How do Realist, Liberals, and Social Constructivists agree and disagree about how the United States should respond to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine?
A realist would predict the future just like the article “Putin’s Nuclear Option”. Putin sees all western powers a threat and he would want to reclaim the USSR allies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended, Russia’s power had seriously declined. The only way for Putin to compete with the western powers is to use nuclear weapons. A nuclear bomb would be dropped on a minor NATO member’s capital instead of large cities. The Russians would be betting on whether the US would strike a full attack against Russia. However, if NATO members and US are involved in a war against Russia, the Russians have a great possibility to lost. The result of the war would be Russian’s lost and US victory. They believe that Putin will not fire a nuclear weapon against the western power because he don’t want to be the world’s enemy and might lead to a totally war.
A liberalist would think more about how democracy plays a role in the world, and how the international system works. They believe that democracy will help the world gain peace because democratic countries won’t attack each other. In the article of “Putin’s Empire of the Mind”, it talks about how Putin thinks, the Russian relationship with other nations, and Putin’s actions. It mainly focuses on Putin’s personality, and the reasons for his actions. They break down what is Putin’s motivation step by step which led us to understand Russia and Putin more. They believe that NATO and Russia should cooperate and solve conflicts peacefully.
A constructivist would consider more on the current international system. The article, “NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-You”, it focuses more on the existence of NATO and why Putin’s action had actually helped NATO to reform. It mentioned that NATO existence after the Cold War remains something of an anomaly. Even though there were some actions after the Cold War such as war in Afghanistan and invention in Bosnian, it didn’t help much to keep NATO powers together. This time, with Putin’s aggressiveness and invasion in Crimea, it gave a chance to NATO powers to unite again with a common goal. Constructivists believe that how the international system is made is more important. They think NATO will use this chance as an opportunity to advance and unite all members against the Russians, which might lead to numerous sanctions.
Do you believe a Policy of Containment or Appeasement is a better Approach vis-à-vis Russia?
Russia’s action in Ukraine, Crimea not only violated Ukraine’s sovereignty but also destroyed international peace since the Cold War ended. Therefore, the US and NATO members should strike against Putin’s Russia and regain international peace.
During World War II, Neville Chamberlin allowed Hitler and Germany to conquer and gain land in Eastern Europe. Although the British community saw this as a great idea, its consequences had led to serious conflicts, World War II. This decision was called appeasement. This time, Vladimir Putin is acting like Hitler. Invading Crimea is only the first step. What might happen after Putin steps in Crimea? Won’t he think that other Western powers are avoiding a war? Then he might invade more Eastern Europe countries. If Western powers ignore Putin’s aggressive actions, World War III might occur. Also, taking back former Soviet Union territory is only for Russia’s interest, no real benefit for the world community. We should learn from the past. Neville Chamberlin didn’t make the right decision, but after learning that history lesson, we should stop Putin and make him stop.
Some people might argue that maybe Putin isn’t as aggressive as Hitler was, and he might be trustable if the US used the policy of appeasement. Yet, Putin is an extreme nationalist, and so was Hitler. They both did their best for their nation’s interest. Hitler became a fascist dictator to make Germany’s military and economy stronger after the lost of World War I. Putin used his political skills to be elected as the president three times, while the president between the second and third election was Putin’s puppet. He rebuilt Russia’s economy after the USSR collapsed after the Cold War. Don’t they share the same features? As both being extreme nationalists and taking extreme actions for their nation’s good, Putin is also not trustable and Western powers should stop him from being the Russian Hitler.
Overall, it is the Western power’s responsibility to stop Putin being aggressive by putting economic sanctions or military sanctions. Stop allowing Putin becoming the next Hitler is essential for the peace right now.
A realist would predict the future just like the article “Putin’s Nuclear Option”. Putin sees all western powers a threat and he would want to reclaim the USSR allies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended, Russia’s power had seriously declined. The only way for Putin to compete with the western powers is to use nuclear weapons. A nuclear bomb would be dropped on a minor NATO member’s capital instead of large cities. The Russians would be betting on whether the US would strike a full attack against Russia. However, if NATO members and US are involved in a war against Russia, the Russians have a great possibility to lost. The result of the war would be Russian’s lost and US victory. They believe that Putin will not fire a nuclear weapon against the western power because he don’t want to be the world’s enemy and might lead to a totally war.
A liberalist would think more about how democracy plays a role in the world, and how the international system works. They believe that democracy will help the world gain peace because democratic countries won’t attack each other. In the article of “Putin’s Empire of the Mind”, it talks about how Putin thinks, the Russian relationship with other nations, and Putin’s actions. It mainly focuses on Putin’s personality, and the reasons for his actions. They break down what is Putin’s motivation step by step which led us to understand Russia and Putin more. They believe that NATO and Russia should cooperate and solve conflicts peacefully.
A constructivist would consider more on the current international system. The article, “NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-You”, it focuses more on the existence of NATO and why Putin’s action had actually helped NATO to reform. It mentioned that NATO existence after the Cold War remains something of an anomaly. Even though there were some actions after the Cold War such as war in Afghanistan and invention in Bosnian, it didn’t help much to keep NATO powers together. This time, with Putin’s aggressiveness and invasion in Crimea, it gave a chance to NATO powers to unite again with a common goal. Constructivists believe that how the international system is made is more important. They think NATO will use this chance as an opportunity to advance and unite all members against the Russians, which might lead to numerous sanctions.
Do you believe a Policy of Containment or Appeasement is a better Approach vis-à-vis Russia?
Russia’s action in Ukraine, Crimea not only violated Ukraine’s sovereignty but also destroyed international peace since the Cold War ended. Therefore, the US and NATO members should strike against Putin’s Russia and regain international peace.
During World War II, Neville Chamberlin allowed Hitler and Germany to conquer and gain land in Eastern Europe. Although the British community saw this as a great idea, its consequences had led to serious conflicts, World War II. This decision was called appeasement. This time, Vladimir Putin is acting like Hitler. Invading Crimea is only the first step. What might happen after Putin steps in Crimea? Won’t he think that other Western powers are avoiding a war? Then he might invade more Eastern Europe countries. If Western powers ignore Putin’s aggressive actions, World War III might occur. Also, taking back former Soviet Union territory is only for Russia’s interest, no real benefit for the world community. We should learn from the past. Neville Chamberlin didn’t make the right decision, but after learning that history lesson, we should stop Putin and make him stop.
Some people might argue that maybe Putin isn’t as aggressive as Hitler was, and he might be trustable if the US used the policy of appeasement. Yet, Putin is an extreme nationalist, and so was Hitler. They both did their best for their nation’s interest. Hitler became a fascist dictator to make Germany’s military and economy stronger after the lost of World War I. Putin used his political skills to be elected as the president three times, while the president between the second and third election was Putin’s puppet. He rebuilt Russia’s economy after the USSR collapsed after the Cold War. Don’t they share the same features? As both being extreme nationalists and taking extreme actions for their nation’s good, Putin is also not trustable and Western powers should stop him from being the Russian Hitler.
Overall, it is the Western power’s responsibility to stop Putin being aggressive by putting economic sanctions or military sanctions. Stop allowing Putin becoming the next Hitler is essential for the peace right now.