After reading the three articles, I think these articles are interesting but to me these articles are written in a different view. I find that reading these three article give me a better understanding of President in Russia, Crimea Crisis and other facts in Russia.
The article "Putin’s Nuclear Option", I think it is written in a constructivist thinking, the guy Piontkovsky explain the three option that to deal with the crisis happened in Crimea. The first one is the Peace Party, which is Putin just let go of Ukraine and declare victory in it, but this way Putin will looks defeated and with this event, Putin might have to retire from this failure like the previous Soviet Premier. The second option is the War Party, which Putin declare a World War IV on the NATO, but the downside is that given that the military power that the NATO have, it is a risk to take. It will certainly hurt the economy in Russia if he goes with this option. The third option is the Nuclear Attack, it is not a massive launch, but only strikes the small city, but it will angers other country in this situation and which will lead to the all world against him situation. The Constructivists tend to think that if U.S should get involve with this, help the NATO to stop Putin if Putin make any strong moves on Crimea. Putin should no make any strong approach to deal with this situation because the options can bring back self-destruction
The realism may think that Russia taking Crimea is a correct move and which that U.S should stop Russia from doing it. After reading the article "Putin's Empire of the Mind", it talks about the point of view he sees of taking Crimea. After Putin came to power, he made a decision that he does not want to make the failed Soviet model of planned economy. In the article, it mention that "Russia already had immense influence on the peninsula which they already pledged $1.5 billion to support Crimea." The problem is that if they take down Crimea, they will anger the West, it is a tough decision to make whether U.S want to help one way needed to stop Russia from having too much power over the West and the other hand helping the NATO to protect Crimea. Russia's power might become the hegemony in the future.
The realism may think that the U.S should not help the NATO to prevent Russia from taking Crimea, because if they did, the NATO would have too much power and second of all, if they did, they might just make Ukraine worst, the war might bring damage to the EU economy, poison East-West relations even further, and do further harm to Ukraine itself. The choices of doing or not doing is also at a risk.
To the question of Do you believe a policy of containment or appeasement is a better approach vis-a-vis Russia? I think that containment or appeasement is a better approach because NATO does not have control over if Putin decide to attack a Western country, and if Russia attack, it is going to hurt itself economically and the relation with other countries. Russia should definitely go with the option of talking peace or appeasement with Ukraine, sort it out. Maybe it is good for both nations.
The article "Putin’s Nuclear Option", I think it is written in a constructivist thinking, the guy Piontkovsky explain the three option that to deal with the crisis happened in Crimea. The first one is the Peace Party, which is Putin just let go of Ukraine and declare victory in it, but this way Putin will looks defeated and with this event, Putin might have to retire from this failure like the previous Soviet Premier. The second option is the War Party, which Putin declare a World War IV on the NATO, but the downside is that given that the military power that the NATO have, it is a risk to take. It will certainly hurt the economy in Russia if he goes with this option. The third option is the Nuclear Attack, it is not a massive launch, but only strikes the small city, but it will angers other country in this situation and which will lead to the all world against him situation. The Constructivists tend to think that if U.S should get involve with this, help the NATO to stop Putin if Putin make any strong moves on Crimea. Putin should no make any strong approach to deal with this situation because the options can bring back self-destruction
The realism may think that Russia taking Crimea is a correct move and which that U.S should stop Russia from doing it. After reading the article "Putin's Empire of the Mind", it talks about the point of view he sees of taking Crimea. After Putin came to power, he made a decision that he does not want to make the failed Soviet model of planned economy. In the article, it mention that "Russia already had immense influence on the peninsula which they already pledged $1.5 billion to support Crimea." The problem is that if they take down Crimea, they will anger the West, it is a tough decision to make whether U.S want to help one way needed to stop Russia from having too much power over the West and the other hand helping the NATO to protect Crimea. Russia's power might become the hegemony in the future.
The realism may think that the U.S should not help the NATO to prevent Russia from taking Crimea, because if they did, the NATO would have too much power and second of all, if they did, they might just make Ukraine worst, the war might bring damage to the EU economy, poison East-West relations even further, and do further harm to Ukraine itself. The choices of doing or not doing is also at a risk.
To the question of Do you believe a policy of containment or appeasement is a better approach vis-a-vis Russia? I think that containment or appeasement is a better approach because NATO does not have control over if Putin decide to attack a Western country, and if Russia attack, it is going to hurt itself economically and the relation with other countries. Russia should definitely go with the option of talking peace or appeasement with Ukraine, sort it out. Maybe it is good for both nations.
Samuel:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you that " I think that containment or appeasement is a better approach because NATO does not have control over if Putin decide to attack a Western country, and if Russia attack, it is going to hurt itself economically and the relation with other countries. Russia should definitely go with the option of talking peace or appeasement with Ukraine, sort it out. Maybe it is good for both nations." First of all, you contracted yourself by saying you consider containment and appeasement is a good approach to solving the issue, but you also didn't explain your reason on choosing such a choice. The only reason provided by you was that Russia is going to hurt itself economically and the relation with other countries. Indeed Russia would be threatened, but if Russia could get Ukraine from appeasement, won't Russia want more? Like North Korea, if they did actually fire nuclear weapons, it would be obvious that they will not survive the US attack, but they still pulled off with billions of dollars. If Russia continues to threaten the world with nuclear weapons but not actually attacking any country, won't it lead to another WW2 where Russia would crave for more land?