Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Challenging US Hegemony: The Ukrainian Crisis and Russian Regional Order

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was reduced from the role of a global hegemon to that of a regional hegemon. As the regional hegemon, Russia was responsible for creating a regional order that was nested within the global order. However, since the Soviet Union had collapsed, it could not be assumed that Russia would create a regional order that was compatible with the global order. Would Russia create a regional order that was incompatible with the global order, and further, would Russia be a dissatisfied state that would challenge US hegemony? Using network analysis, I discover that Russia created a regional order that was compatible with the global order. In other words, Russia did not directly challenge the global order. More specifically, Russia accepted the global order that existed at the end of the Cold War. Providing that the global order remained static, Russia would not challenge that order. However, US actions following the collapse of the Soviet Union such as the expansion of NATO and the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are interpreted by Russia as a dynamic change in the global order. The Ukrainian crisis further exacerbated the wedge that had developed between the United States and Russia. It has further isolated Russia, destroyed the regional order nested within the global order, and ensured that Russia fully became a dissatisfied state looking to challenge US hegemony. Russia will now turn to China to try to challenge US hegemony.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Political Science, Troy University,


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Acharya Amitav. 2007. “"The Emerging Regional Architecture of World Politics".” World Politics Vol 59(04): 629652. [Crossref]
2. Bull Hedley. 2002. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics . Columbia University Press.
3. DiCicco Jonathan M.,, and Levy Jack S.. 1999. “"Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program".” The Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol 43(6): 675704. [Crossref]
4. Downs George W.,, Rocke David M.,, and Barsoom Peter N.. 1996. “"Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?”" International Organization Vol 50(3): 379406. [Crossref]
5. Fearon James D. 1995. “"Rationalist Explanations for War".” International Organization Vol 49(3): 379414. [Crossref]
6. Gilpin Robert. 1983. War and Change in World Politics . Cambridge University Press.
7. Grieco Joseph M. 1988. “"Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism".” International Organization Vol 42(3): 485507. [Crossref]
8. Helsinki Final Act . 1975. (January 29, 2016).
9. Kelley Judith. 2007. “"Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements".” American Political Science Review Vol 101(03): 573589. [Crossref]
10. Kim Woosang. 1991. “"Alliance Transitions and Great Power War".” American Journal of Political Science Vol 35(4): 833. [Crossref]
11. Kim Woosang. 2002. “"Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction, and Wars in East Asia, 1860–1993".” Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol 46(5): 654671. [Crossref]
12. Koremenos Barbara. 2005. “"Contracting Around International Uncertainty".” American Political Science Review Vol 99(04): 549565. [Crossref]
13. Leeds Brett Ashley. 2003. “"Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to Violate Treaties".” International Organization Vol 57(04): 801827.
14. Lemke Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace . Cambridge University Press.
15. Levy Jack S. 1998. “"The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace".” Annual Review of Political Science Vol 1(1): 139165. [Crossref]
16. Marcus Jonathan. 2014. “"Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of Leaked Nuland-Pyatt Call".” BBC News . (January 10, 2016).
17. Mearsheimer John J. 2014. "“Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.”" Foreign Affairs . (January 10, 2016).
18. Morgenthau Hans Joachim. 1948. Politics Among Nations . A.A. Knopf.
19. Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) . 1970. (January 29, 2016).
20. “"Putin Dismisses Bush’s Call For Russia to Follow Iraqi Model of ‘Democracy.’"” 2006. Democracy Now ! (January 10, 2016).
21. Putin Vladimir. 2007. “"Munich Speech".” Presented at the Munich. (January 10, 2016).
22. Sinclair I.M. 1970. “"Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties".” International & Comparative Law Quarterly Vol 19(01): 4769. [Crossref]
23. Slobodchikoff Michael O. 2013. Strategic Cooperation: Overcoming the Barriers of Global Anarchy . Lexington Books.
24. Slobodchikoff Michael O. 2014. Building Hegemonic Order Russia’s Way: Order, Stability, and Predictability in the Post-Soviet Space . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
25. Stewart-Ingersoll Robert,, and Frazier Derrick. 2012. Regional Powers and Security Orders: A Theoretical Framework . Routledge.
26. Tammen R.L.,, and Kugler Jacek. 2006. “"Power Transition and China-US Conflicts".” The Chinese Journal of International Politics Vol 1(1): 3555. [Crossref]
27. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations . 1948. "General Assembly resolution 217A" (January 29, 2016).
28. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties . 1980. 18232.
29. Walt Stephen. 2015. “"Why Arming Kiev Is a Really, Really Bad Idea".” Foreign Policy . (January 10, 2016).
30. Walt Stephen M., 2002. “"The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition".” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline , eds. Katznelson Ira, and Milner. Helen V. W.W. Norton & Company, 197230.
31. Waltz Kenneth Neal. 1979. Theory of International Politics . McGraw-Hill.
32. Willerton John P,, Slobodchikoff Michael O,, and Goertz Gary. 2012. “"Treaty Networks, Nesting, and Interstate Cooperation: Russia, the FSU, and the CIS".” International Area Studies Review Vol 15(1): 5982. [Crossref]
33. Willerton John P.,, Goertz Gary,, and Slobodchikoff Michael O.. 2015. “"Mistrust and Hegemony: Regional Institutional Design, the FSU-CIS, and Russia".” International Area Studies Review Vol 18(1): 2652. [Crossref]

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation