Epistemic superimposition: the war in Ukraine and the poverty of expertise in international relations theory

Abstract

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and again after the invasion of 2022, much analysis of the conflict has been rooted in extant theories of international relations and state behaviour. Numerous explanations of the causes of Russia’s invasion, predictions about the conflict, and prescriptions for state action have been offered by scholars with expertise in international relations theory but little familiarity with the region, its politics, or its history. In this article, we critique this trend, focusing primarily on the work of international relations scholars of the realist school and specifically the writing of John Mearsheimer. We propose the concept of “epistemic superimposition” to describe the methodological error of overlaying abstract theories onto unique historical and political contexts, which can lead to poor engagement with empirical evidence or to ignoring empirical evidence altogether. To bear out this idea, we show both how realist theory fails the empirical test in Ukraine and situate this failure within the broader scholarly context of expertise in international relations theory. We conclude with a call for more careful application of theory by theorists but also for privileging area studies and deeper qualitative research of local political contexts in analyzing contemporary global events.