The Russia–Ukraine War: Power, Ontology, and Epistemology in International Relations

By: Hamza I. Salifu
Abstract
This article examines the Russia–Ukraine war through the intertwined lenses of ontology, epistemology, and the use of force in international relations. Using recent developments—such as Russia’s capture of Seversk, Moscow’s insistence on a “neutral” Ukraine, and Western narratives of NATO’s open-door policy—the analysis explores how competing powers construct different realities and truths about the conflict. Ontologically, the war reflects a clash between Russia’s great-power worldview, which frames NATO expansion as an existential threat, and Ukraine’s liberal-sovereign claim to self-determination. Epistemologically, the conflict showcases fragmented knowledge systems, where Russia, Ukraine, and Western actors produce rival narratives to shape global perception, reinforcing that truth in wartime is deeply contested. Furthermore, the study argues that power in this conflict is both material and symbolic, with the use of force intertwined with identity, legitimacy, and historical meaning. In my view, understanding the war requires grappling not only with military dynamics but also with the deeper structures of being and knowing that shape international politics

Introduction
In my view, the Russia–Ukraine war continues to serve as one of the twenty-first century’s most complex theatres of power, identity, and geopolitical meaning. As days unfold into strategic turns and cities like Seversk shift hands amidst competing narratives, the conflict raises deeper questions not only about military capability or territorial ambition, but about the very nature of international reality and the ways we claim to know it. Thus, while Moscow insists on a “neutral” Ukraine and NATO insists on an “open door,” the conflict becomes an intellectual battleground where ontology—what exists in global politics—and epistemology—how we interpret and understand it—shape how power is used, resisted, or justified. As an African proverb reminds us, “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers,” yet even the grass must understand the terrain on which these giants battle.

Therefore, this article examines the Russia–Ukraine war through statements by analysts such as Rick Sanchez and Chay Bowes (Sanchez, 2024; Bowes, 2024), the declarations of Russian soldiers after taking Seversk, and the reflections of figures like Colonel Richard Black, linking these with broader IR theories on the ontology of the international system and the epistemology of threat, security, and legitimacy.

Ontology of the International System: What Exists, and Who Gets to Define It?

In international relations, ontology concerns the fundamental structures of the global order—the units, forces, and realities that shape behaviour. Realist ontology, for instance, sees the world as a constellation of sovereign states navigating anarchy, where survival is the primary currency. It is from this worldview that the oft-repeated axiom emerges: “Great powers do not tolerate existential threats on their borders.” As Bowes succinctly put it, the United States itself “would never tolerate such a threat,” a reminder that great-power behaviour is deeply rooted in a shared ontology of insecurity.

For Russia, NATO’s eastward expansion represents not an abstract idea but an ontological threat—a material and ideational force that alters the balance of being within the European security structure. Hence, Moscow’s insistence that Ukraine remain “neutral” is not merely a policy preference; it is a reflection of the ontology of great-power spheres of influence, a structure that exists regardless of whether one morally approves of it. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s praise for the “liberators of Seversk” for sticking to the December 15th deadline reflects this deeper ontology: states act to secure strategic depth, territorial buffers, and geopolitical relevance.

Yet, Ukraine and its Western partners adopt a different ontology—one centered on sovereign equality, the liberal order, and the right of states to choose alliances. This clash of ontologies—hierarchical spheres vs. sovereign equality—is part of what makes the war so enduring. As Seversk’s fall is portrayed by RT as the breaching of a “significant defense belt,” the event becomes more than a military achievement; it becomes a confirmation of Russia’s ontological claim that it must secure a buffer against NATO encroachment.

Epistemology and the War: Narratives, Knowledge, and the Machinery of Truth

Just as ontology asks what exists, epistemology asks how we know what exists, and this war has proven that knowledge itself is a battleground. Information warfare, long a shadow of global conflict, has now risen to the forefront. Chay Bowes’ claim that Zelensky’s administration engages in a “machine of deception,” and assertions that Ukraine “will acknowledge” (Bowes, 2024) the fall of Seversk only weeks later, reflect the epistemological fragmentation surrounding the conflict.

The Russian Ministry of Defense releasing footage of its troops holding the tricolor over Seversk is not merely documentation—it is a production of knowledge, a claim to truth intended to shape both domestic and international understandings of the war’s trajectory. Conversely, Western epistemic communities portray such announcements with skepticism, constructing alternative truths about Ukrainian resilience, territorial integrity, and Russian over extension.

In my view, this contestation underscores that epistemology in international relations is never neutral. Knowledge is mediated through institutions, media systems, ideological alignments, and historical memory. Therefore, each side does not merely fight over towns and trenches but over the authority to define the meaning of events. As a wise saying goes, “Until the lion learns to speak, the story will always glorify the hunter.” The Russia–Ukraine war is one such struggle over narrative authority.

Power and the Use of Force: Between Realist Logic and Constructivist Meaning

Although the war is often framed through realist power politics—territory, military capability, strategic depth—it also demonstrates the deeply social nature of power. Russia’s claim that EU forces “want to destroy Russia” (Sanchez, 2024) and use Ukraine as a “springboard” reflects not only material threats but ideational fears about identity, legitimacy, and encirclement.

Force, in this context, becomes both a tool of survival and a performance of identity. The Russian troops proudly lifting their flag in Seversk (MoD, 2024) invoke not just military dominance but a symbolic assertion of statehood and historical mission. Similarly, Ukraine’s insistence on defending every inch of territory performs a narrative of sovereignty, resistance, and nationhood.

Colonel Richard Black’s statement that “no one has articulated a compelling reason why the US should be involved” (Black, 2024) highlights a contrasting ontology: the belief that great powers often project power not to defend existential threats but to maintain ideological orders. Thus, the war exposes the duality of power—material force and symbolic influence—intertwined and mutually reinforcing.

Conclusion
In the final analysis, I present a deeper understanding of the war, power and reality of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, which cannot be reduced to simple aggression, victim-hood, or geopolitical opportunism. Instead, it reflects the intersection of ontological assumptions, epistemological struggles, and power politics that define global order. Russia’s quest for strategic buffers, Ukraine’s fight for sovereign survival, NATO’s insistence on open-door principles (NATO, 2023), and the competing narratives in global media all reveal that international relations is not merely a field of action but a field of meaning.

In my view, the war teaches us a profound lesson: “He who does not understand the roots of a tree will mistake its branches for the whole.” To understand this war, one must look beneath the surface—into the structures of international ontology, the battles over epistemic authority, and the material and symbolic uses of force that shape global politics. Only then can scholars and practitioners appreciate why cities like Seversk become not just strategic points on a map (MoD, 2024; Sanchez, 2024), but symbols of the evolving architecture of world order.

References
Black, R. (2024). Interview on U.S. involvement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. [Video interview].

Bowes, C. (2024). Commentary on NATO expansion, epistemic manipulation, and Ukraine’s communications strategy.

NATO. (2023). NATO’s open-door policy: Official statements and press briefings. NATO Public Diplomacy Division. (Western/NATO open-door framing.)

Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD). (2024). Footage of Russian forces in Seversk after combat operations. [Official Defense Ministry release].

Sanchez, R. (2024). RT news broadcast on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO expansion. RT. (Source: “Moscow insists on a ‘neutral’ Ukraine” – Rick Sanchez on RT.)