed grievances and hostilities. It is the noblest of things for the US to maintain an aggressive posture to avoid losing its credibility while pursuing the withdrawal strategy without informing the public. This move has the potential to prevent provoking needless confrontations with Moscow. A saber-rattling would not offer much to the conflict thus a cautious approach is needed since the Black Sea is an extremely volatile region. The US government should recognize the essence of strategic flexibility in international relations as it strives to establish a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The gradual withdrawal of the fleet will be done in a way that would not look like a victory for Russia and it would allow US to refrain from bombing a Russian city.
Conclusion
The elucidation above illustrates that POTUS should not take Russia’s explanation at face value but conduct an investigation of the incident, re-evaluate NATO’s presence in the Black Sea, and establish a detente with Russia. These actions, guided by Machiavelli and Morgenthau’s classical realism principles, prevent further conflict escalation while preserving the interests of the parties involved. The Ljubljana incident is critical because it reflects the increasing Russia-US tensions, and if not handled effectively, it can further escalate into international stability. Machiavellian flexibility suggests that the US should be prepared and willing to practice adaptability and pragmatism. Morgenthau also emphasizes the importance of power balance and diplomacy in de-escalating tensions. The study suggests that the Cuban missile resolution can guide POTUS in understanding the compromises he should make during the resolution process. The purpose of the following classical realism approaches is to protect U.S. national interests by preserving the security of the NATO allies, sustaining stability in the Black Sea region, and limiting a hostile leading power.
References
Blight, J. G., Lang, J. M., Whyte, A., & Masutani, K. (2012). The Armageddon letters: Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro in the Cuban missile crisis. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dremliuga, R. (2015). The Development of the Black Sea Straits Regulation of International Navigation. Asian Social Science, 11(12), 269-273. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n12p269
Jackson, M., & Moore, T. (2016). Machiavelli’s walls: The legacy of realism in international relations theory. International Politics, 53(4), 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2016.9
Lomia, E. (2020). Political Realism in International Relations: Classical Realism, Neo-realism, and Neo-Classical Realism. International Journal of Social, Political and Economic Research, 7(3), 591-600. https://doi.org/10.46291/ijospervol7iss3pp591-600
McFaul, M. (2016). Negotiating with the Kremlin: Considerations for Future US Policy Toward Russia. Harvard International Review, 38(1), 22–27.
McGeachy, J. B., Dennett, R., & Johnson, J. E. (1952). Negotiating with the Russians. International Journal, 7(3), 236. https://doi.org/10.2307/40197745
Mohan, J. (2019). Gaming Nuclear Deterrence. Harvard International Review, 40(3), 33-35.
Molloy, S. (2004). Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthau’s Formulation of Realism. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 15(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290490438042
Naumescu, V. (2020). NATO in the Black Sea Region: Unpredictability and Different Levels of Commitment among the Three Coastal Allies. The Journal of Cross-Regional Dialogues. https://doi.org/10.25518/2593-9483.141
Rabbani, A. (2017). Nuclear Deterrence. World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 21(4), 10-25.
Scott, L. V., & Hughes, R. G. (2015). The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Critical Reappraisal. In Cold War History. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Zhang, B. (2017). Hans Morgenthau, Realist Theory of International Leadership, and the Future of Global Order. Chinese Political Science Review, 2(4), 512-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-017-0080-0
write