In the anarchic realm of international politics, where states are in a constant struggle for survival and power, the concept of electoral legitimacy is often used as a weapon rather than a principle. The recent statement by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry [1] and the European Parliament [2], which characterized the recent presidential elections in Belarus as “illegal”, constitutes a striking case study in the strategic use of Normative Rhetoric [3] to advance state vested interests. This statement, combined with the controversial annulment of the elections in Romania, highlights the inherent hypocrisy and power politics that underpin such statements by Western institutions.
From the perspective of aggressive realism, these actions by the West are not reprehensible or rare, but predictable moves in the relentless pursuit of relative gains and security on the international geopolitical chessboard.
The Framework of Aggressive Realism
Aggressive realism, as articulated by John Mearsheimer, holds that states operate in a self-help system where there is no higher authority to guarantee their survival. In such a system, states are inherently aggressive, seeking to maximize their power to ensure their security and dominate potential competitors.
This desire for power often manifests itself in the form of military buildup, alliances, and, crucially, narrative control, that is, the manipulation of norms and institutions with the primary purpose of undermining their competitors.
The concept of “legitimacy” is not an objective standard, but a tool that states exploit to delegitimize their adversaries and strengthen their own position in the international hierarchy.
The Framework of Aggressive Realism
Aggressive realism, as articulated by John Mearsheimer, holds that states operate in a self-help system where there is no higher authority to guarantee their survival. In such a system, states are inherently aggressive, seeking to maximize their power to ensure their security and dominate potential competitors.
This desire for power often manifests itself in the form of military buildup, alliances, and, crucially, narrative control, that is, the manipulation of norms and institutions with the primary purpose of undermining their competitors.
The concept of “legitimacy” is not an objective standard, but a tool that states exploit to delegitimize their adversaries and strengthen their own position in the international hierarchy.
The Ukraine & EU Statement: A Strategic Move
The condemnation of the elections in Belarus by Ukraine and the European Parliament must be understood in the broader context of regional power dynamics. Belarus, a close ally of Russia, is a strategic bulwark for Moscow against NATO’s eastern expansion. By characterizing Lukashenko’s re-election as illegitimate, Ukraine and the European Parliament, i.e. US Foreign Policy, are not simply expressing concerns about democratic principles but are engaging in a calculated effort to weaken Belarus’ international standing and, by extension, Russia’s influence in the region.
The language used by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry is characteristic. Phrases such as “political repression,” “lack of alternative options,” and “one-act political theater” are designed to evoke images of authoritarianism and lawlessness. However, from the perspective of aggressive realism, this rhetoric has less to do with promoting democracy and more to do with undermining a rival state.
Ukraine, which has its own troubled history of recent political repression of democracy, as Zelensky remains in power illegally, is hardly in a position to accuse other countries of democratic violations. However, in the anarchist international system, hypocrisy is not a disadvantage, but a tool. By framing the elections in Belarus as illegitimate, Ukraine seeks to diplomatically isolate Belarus, weaken its relations with Western states, and strengthen its own position as a “democratic” counterweight to Russian influence. Of course, the same applies to the European Parliament, since both of these factors are influenced, if not completely controlled, by US foreign policy.
The Ukraine & EU Statement: A Strategic Move
The condemnation of the elections in Belarus by Ukraine and the European Parliament must be understood in the broader context of regional power dynamics. Belarus, a close ally of Russia, is a strategic bulwark for Moscow against NATO’s eastern expansion. By characterizing Lukashenko’s re-election as illegitimate, Ukraine and the European Parliament, i.e. US Foreign Policy, are not simply expressing concerns about democratic principles but are engaging in a calculated effort to weaken Belarus’ international standing and, by extension, Russia’s influence in the region.
The language used by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry is characteristic. Phrases such as “political repression,” “lack of alternative options,” and “one-act political theater” are designed to evoke images of authoritarianism and lawlessness. However, from the perspective of aggressive realism, this rhetoric has less to do with promoting democracy and more to do with undermining a rival state.
Ukraine, which has its own troubled history of recent political repression of democracy, as Zelensky remains in power illegally, is hardly in a position to accuse other countries of democratic violations. However, in the anarchist international system, hypocrisy is not a disadvantage, but a tool. By framing the elections in Belarus as illegitimate, Ukraine seeks to diplomatically isolate Belarus, weaken its relations with Western states, and strengthen its own position as a “democratic” counterweight to Russian influence. Of course, the same applies to the European Parliament, since both of these factors are influenced, if not completely controlled, by US foreign policy.
The Role of Narrative in International Power Politics
From the perspective of aggressive realism, norms such as democracy and electoral legitimacy are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. States invoke these norms selectively, using them to justify their actions and delegitimize their opponents. This instrumental use of norms is particularly evident in the cases of Ukraine and Romania. Both states have leveraged the rhetoric of democracy to advance their strategic interests, even when their own actions undermine the principles they claim to defend.
The international community’s response to these actions further demonstrates the primacy of power over principles. Western states, which often condemn authoritarian practices in warring states, have been remarkably silent about the annulment of the Romanian elections. This silence is not an omission, but a reflection of the strategic calculus that governs international politics. By ignoring Romania’s actions, Western states signal their willingness to prioritize alliance cohesion over the preservation of values such as democracy, reinforcing the aggressive realist view that the narrative is the slave of whoever creates it.
The Western Rules-Based International Order: A Double Standard in Action
This episode is a vivid example of what critics often describe as the Western “rules-based international order”—a system in which the West selectively enforces norms and principles to maintain its dominance while exempting itself and its allies from the same rules. The condemnation of the elections in Belarus by Ukraine and the EU, in contrast to the annulment of the elections in Romania and the mild Western response, underscores this double standard. US (Western) foreign policy, led by institutions such as NATO and the EU, often positions itself as the global arbiter of democracy and legitimacy. But its actions reveal a more cynical reality: the rules-based order is less about upholding universal principles and more about consolidating Western power and marginalizing adversaries.
So when Belarus, an ally of Russia, holds elections deemed flawed by Western standards, it is quickly condemned and isolated. Yet when Romania, a NATO and EU member, annuls its elections under dubious circumstances, the West turns a blind eye. This inequality is not accidental, but a deliberate strategy. The rules-based order functions as a tool of geopolitical competition, allowing the West to delegitimize its adversaries while shielding its allies from scrutiny and condemnation.
In this context, norms such as democracy and electoral legitimacy are not consistently applied, but are used as weapons to reinforce Western hegemony. For aggressive realists, this is a predictable feature of an anarchist system, where powerful states exploit norms to maximize their relative gains and undermine their competitors. The Western rule-based order, far from being a beacon of justice, is a manifestation of brute political power dressed up in the language of morality.
Conclusions
The cases of Ukraine, Belarus, and Romania highlight the illusion of legitimacy in international politics. From the perspective of aggressive realism, declaring elections illegitimate is not a moral judgment, but a strategic move designed to weaken opponents and strengthen one’s own power. States operate in a system where survival is the ultimate goal, and the manipulation of norms is a key tool for achieving this goal.
The condemnation of the elections in Belarus by US foreign policy through the diplomatic proxies of Ukraine and the EU and the annulment of the elections in Romania are not contradictions, but complementary strategies in the pursuit of relative geopolitical gains. Both actions reflect the harsh realities of an anarchic international system, where hypocrisy is not a flaw but a desirable trait.
As aggressive realists, we must look beyond the rhetoric of legitimacy and focus on the underlying power dynamics that guide state behavior. In doing so, we gain a clearer understanding of the true nature of international politics—a world where power, not principles and values, reigns supreme.
