In their most recent book, John Mearscheimer and Sebastian Rosato
\nargue that theories that seek to explain international relations are
\ncentral to how leaders make policy decisions. Some are open about
\nthis, some deny the role of theory and some are themselves unaware of
\nthe extent their own thought processes rely on theories to achieve
\ndesired results. In the case of the US, they argue: \u201c\u2026America\u2019s foreign
\n policy since the Cold War has relied on the same theories that populate
\n academia. The United States adopted a policy of liberal hegemony
\nafter the superpower competition ended and the world became unipolar.
\nThat policy was based on the \u201cbig three\u201d liberal theories of
\ninternational relations: liberal institutionalism, economic
\ninterdependence theory and democratic peace theory. Its aim was to
\nextend membership in the international institutions that where created
\nin the West during the Cold War, foster an open world economy and spread
\n democracy around the world, all in the hope that such measures would
\ncreate a safer and more prosperous world. The main critics of liberal
\nhegemony where informed by realism, and policy debates between the two
\nsides were often conducted in the language of those rival theoretical
\ntraditions.\u201d (How States Think; pp.43)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Over the last weekend former president and current front runner for
\nthe Republican nomination in this years\u2019 elections, Donald Trump,
\ncreated a firestorm of controversy by once again questioning the
\nrelevance of NATO and the US commitment to it, including Article 5, the
\ncommitment to come to the defense of a member if attacked. The debate
\nover NATO\u2019s continuing relevance has been ongoing since the dissolution
\nof the Warsaw Pact Treaty Organization that ended the Cold War and
\nespecially since the crisis in Ukraine. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Your assignment is to examine the controversy over the continuing
\nrelevance and role of NATO through these two different theoretical
\nframeworks, putting yourself first into the shoes of a liberal and then,
\n in a separate section, to look at the same issues from the perspective
\nof realism. The point of this assignment is above all to demonstrate
\nyour understanding of these theoretical frameworks. In a conclusion
\nyou should explain which theory (if any) you find more convincing and
\nwhy. In the conclusions you can also suggest alternative points of
\nview (Marxism, constructivism\u2026) if you feel they can contribute to our
\nunderstanding of the situation. As students interested in Global
\nPolitics I assume you have been following the developments but if you
\nhave not you may want to review recent developments. Again, the point
\nis to demonstrate your understanding of the paradigms we explored in the
\n first weeks of this course. To help getting you going there are links
\nto articles on the role of NATO and the related crisis in Ukraine
\nbelow. Keep in mind that there are no wrong or right answers in this
\nassignment, but rather answers that demonstrate a critical understanding
\n of course concepts and answers that to some extent fall short of doing
\nso.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While no further research is required you are of course welcome to
\ninclude sources not on the syllabus if relevant. Your essay should be
\nno longer than 2000 words (excluding citations) and you should cite all
\nyour sources. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
From Columbia University Prof. Jeffrey Sachs:<\/p>\n
https:\/\/original.antiwar.com\/Jeffrey_Sachs\/2024\/02\/12\/the-biden-schumer-plan-to-kill-more-ukrainians\/<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n From the Globe & Mail today:<\/p>\n NATO: Blair\u2019s office does not directly address Trump threat (to not come to aid of members not paying their 2% dues)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition)<\/p>\n Feb 12, 2024 Donald Trump says he once threatened to \u201cencourage\u201d Russia to invade <\/p>\n _______________________________________________<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n By our colleague Aurel Brown, also from todays\u2019 Globe & Mail:<\/p>\n The Globe and Mail<\/p>\n 12 Feb 2024<\/p>\n AUREL BRAUN <\/span><\/p>\n OPINION<\/p>\n Aurel Braun is a professor of political science and international For several days, Tucker Carlson\u2019s smiling face was ubiquitous<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Russia is also the country where Western journalists, including Evan On Thursday, Mr. Putin sent a message in his long, passive-aggressive In its conflict against Ukraine, Russia is using a hybrid approach, Since February, 2022, the Kremlin has turned down requests for There are at least three reasons why the Kremlin would still use Mr. It takes an Occam\u2019s razor to cut through Mr. Putin\u2019s manipulative Yet, this may not turn out to be quite the information warfare coup <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Article by Anatol Liven on NATO:<\/p>\n NATO and the European Union have reached their limits. Here\u2019s what should come next.<\/p>\n By <\/span>Anatol Lieven<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Vladimir Putin speaks during a press conference on the second day of Vladimir Putin speaks during a press conference on the second day of <\/p>\n FEBRUARY 10, 2022, 3:36 PM<\/p>\n The Western attempt to expel Russia from Europe has failed. That But as French President Emmanuel Macron has reminded us, Russia <\/span>is<\/em> <\/span>part A structure needs to be created that can defend the interests of NATO The current security order has reached its limit. Until 2007-2008, At the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in 2008, the United States Later that year, the Russo-Georgian War should have sounded the death The rise of China is the other factor that makes the exclusion of The EU too has reached the limit of its expansion eastward. On the Romania, Bulgaria, and other states remain deeply corrupt and in many An acknowledgment of these obvious truths (which are acknowledged in This requires a return to a more traditional way of thinking about In recent years and in the wider world, the U.S. establishment by The problem is that most members of the U.S. establishment have The essential elements of a new, reasonably consensual pan-European Full diplomatic relations should be established or reestablished When it comes to the avoidance and solution of conflicts, however, Such a European security council would have three goals: firstly, the
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
Read more at:
https:\/\/globe2go.pressreader.com\/article\/281642490082751<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>
<\/p>\n
\nU.S. allies that fail to pay their share of NATO costs, an assertion
\nthat is sending alarm through the alliance as leaders grapple with the
\nrising possibility of the former president returning to the White House.
The
\n threat lands as Ukraine warns it is running out of money and weapons to
\n hold back Moscow\u2019s invasion and President Joe Biden\u2019s effort to send
\nmore aid remains stuck in Congress.
At a campaign rally on Saturday
\nevening in South Carolina, Mr. Trump recounted a conversation with the
\npresident of an unnamed \u201cbig country.\u201d The other leader, Mr. Trump said,
\n asked whether the United States would protect his country from a
\nRussian attack if the country missed its targets on NATO spending.
\u201cNo,
\n I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever
\n the hell they want. You gotta pay, you gotta pay your bills ,\u201d Mr.
\nTrump said he told the leader. \u201cAnd the money came flowing in.\u201d
Mr.
\nTrump has long complained that most countries in the North Atlantic
\nTreaty Organization have failed to honour a 2014 pledge to spend 2 per
\ncent of GDP on defence. Canada, for instance, spends about 1.38 per
\ncent.
But his Saturday comments were the strongest indication yet
\nthat, if he gets back into office, Mr. Trump might violate NATO\u2019s
\nArticle 5 collective defence commitment and allow Russia to invade
\nvulnerable members of the alliance.
Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all expressed fear of Russian aggression.
\u201cAny
\n suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our
\n security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European
\nsoldiers at increased risk,\u201d NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
\nsaid in a statement after Mr. Trump\u2019s speech.
Poland\u2019s Defence
\nMinister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz warned on social media that \u201cthe
\nentire NATO\u201d would be weaker if any member failed to defend the others.
Canadian Defence Minister Bill Blair\u2019s office touted the value of NATO but did not directly address Mr. Trump\u2019s threat.
\u201cFor
\n almost 75 years, NATO has kept all of its members safer than they would
\n be on their own,\u201d spokeswoman Diana Ebadi wrote in an e-mail on Sunday.
\n \u201cIn the face of Russia\u2019s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine,
\nNATO\u2019s mission is more important than ever.\u201d
Ms. Ebadi would not say
\nwhen or if Canada planned to meet its spending commitment. \u201cOur
\ncontributions and defence investments remain on an upward trajectory,\u201d
\nshe wrote. Since 2014, Canada\u2019s NATO contributions have fluctuated
\nbetween 1.01 per cent and 1.44 per cent of GDP, according to the
\nalliance\u2019s figures.
Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner
\nfor internal market, said the conversation Mr. Trump was referring to at
\n his rally occurred in 2020 with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of
\nthe European Commission, in Davos, Switzerland. During the meeting, at
\nwhich Mr. Breton was also present, he said Mr. Trump told Ms. von der
\nLeyen: \u201cIf you think that NATO will defend you, you\u2019re wrong.\u201d
Mr.
\nBreton, speaking on French news channel LCI, said Mr. Trump appeared to
\nbe having \u201ca little memory problem\u201d in incorrectly recalling his
\ninterlocutor as a male country leader rather than the female chief
\nexecutive of the EU.
Mr. Breton said that Europe had to prepare for
\nthe possibility of the U.S. cutting off funding for NATO or military aid
\n to Ukraine. \u201cWe no longer have the choice to not increase our defence
\nproduction capacity,\u201d he said.
In his campaign platform, Mr. Trump
\npromises a \u201cre-evaluating\u201d of \u201cNATO\u2019s purpose and NATO\u2019s mission.\u201d He
\nalso pledges to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours but
\ndoes not say how exactly he would do that. This has stoked fears that he
\n plans to either abandon both NATO and Ukraine or force Kyiv into a
\nsettlement that involves large concessions to Russia.
Polling of the
\nlikely presidential election matchup shows Mr. Trump tied with or
\nleading Mr. Biden, a Democrat, nationally and in key swing states.
Mr.
\n Biden and a bipartisan majority in Congress have so far sent
\nUS$75-billion in aid to Ukraine. But the next tranche of funds has been
\nheld up by far-right Republicans despite warnings from Ukrainian
\nPresident Volodymyr Zelensky that a lack of continuing help from the
\nU.S. will doom his country\u2019s war effort.
The Senate on Sunday
\ncontinued work on a US$95-billion military aid package for Ukraine and
\nIsrael but it remains unclear whether it will ultimately pass Congress.
Nikki
\n Haley, Mr. Trump\u2019s only remaining opponent for the Republican
\nnomination, said that the U.S. must use other means to press the rest of
\n NATO members into meeting their commitments.
\u201cWe do want NATO allies
\n to pull their weight,\u201d she said on CBS. \u201cBut there are ways you can do
\nthat without sitting there and telling Russia, \u2018Have your way with these
\n countries.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
In bizarre Tucker Carlson interview, Putin drew on Soviet propaganda<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nrelations at the University of Toronto and an associate at Harvard
\nUniversity\u2019s Davis Center.<\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> on the Russian state and social media. Visiting Moscow, he received wall-to-wall coverage, rock-star treatment, and praise<\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> as
\n possibly the sole credible Western \u201cjournalist.\u201d His interview with
\nVladimir Putin, who has an arrest warrant issued against him by the
\nInternational Criminal Court, has been portrayed by the Kremlin as an historic event<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nGershkovich from the Wall Street Journal, remain jailed on the most
\ndubious espionage charges, and where more than a thousand independent
\njournalists had to flee abroad as the Kremlin introduced draconian
\ncensorship laws in the wake of Russia\u2019s all-out aggression against
\nUkraine in February, 2022. Moscow criminalized even the use of the term
\n\u201cwar,\u201d with only Mr. Putin\u2019s euphemism \u201cspecial military operation\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> permitted.<\/p>\n
\n and rather bizarre interview to what he calls \u201cthe collective West,\u201d
\nand also to his own people before the predetermined March presidential
\nelections. He aimed to damage Ukraine and help Donald Trump. Here, both
\nthe message and the messenger are crucial, and context as well as
\ncontent are vital to appreciate the Kremlin\u2019s aims.<\/p>\n
\nand information warfare is pivotal to this. For the latter, the Putin
\nregime has reached back to the old KGB concept of \u201creflexive control,\u201d
\nwhich hinges on a type of Soviet disinformation, maskirovka<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, that
\n combines denial and deception, but fundamentally plays on the
\npredilections of the target to induce a favoured predetermined decision.
\n Here, reflexive control plays on the West\u2019s justified fear of war, its
\naversion to escalation and popular distrust of government. In the
\nimplementation of this concept, the messenger is key.<\/p>\n
\ninterviews with Mr. Putin by a variety of distinguished journalists from
\n Western media outlets, including the BBC and CNN. So why would they use
\n Mr. Carlson? After all, Mr. Carlson, who had the largest viewership
\nacross Fox News, was abruptly fired last April, since his
\nconspiracy-laden and defamatory broadcasts made him too toxic and expensive<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>.
\n Once he lost his privileged perch at Fox, his influence declined
\nprecipitously, even though he subsequently built his own streaming
\nservice and distributes a talk show<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> on X (formerly Twitter).<\/p>\n
\nCarlson. First, he is extremely close to Mr. Trump. The latter even
\nstated that he would consider Mr. Carlson as a running mate<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>. Second, Mr. Carlson has voiced his admiration for Mr. Putin, has been rooting for Moscow<\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a \u201csweaty and rat-like\u201d dictator<\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>.
\n He has been a propaganda gift for the Kremlin, especially for the past
\ntwo years. Third, Mr. Carlson ideologically represents what I would call
\n the Lindbergh-nativist<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> fringe
\n of the Republican party, which promotes crude isolationism and tends to
\n admire authoritarian leaders. Those fringe Republicans are instrumental
\n to blocking critical aid to Ukraine in Congress.<\/p>\n
\nmorass of distortions, brazen rewriting of history and Orwellian
\ninversions in the interview. He illuminated, though, two key themes. He
\nportrayed Russia as the perennial victim, threatened by NATO and
\nUkraine, fearful of aggression. His approach, however, was more mafia
\nthan Machiavelli; he blamed Ukraine, the actual victim, for the
\ndevastation it has suffered from Russian aggression \u2013 essentially for
\nnot surrendering sovereign territory quickly enough and refusing to
\nreadily commit political suicide. The solution Mr. Putin proposed,
\nincluding the West abandoning Ukraine, involves vast territorial
\nconcessions by Kyiv and a neutered sovereignty that would result in a
\ndismembered and defenceless Ukraine \u2013 likely a prelude to new Russian
\ndemands in Europe. The message was also directed at his own population,
\ntelling them that just as Russia can move with immunity internationally,
\n the unassailable Putinite regime can act with impunity domestically.<\/p>\n
\nthat Mr. Putin envisions. Using Mr. Carlson, who is so close to Mr.
\nTrump, is such a clear attempt to manipulate the American elections that
\n it might just fuel new concerns about Russian interference and thereby
\nharm Mr. Trump\u2019s prospects with the larger American public and even
\nboost Congressional support for Ukraine. Should Mr. Trump win in 2024,
\nhe might not be the \u201cManchurian candidate\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> that
\n Mr. Putin hopes. More of an extreme narcissist than an ideologue,
\nhistory shows that Mr. Trump can turn from lavish praise to blind hatred
\n in a New York minute.<\/p>\nRussia Belongs at the Center of Europe<\/h1>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, the director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe G8 summit venue of Lough Erne on June 18, 2013 in Enniskillen,
\nNorthern Ireland.<\/p>\n
\nthe G8 summit venue of Lough Erne on June 18, 2013 in Enniskillen,
\nNorthern Ireland. <\/span>WPA POOL \/GETTY IMAGES<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthere was such an attempt was always implicit in the strategy of seeking
\n to admit every European country but Russia into NATO and the European
\nUnion. In this context, the NATO slogan \u201cA Europe Whole and Free\u201d is an
\nexplicit statement that Russia is not part of Europe.<\/p>\n
\n of Europe and is simply too big, too powerful, and too invested in its
\nimmediate neighborhood to be excluded from the European security order. A
\n continued strategy along these lines will lead to repeated Russian
\nattempts to force its way back in. At best, this will lead to repeated
\nand very damaging crises; at worst, to war.<\/p>\n
\n and the EU while at the same time accommodating vital Russian interests
\n and preserving peace. The solution lies in a modernized version of what
\n was once called the \u201cConcert of Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nthe expansion of the EU and NATO appeared to have proceeded flawlessly,
\nwith the admission of all the former Soviet satellites in Central Europe
\n and the Balkans, as well as the Baltic states. Russia was unhappy with
\nNATO expansion but did not actively oppose it. Then, however, both NATO
\nand the EU received decisive checks, through their own overreach.<\/p>\n
\nand its allies, though denied an immediate Membership Action Plan for
\nUkraine and Georgia because of the opposition of France and Germany,
\nprocured a promise of those countries\u2019 eventual membership. Seen from
\nMoscow, this created the prospect that NATO would include countries with
\n territorial disputes (and in the case of Georgia, frozen conflicts)
\nwith Russia; that (as in the Baltic states) NATO would give cover to
\nmoves to harm the position of local Russian minorities; and that NATO
\nwould expel Russia from its naval base at Sevastopol and from the
\nsouthern Caucasus.<\/p>\n
\n knell of further NATO expansion, for it demonstrated beyond doubt both
\nthe acute dangers of territorial disputes in the former USSR and that in
\n the last resort Russia would fight to defend its vital interests in the
\n region, and the West would not fight. This is being demonstrated again
\ntoday by the repeated and categorical statements from Washington and
\nBrussels that there is no question of sending troops to defend Ukraine;
\nand if NATO will not fight for Ukraine, then it cannot admit Ukraine as
\nan ally. It is as simple as that.<\/p>\n
\nRussia unviable. For this project was developed at a time when Russia
\nwas at its weakest in almost 400 years and when China\u2019s colossal growth
\nhad only just begun. This allowed the West possibilities that today have
\n diminished enormously, if as seems likely China is prepared to
\nstrengthen Russia against Western economic sanctions.<\/p>\n
\none hand, there is Ukraine\u2019s size (44 million people), corruption,
\npolitical dysfunction, and poverty (GDP per capita that\u2019s one-third of
\nRussia\u2019s). Perhaps more importantly, EU expansion to eastern Europe no
\nlonger looks like the unconditional success story that it did a decade
\nago.<\/p>\n
\n ways still ex-communist. Poland and Hungary have developed dominant
\nstrains of chauvinist and quasi-authoritarian populism that place them
\nat odds with what were supposed to be the core values of the EU\u2014and that
\n in some respects bring them closer ideologically to the regime of
\nRussian President Vladimir Putin. After this experience, there is no
\nchance that the EU will admit a country like Ukraine in any foreseeable
\nfuture.<\/p>\n
\nprivate by the overwhelming majority of Western officials and experts)
\nshould open the way to thinking about a new European security
\narchitecture that would incorporate NATO and the EU while reducing the
\nhostility between these organizations and Russia. We should aim at the
\ncreation of this new system as part of the solution to the present
\ncrisis, and in order to avoid new ones.<\/p>\n
\ninternational politics. For a key problem of the West\u2019s approach to
\nRussia since the end of the Cold War is that it has demanded that Russia
\n observe the internal rules of behavior of the EU and NATO without
\noffering EU and NATO membership (something that is in any case
\nimpossible for multiple reasons).<\/p>\n
\ncontrast has loudly announced \u201cthe return of great-power politics\u201d\u2014and
\nthis is true enough as far as it goes. Certainly the idea of a
\nmonolithic \u201crules-based global order,\u201d in which liberal internationalism
\n acts as a thin cover for U.S. primacy, is now dead.<\/p>\n
\nbecome so wedded to belief in both the necessity and the righteousness
\nof U.S. global primacy that they can see relations with other great
\npowers only in confrontational and zero-sum terms. Rivalry, of course,
\nthere will inevitably be; but if we are to avoid future disasters, we
\nneed to find a way of managing relations so as to keep this rivalry
\nwithin bounds, establish certain genuine common rules, prevent conflict,
\n and work toward the solution of common problems. To achieve this, we
\nneed to seek lessons further back in diplomatic history.<\/p>\n
\norder should be the following: a traditional nonaggression treaty
\nbetween NATO and the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization
\n (CSTO), by which both sides pledge not to attack the other militarily.
\nAs a matter of fact, neither side has any intention of doing so, and to
\nput this on paper would reduce mutual paranoia and the ability of
\nestablishments on both sides to feed this paranoia for their own
\ndomestic purposes.<\/p>\n
\nbetween NATO and the CSTO and between the EU and the Russian-led
\nEurasian Economic Union. On the basis of this, intensive negotiations
\nshould be launched to achieve two goals: new arms control agreements in
\nEurope, starting with nuclear missiles, and <\/span>economic arrangements<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLinks to an external site.<\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>that
\n would allow nonmembers of the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union to
\ntrade freely with both blocs, rather than forcing on them a mutually
\nexclusive choice of trading partners.<\/p>\n
\ninstitutions involving all European countries are too large and too
\nrigid to be of much use. The Russian establishment has also decided\u2014not
\nwithout reason\u2014that these are simply excuses for Western countries to
\nagree to a common position and then present it to Russia as a <\/span>fait accompli<\/em>.
\n The need is for a regular, frequent, but much smaller and less formal
\nmeeting place for the countries that really count in European security:
\nthe United States, France, Germany, and Russia (plus the United Kingdom,
\n if it survives as one state and emerges from its post-Brexit
\nbewilderment).<\/p>\n
\n avoidance of new conflicts through early consultation about impending
\ncrises; secondly, the solution of existing conflicts on the basis of
\ncommon standards of realism\u2014in other words, who actually controls the
\nterritory in question and will continue to do so; and thirdly,
\ndemocracy\u2014the will of the majority of the local population, expressed
\nthrough internationally supervised referendums (a proposal put forward
\nby <\/span>Thomas Graham<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n