Putin's Aggression in Ukraine

When it comes to critiquing Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, the four constellations of issues approach will be used. The first constellation comprises of humanitarian disasters and respect for sovereignty. Many Americans like Samantha Powers believe in the doctrine known as “responsibility to protect” (Page 4). Thus to people like her, sovereignty should not be considered “inviolate” provided that a country is “slaughtering its own citizens” (Page 4). President Obama does not agree with Samantha Powers (unless there is a direct security threat) and Russia vehemently disagrees with that doctrine. Analyzing Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, he believes in respecting other nation’s right to self-govern the way they see fit (Page 2). For instance, Putin says “What will happen with Kosovo and Serbia? Only Kosovars and Serbs can know. Let’s not tell them how they should live their lives. There is no need to play God and resolve all of these peoples’ problems” (Page 18). This basically means that even in the face of “atrocities” or other humanitarian disasters; respect for sovereignty is still top priority for Putin and Russia. In contrast, the doctrine “responsibility to protect” usually lead to intervention in the face of atrocities committed by various individuals in different countries.

Myers does not shy away from the (mostly unproven) accusations of corruption that have marked Putin’s reign from the viewpoint of outsiders, but his true focus is on the authority that many Russians associated with the new president and the many internal and external challenges to that authority that emerged. Myers importantly notes Putin’s ability to appeal “to the nostalgic patriotism of large swaths of society” while not “restoring the Soviet ideology that many Russians were happy to put behind them” (208). The author identifies the political skill of someone that many had considered a political novice, and attributes much of Putin’s success and favorability in the early days of his rule to his surprising aptitude for politics. Critically, Myers recognizes this savvy as an essential factor in Putin’s control over Russia, with the ruler knowing just the amount of authoritarianism with which he could taint the nation’s relatively newfound liberty. “Putin’s words spoke volumes about his understanding of democracy,” says Myers of Putin’s acceptance speech for his third presidential nomination, “it is not for society to decide its leaders through some semblance of an electoral campaign, but to ratify those already chosen”

This involves new ideas and in democracy commentators, politicians, writers, creative types, engineers and philosophers attempt to leave their mark. Belief mechanisms have done so profusely, on grounds of claiming ‘knowing the unknown.’ Ashdown’s methodology cleverly side-foots celestial dialogue and in a trice unleashes what most commentators have dismissed; the near future role of Putin’s Russia - Ashdown states: "We have no choice but to play hardball with Moscow over Ukraine. But offering Putin a partnership on defeating the Sunni jihad which threatens us both would add huge weight to our ability to succeed and avoid the mistake of pushing Russia into a corner from which there is no escape." A lot of compromising is in the offering, on par with Greece’s infinite fiscal bail-out terms; realistically a reformed United Nation's mandate may suffice, purely due to its remarkable silence at a time UN intervention would be heeded and respected. We’re subconsciously, consciously seeking answers and it comes in the most unorthodox streams – for proof of this I’m reading Paddy Ashdown’s ‘Independent’ articles; he’s mentioned Russia quite a bit. I don’t deduce this as being a case of tautology, but as a vital element to what we must do, I suspect Ashdown will reiterate its importance again and I’ll read it again and I’ll think we’re no nearer to resolving the threat… ‘It’s

Although it might appear as if Russia’s annexation of Crimea was malicious and aggressive behavior on behalf of President Putin, it was in fact a symptom of an anarchic international order and a reaction to NATO’s eastward expansion into Europe. In this case, it was Putin’s uncertainty of NATO’s intended expansion and the fear that it would encroach on Russia’s sphere of influence that prompted the incursion into eastern Ukraine. Viewing Russia’s foray into Ukraine from this perspective aligns with John

Today's drift toward war with Russia seems like a replay of the past. Putin is a Russian nationalist, who believes in a strong Stalinist state. His goal is to reverse the events of 1989--the end of the Soviet state and dissolution of its enormous empire. He seeks to do this by using what remains of Russia's Stalinist heritage: the military, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and immense resources of natural gas and other forms of energy. These are powerful tools to wield against the various weak states that were part of the U.S.S.R. None has nuclear weapons,

The issue raised within the article is the increased tension between Russian and the United States caused by Russia’s decision to back out of a ‘ landmark agreement on disposing weapons-grade plutonium’ added to its deployment of ‘ new nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad on the baltic sea’ these two actions by Russia occurred due to Russia’s annoyance at the US’s military exercises in eastern Europe both of these actions have negatively affected interstate relations between the two world powers. Russian president Vladimir Putin’s military aggression has worried both european and american officials leaving them with a very difficult decision on how to deal with the issue and Putin because Washington’s attempts to deter Russia have failed

The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s recent accession to Russia are events that clearly highlight the underlying sources of conflict in global politics. While Russia sees its actions in Crimea as a “reunification” and the respect for the right of self-determination, the West views it as a threat to European security and a violation of territorial integrity. Crimea has been a debatable topic from the time it came under the control of the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The justification then was similar to the reasoning being used by Vladimir Putin today. Catherine declared that she was protecting ethnic Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire, much as Putin is claiming to protect Russians from Ukrainian

Putin has done this on purpose. Machiavelli touches on this in his book as well. “Most of all, though, a ruler should have the kind of relationship with his subjects where nothing that can happen, good or bad, will force him to change his approach, because if hard times demand it, your cruelty will come too late, while any concessions you make will be seen as wrung out of you and no one will be impressed (Ch.

Upon finding new employment at St. Petersburg’s City Hall, he became involved in Russia’s transformation from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, as well as the transition from a one-party state to a multi-party political system. Witnessing firsthand the disastrous effects of Russia’s isolation from the world economy, Putin decided that state management of Russia’s vast raw materials economy and oil sector was pivotal for the country’s economic recovery and future development. That very idea set the platform for Putin’s foreign policy and enabled him to save Russia’s collapsing economy. In terms of democracy, his preference has always been order over liberty, and the attempted integration of equality, freedom, and fairness did not sit well in his mind. Observing the way in which his mentor Anatoly Sobchak was treated in elections, he found them to be dangerous and distasteful, further increasing his animosity towards democracy and fueling his appetency for a strong central

The largest nation in the world, Russia has demonstrated acts comparable to the Soviet Union. For instance, their military agreements with the Syrian national army (which believe in the oppression of citizens and the rule of a totalitarian dictator named Bashar al-Assad in the civil-war stricken Syria) have inflicted controversy in the UN Security Council. Furthermore, their invasion in Ukraine’s Crimean territory and obstinacy against the UN resulted in the Security Council and NATO sanctioning Russia for its civil

The breadbasket of Eastern Europe is having a problem with militants who have killed and have tortured hundreds of people in the name of freedom. The militants, Pro-Russian rebels native to Ukraine, believe that their actions against the government are just. Those who believe that the Pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels are fighting against a corrupt, ultranationalist government are right. The Ukrainian citizens need to understand, however, that the government of Ukraine is the lesser of two evils; the rebels have committed many more heinous crimes than the government has. The rebels are also against policies that can benefit all of Europe and Ukraine. Currently, the Ukrainian people seek to have a stable nation with a self-sufficient government

Ukraine made the news a lot in the past year, but for anything Ukraine discovered or made. In the past year the country has been in crisis due to the events that started off as a riot for Ukraine becoming a part of EU and leading to annexation of Crimea and war in east part of the country. Ukraine has been ruled by corrupt politicians and oligarchs and has been strongly influenced by Russia. These two countries always had close ties, because of their past as Soviets countries, they share a common language and are currently in "pre-war" status right now (McMahon, 2014). This past year has been rough with crisis and has affected areas like: social, cultural and economic. Ukrainian government has failed its purpose to protect and make improvements in the best interest of the country, and now thousands of people lost their homes and thousands have died, with hundreds being killed directly at the request of former President Victor Yanukovych, who now has escaped and currently staying in Russia with a political support from their side (Babich, 2014). The question now is; with everything that 's happening inside the country, should Russia be allowed to invade and destroy cities and squares, while the peace agreement and sanctions are attempting to stop this chaos? No, but the aid from countries like Germany and United States of America is not significant and influential enough to stop Russia from military

Realism is the most prominent theoretical perspective for Russia’s President Putin. Realists believe that states are the primary actors in international relations and are power-seeking (Week Two Lessons 2015). The article by Coffey demonstrates this principle when it discusses the decreasing Arctic ice north of Russia and how shipping traffic will increase significantly in the North Sea Route (2014). This scenario opens up huge advantages economically as well as militarily. Russia is preparing to seize the power this can bring by increasing its military presence there. It is beefing up the Russian Navy presence, adding more ground troops, and building new airfields and radar sites along this route (Coffey 2014). Putin’s government uses its power to intimidate and punish other states, as it had done with Ukraine by cutting gas supplies when they worked too closely with the West (BBC 2013). He truly spells out his ideas when he said, “true sovereignty for Russia is absolutely necessary for survival” (Putin 2014).

“The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then.” (Kissinger). Ukraine has been a focal point in Eastern Europe and foreign policy for hundreds of years. From the Crimean war, to Hitler’s operation Barbarossa the territory we know today as Ukraine has fallen under multiple conflicting spheres of influence. Over the past year it has been difficult to avoid hearing of the crisis in Ukraine; but depending on who you ask, the responses are just as confusing as the questions at hand. How do we respond? Why should we care? The ongoing crisis is important for a multitude of reasons, mainly because it sets a very dangerous precedent on the world stage. Starting a crisis is surprisingly easy, but it is dealing with it and ending it which is incredulously difficult. It is easy to use the intelligence and special operations arms of a country to agitate situations and create unrest, like in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The problem is once you get the ball rolling it adopts a dangerous dynamic all on its own, and can quickly fester into a firestorm. Russia’s tactics in Ukraine and Crimea have been dubbed by many as what it is, ‘Hybrid War’. Despite being war wary, the U.S. must

Although Putin spent billion of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi, which was intended to show the world that Russia is an advanced state, coupled with the West culture and therefore wants to be the part of the western world, a week after the Olympics, he occupied the Crimea and started the war in Ukraine. The Putin policy models chaos in eastern Ukraine and threatens the sovereignty. Russia becomes a country with a very poor status in the international arena, which supports terrorists. There is a lack of democracy in Russia, practically all the media are controlled by Putin consolidated economic elites, so basically a critical approach to power does not exist. It is obvious that such Russia should be of concern to the US and European countries.