Over the past year, Putin and Russia’s influence on the world has been rising dramatically. It seems every day I check BBC, I would see the Russian Army or Putin himself on one of the panels in the top 5 news reports. The three articles given to me to read and analyze represents the perspective of one, a realist; two, a liberal; and three, a social constructivist. First, realists as Putin’s Empire of the Mind, will argue that Putin views the world as a threat especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He sees it as his duty to protect the Russian people and bring one nation to all of them. As the article says “He does not see himself as aggressively expanding an empire so much as defending a civilization against the “chaotic darkness” that will ensue if he allows Russia to be politically encircled abroad and culturally colonized by Western values at home”. Now there are clear evidences backing up his points. For one thing, NATO’s influence is largely expanding and in the past decade, has started to include previous Soviet territory. In a realist point of view, countries’ would put their own interests first and thus, try to encircle the power of Russia that threatens them. For the United States, this is a good opportunity to devour the power of Russia once and for all through the use of soft power, or cultural influence. This ensures their own authority in the CIS or Commonwealth of Independent States, of course excluding Russia. The US influence there will dramatically weaken Russia’s influence as every suspicious move Russia makes will be under supervision. US, claiming it is trying to protect those small nations, is actually further advancing its self-interests. A liberal, however, would argue that the empowerment of NATO is perhaps the best response to Russia’s new threats. Liberals believe that the international community is not a “self-help” system, instead international institutions are major powers too. This, of course, is signal and queue the involvement of NATO in the new Ukraine Dilemma. As Putin’s Nuclear Options argues, Putin is not afraid to use nuclear weapons on small countries as he is gambling on the morality of the Western European and US leaders. By showing his military prowess, Putin not only shows the rest of the world of his demand for Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but also the damage he can cause. It is unlikely, however, that Russia would declare war as it is not in the majority’s interest to do so, yet the Russians are looking up to Putin and his fight against the Western powers. Liberals will perhaps utilize the NATO troops to defend the invading Russians in Ukraine to halt their advance and hopefully, stall them until they give up. Another liberal solution to the Russian aggression is the use of economic sanctions as “The world would unite against him and could do more damage to the Russian economy, which is highly dependent on food imports and the exports of hydrocarbons, than anyone now can imagine”. Finally, a social constructivist would argue that NATO is nothing more than simply obsolete. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the creation of NATO has been largely useless. However, with the new Russian threat, NATO can reignite their importance based on Russia’s new aggressive movements. As NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-You, an article given to me that I had to read’s title describes, NATO’s purpose has finally been returned. Example of NATO’s incompetence can be seen in the Bosnian intervention in 1995 and the war in Kosovo in 1999 which were both only partially effective as they took longer, and more cost than NATO’s defenders would like to admit. NATO, as social constructivists believe, would like to protect their reputation as a defender of justice for the western world and would gladly intervene, temporarily, in the Ukrainian crisis.
Personally I believe that the policy of appeasement should not be used and the use of containment should be stalled until Putin shows a real threat to regions outside of Crimea, which is starting to show. I believe this because first, Putin’s demand for Crimea, as Putin’s Empire of Mind describes, may not only be for his country’s own desire to expand as they definitely do not have a need to, but more on protecting ethnically Russian people. However, the Ukrainian government would like to disagree and Russia should respect the country’s sovereignty. Although a large part of Ukraine’s population is ethnically Russian, it does not justify the invasion of a country without a legitimate excuse or the permission from the UN Security Council. Putin’s recent actions can be compared to the early aggression shown by Adolf Hitler back in the later-1930s, at the dawn of World War II. Hitler and Nazi Germany intended on taking the Sudetenland and expand its military power as well as show it off to the rest of the world. Germany was allowed to do so which showed weakness on their part, and with a belligerent country—Germany—awaiting conflict, World War II erupted. The annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria was the beginning and the invasion of Poland was the final nail in the coffin. Russia is showing similar actions and the purpose of history is to learn from our mistake, thus, a policy of appeasement perhaps might not be the best choice. In addition, the Russian people adore Putin for his fight against the western powers and a sign of cowering might push them to allow further aggression by their country’s government. Currently, the Russian people do not desire war and we should keep it this way. Thus, containment via sanctions, as we know will be largely effective against Russia, should be enacted when necessary.
Personally I believe that the policy of appeasement should not be used and the use of containment should be stalled until Putin shows a real threat to regions outside of Crimea, which is starting to show. I believe this because first, Putin’s demand for Crimea, as Putin’s Empire of Mind describes, may not only be for his country’s own desire to expand as they definitely do not have a need to, but more on protecting ethnically Russian people. However, the Ukrainian government would like to disagree and Russia should respect the country’s sovereignty. Although a large part of Ukraine’s population is ethnically Russian, it does not justify the invasion of a country without a legitimate excuse or the permission from the UN Security Council. Putin’s recent actions can be compared to the early aggression shown by Adolf Hitler back in the later-1930s, at the dawn of World War II. Hitler and Nazi Germany intended on taking the Sudetenland and expand its military power as well as show it off to the rest of the world. Germany was allowed to do so which showed weakness on their part, and with a belligerent country—Germany—awaiting conflict, World War II erupted. The annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria was the beginning and the invasion of Poland was the final nail in the coffin. Russia is showing similar actions and the purpose of history is to learn from our mistake, thus, a policy of appeasement perhaps might not be the best choice. In addition, the Russian people adore Putin for his fight against the western powers and a sign of cowering might push them to allow further aggression by their country’s government. Currently, the Russian people do not desire war and we should keep it this way. Thus, containment via sanctions, as we know will be largely effective against Russia, should be enacted when necessary.