The Russian Military intervention in Ukraine was one of the most serious international crises in international relations since the end of the Cold War because it included the threat of a large-scale conflict in Europe, between Russia on the one hand, and the United States of America, the European Union and NATO on the Other hand. The study specifically examines the dimensions, determinants, characteristics, and features of US policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and its repercussions on NATO, In its axes, the study focused on the dimensions and developments of the Ukrainian crisis, the strategic importance of Ukraine in the Russian and American perspectives, the determinants of US policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, the repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis on NATO, and the expected scenarios for the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war. This article reached several important results using a descriptive-analytical approach; Among other things, the American policy towards Russia's attack on Ukraine is multifaceted and includes diplomatic efforts, preventing further aggression, economic sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and strengthening NATO's deterrence and defense capabilities in the region. Also, the Russia-Ukraine war restored the coherence of the North Atlantic Treaty in an unprecedented way and made it more coherent than before. This pushed European countries towards more armaments and significantly increased European military spending, prompting neutral countries such as Finland and Sweden to formally apply to join NATO, signifying developments that it is not in the interests of Russia.

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has stated that the world may face a food crisis with rising prices and products at risk due to the war in Ukraine. . . .

Ukraine, due to its geopolitical position as a leading meeting place of the East and the West, industrial capacities and historical background, is of great importance in Eurasia. The same unique features as well as its ethnic texture has turned the two parts the country into a place for encounters and East-West rivalry. The first serious clash of Russia and the West in this country was during the Orange Revolution in 2004 when the country’ s presidential election took place. If in 2004, politics was a cause for competition between Russia and in Ukraine, 10 years later and this time because of an economic agent the two sides again stood in front of one another. The contrast was far more intense and deep and it led to the separation of a part of the territory of Ukraine. The purpose of this article, using the analytical method, is to investigate the crisis and its impact on the Russian Military Doctrine. The main question of this study is: What Criteria and Factors in the Ukrainian crisis had an Impact on the Russian military doctrine? To answer this question, we examined the hypothesis that the quest of the West for influence in Ukraine in the political economic and military-security and integration of the country into Western structures increased a sense of threat and instability in Russia and the approach has been aggressive in its military doctrine, but on the other hand, it is a controlled hostile approach to the West and it will not lead to a full confrontation like during the Cold War.

Yeltsin’s rise to power caused a profound optimism regarding emergence of a different era in Russian-American relationships which of course did not last long. American policy toward the NATO enlargement and later on the attempt by this country and the major European powers at the end of the first decade of twenty first century to bring Ukraine to NATO created the essential elements of crisis in relations with Russia. American support of demonstrators in November 2013 and events in Ukraine had showed the high potentials for crisis in relationships between these two countries. The question of the article deals with roots of the crisis. The Russian emphasis on the historical ties with Ukraine and the importance of geopolitics on Russian status in Europe and on the other hand American support of Ukraine western oriented policy along with American attempt to move away Ukraine from Russia in order to reduce this country maneuver power are the major causes of confrontation between these two countries.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the series of actions of the United States in the expansion of NATO in the peripheral regions of Russia caused Russia's political and military provocation and the formation of this country's aggressive policy in the Eurasian region, such as the crisis in Ukraine. many believe that this invasion has also dealt a heavy blow to Russia due to the financial sanctions and logistical support of the European Union and the United States. An event that can lead to a serious conflict between Russia and the United States and the war in Ukraine will be worn out. The current research is trying to answer the question of what effect did Russia's war against Ukraine have on American hegemony? The proposed hypothesis is that the war between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, due to the conflict of interests of Russia with the United States and its allies, especially geopolitical dominance over Ukraine, will become an arena for the decline of the American liberal hegemony. The aim of the upcoming research is to investigate the effect of Russia's war against Ukraine on the American liberal hegemony from the perspective of hegemonic stability theory. The research method is also an explanatory method that focuses on finding cause and effect relationships between the research variables to understand the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and its impact on the hegemony of the United States.

Russia has tried to conceptualize its buffer zone as near abroad in the post-Soviet era. Ukraine has an important position among the countries of this region because of numerous cultural and historical affinities. Therefore, the security and political issues of this scope are important for the Russian Federation. In 2013, Ukraine was faced with an erosive crisis and this issue has incited Russia to react harshly in order to manage the crisis automatically and immediately. The article intends to answer this question that how and by which tools and technics, Russia has managed the Ukraine crisis. The hypothesis is based on Russia’ s approach to international crisis management, crisis occurrence in near abroad usually followed by Russian military reaction. The results indicates that due to the geo-economics, geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Ukraine, Russia managed the Ukraine crisis by using hardware tools collection including military invasion of Crimea, dispatching army troops to the east of Ukraine, delivery loads of super heavy war equipment to oppositions and supplementary software tools such as holding political-diplomatic meetings, imposing energy sanctions against European competitors and adopting advertising actions.

When Crises, as permanent variables of international politics occur, actions are taken by international actors to manage and control them. One of these actors is the Security Council as its main responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security. Considering actions of this organization in numerous crises, this question arises what factors affect its role in crises management. In response, this assumes that its role is affected by the nature of crisis, its expansion and the policies of great powers. Findings of the research indicated factors such as the extent of the crisis, the variety of issues in crisis and presence of an effective intervening player affect the position and actions of the this institute.

American pragmatists consider the realist and liberal tradition in international relations to be inefficient and believe that most of the successes of American foreign policy have been achieved with a pragmatic approach and a peaceful method and emphasis on diplomacy. At first, Biden's foreign policy was organized around the issue of human rights and democracy, but the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine caused a change in priorities. Therefore, by transitioning from liberalism to pragmatism in foreign policy, he tried to manage this crisis. The purpose of this article is to examine the change of priorities and approaches in Biden's foreign policy after the Russia-Ukraine war. The question of this article is: What did the Russia-Ukraine war cause? Has there been a change in the priorities of Biden's foreign policy? The hypothesis of this research, which tries to be proven with analytical and explanatory methodology and emphasis on objective and tangible political facts, is: that understanding the war between Russia and Ukraine as a strategic threat from the government Biden changed the approach in American foreign policy to manage this crisis. In such a way that pragmatism became the focal point and central core of Biden's foreign policy, and issues such as human rights and democracy are marginal issues.  

Introduction: Analyzing and interpreting a narrative can provide insight into the occurrence of an event, its causes, and its nature. Therefore, it can be said that narratives are a way to understand events. Narratives can be based on fact or fiction, but they help people make sense of the world through stories about themselves and others. This highlights the importance of narratives in shaping actions in the world. From this point of view, the current crisis in Ukraine can be seen as a story in which both Russia and Ukraine are trying to present their narratives of the history, causes, and methods of their conflict. The purpose of this research is to examine the narrative dimensions of this crisis from the point of the view of Putin and Zelensky, who are its main narrators. To achieve this, data will be collected and then analyzed from the statements of the leaders of Russia and Ukraine.Research question: The question of the article based on the relationship between the narrative and the dynamics of contradiction is: what factor has made the crisis in Ukraine prolonged and inevitable?Research hypothesis: hypothesis is that conflicting narratives as incompatible ideological and identity beliefs by the leaders of Russia and Ukraine is the inevitable ground of the conflict and has become one of the long-term crises.Methodology and theoretical framework: The theoretical approach of the article is narrative analysis. The reason for choosing this theory is that narratives shape our understanding of ourselves and even create the physical world. The research method for this article is qualitative content analysis. In this method, the main concepts of the subject are extracted based on the selected theoretical approach. In the next step, these concepts are interpreted as research data by referring to the words and opinions of Putin and Zelensky as the ruling elite. This method is a good way to achieve the research goal because it seeks to understand the opinion and infer the specific characteristics of a crisis.Results and Discussion: Certainly, the history of the Ukraine crisis dates back to the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. But the turning point and the beginning of the conflict of this crisis was in early 2014, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia. Although this annexation was the beginning of a military conflict, on the political side, the first friction was caused by Viktor Yanukovych decision against Ukraine's agreement with the European Union in 2013. Since then, political movements in favor of a nationalist approach to opposing Russian influence led to a period of protests against Yanukovych government and ultimately to his ouster from power in 2014. After this period, Ukraine's tendency towards the West increased the tension between this country and Russia. Therefore, in the post- Soviet period, while Ukraine was following policies to consolidate its independence, the Russian Federation sought to control Soviet geography, which was defined as the foreign country close to the Russian Federation. These foreign policy goals, carried out by the two countries, have caused security duality against each other and the emergence of some crises. In defining this security dilemma, the narrative of the elites of these two countries has always played a fundamental role. Narratives are often used by the ruling elite to incite society and resort to war and violence against others. In addition to the reconstructing the identities that make conflict possible, another key condition in the escalation of conflict, is the role of elites who mobilize identities and narratives for war. According to this role of leaders, Putin's narrative of preventive war, removal of threats and nationalism, delegitimization, negativity and victimization have formed the three elements of his narrative to legitimize and justify the attack on Ukraine, while Zelensky, on the other hand, in response to Putin's narrative, has presented an opposite narrative of inversion, marginalization, and contradiction and has declared his narrative fictional.Conclusion: The narratives of Russia and Ukraine have been formed in such a way that these narratives do not allow for mutual understanding or a short-term solution to the crisis, and that only a tragedy or miracle can end the war. Consequently, as long as the conflicting narratives remain unchanged and less conflicting narratives replace them, even if the current crisis temporarily subsides, it is still waiting to happen again. The structure of both sides’ narratives shows that Putin's story is based on both material elements and normative-identity, but the dominant and provocative narrative is based on material and geopolitical elements. On the other hand, Ukrainian narratives have a normative and identity nature due to their connection with Western narratives and formation against Russian narratives.