realists, liberals, and social constructivists? containment or appeasement?
A realist would surmise the near future reality to be a world like how the article, “Putin’s Nuclear options,” describes it. Either to start World War IV, which in comparison of NATO’s superior armed to Russia’s economic, scientific, and technological weakness, might end in Russia’s defeat, or to initiate a nuclear attack. Such an offensive would be a nuclear attack targeting a minor NATO nation that the West wouldn’t die to protect. Putin would want to bet that the West wouldn't care too much to start a total war, especially the United State public that might want to remain neutral, leaving a questionable US credibility, and, destroy US hegemony. Russia then has the freedom to invade any country with any acceptable reason.
A liberal would consider it impossible for Russia to be the first to push the bottom. It would severely harm Russia’s economy if the world unit on boycotting Russia supply, or even worse, establish a war with NATO army force, that spends four times more money to maintain than Russia’s army. Another evidence showing Russia’s unwillingness to launch a nuclear attack would be that Russia had not yet directly intervene a state. A liberal would argue that Russia and US and EU aren’t going to get everything they want but should concentrate on what is most important, and building on that basis, Russia and NATO should cooperate on want they want most. According to the article, “NATO owes Putin a Big thank you.”
A social constructivist’s point of view would agree with both sides that Russia wouldn’t dare to launch a nuclear attack on the big NATO countries, but it might, on its identity of being an opposition to US, first sent troops into Ukraine. If the US force drives Russia force out of Ukraine, Russia might then launch a small nuclear attack on small NATO countries, resulting in US’s decision making. A social constructivist would consider the US to start a war with Russia as it did before to protect small countries.
I believe what Russia aims next is similar to the previous prediction of a social constructivist, and to prevent a total war but to maintain US identity, the world should grant Ukraine as an independent state. Crimea would be granted under Russia, and if Russia makes any further moves, then NATO would threaten to launch a complete war with Russia until the tension lowers. So a policy of both containment and appeasement.
A liberal would consider it impossible for Russia to be the first to push the bottom. It would severely harm Russia’s economy if the world unit on boycotting Russia supply, or even worse, establish a war with NATO army force, that spends four times more money to maintain than Russia’s army. Another evidence showing Russia’s unwillingness to launch a nuclear attack would be that Russia had not yet directly intervene a state. A liberal would argue that Russia and US and EU aren’t going to get everything they want but should concentrate on what is most important, and building on that basis, Russia and NATO should cooperate on want they want most. According to the article, “NATO owes Putin a Big thank you.”
A social constructivist’s point of view would agree with both sides that Russia wouldn’t dare to launch a nuclear attack on the big NATO countries, but it might, on its identity of being an opposition to US, first sent troops into Ukraine. If the US force drives Russia force out of Ukraine, Russia might then launch a small nuclear attack on small NATO countries, resulting in US’s decision making. A social constructivist would consider the US to start a war with Russia as it did before to protect small countries.
I believe what Russia aims next is similar to the previous prediction of a social constructivist, and to prevent a total war but to maintain US identity, the world should grant Ukraine as an independent state. Crimea would be granted under Russia, and if Russia makes any further moves, then NATO would threaten to launch a complete war with Russia until the tension lowers. So a policy of both containment and appeasement.