Each article from the three articles we are supposed to read from Foreign Policy is written from a different perspective. After reading them, I think that Putin's Nuclear Option is written by a realist, Putin's Empire of the Mind is written by a liberal, and NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-you is written by a social constructivist.
In Putin's Nuclear Option, it is written by a realist because the argument the author is trying to make is saying that the nature of the international system shapes states' behavior. For example, the article states that there are two types of parties: the Peace Party and the War Party. The War Party believes that there are two options: World War IV, not World War II since they believe the Cold War was World War III, or a nuclear attack. For the nuclear attack, the nuclear-armed country with the superior political will to change the geopolitical status-quo and the greater indifference to value concerning human lives would prevail. This is how a realist will think. Another evidence mentioned in the article is that Putin would not want to be the first to fire nuclear weapons at anyone because the world would unite against him and do more damage to the Russian economy. This is clearly realism because this shows the security-dilemma. A realist will believe in the security dilemma. They will believe that Putin will not fire their nuclear weapons because if they do, the whole world will unite against him, thus, bringing the Russian economy more damage. Otherwise, World War IV or a nuclear attack might happen.
In Putin's Empire of the Mind, it is written by a liberal because it talks about how Putin's actions will shape the nature of the international system. Liberalism believes that the behavior of actors will shape the international system. This article focuses a lot on Putin. It talks about Putin's thoughts, relationship with Russia and other nations, Putin's programs, and Putin's actions. For example, Putin is trying to forge a new Rossiiskii state nationalism, launch a program of "de-offshorization", and Putin now mistrusts the elite and see them as unpatriotic. One of the liberal theories is the Democratic Peace Theory, where Democracies never go to war against each other, they promote interdependence, and democratic citizens are less likely to view other democratic citizens as threats. Even though Putin is not a democrat, I think this idea can apply to him as well. He is increasingly autocratic, since his circle of allies and advisers has shrunk to those who only share his exact ideas. This shows that people who are more closely similar in thoughts are less likely to view each other as threats. This is why this article resembles the thoughts of a liberal. A liberal believes that Russia's economy will be harmed severely if they launch an attack.
In NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-You, the ideas resemble the thoughts of a social constructivist. You can tell by the first few sentences of the article: "I'd suspect some bureaucrats at NATO headquarters in Brussels are secretly glad about the crisis in Ukraine. Why? Because it gives the aging alliance something to do." This shows an interaction and how they are mutually shaped between actors and systems. A socialist constructivist will believe in the point of view from both sides, meaning Russia won't dare to launch a nuclear attack and NATO will not drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.
In my opinion, I believe that a policy of containment will be a better solution than appeasement in the issue of Russia. In the article Putin's Nuclear Option, Piontkovsky states that the "War Party" believes that World War IV, not World War III since they believe that the Cold War was World War III, will begin between NATO and Russia, and things wouldn't go well due to NATO's superior armed forces and Russia's comparative economic, scientific, and technological weaknesses, resulting in Russia's defeat. This shows that Russia wouldn't go head-on into a war, thus, containment might be a better solution. On the other hand, if a policy of appeasement is used in this crisis, things might turn out like World War II. During World War II, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's concession of the Czech border areas to Hitler was a sign of appeasement. Chamberlain thought this will grant Hitler with what he wanted, therefore, stop him. However, he was dead wrong. Hitler, on the other hand, saw this as a sign of weakness in the other nations. He thought that the other nations were too weak to stop him now. This is similar to what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. If NATO decides to concede, Russia might grow bolder! This is why I believe that a policy of containment will be a better solution.
In Putin's Nuclear Option, it is written by a realist because the argument the author is trying to make is saying that the nature of the international system shapes states' behavior. For example, the article states that there are two types of parties: the Peace Party and the War Party. The War Party believes that there are two options: World War IV, not World War II since they believe the Cold War was World War III, or a nuclear attack. For the nuclear attack, the nuclear-armed country with the superior political will to change the geopolitical status-quo and the greater indifference to value concerning human lives would prevail. This is how a realist will think. Another evidence mentioned in the article is that Putin would not want to be the first to fire nuclear weapons at anyone because the world would unite against him and do more damage to the Russian economy. This is clearly realism because this shows the security-dilemma. A realist will believe in the security dilemma. They will believe that Putin will not fire their nuclear weapons because if they do, the whole world will unite against him, thus, bringing the Russian economy more damage. Otherwise, World War IV or a nuclear attack might happen.
In Putin's Empire of the Mind, it is written by a liberal because it talks about how Putin's actions will shape the nature of the international system. Liberalism believes that the behavior of actors will shape the international system. This article focuses a lot on Putin. It talks about Putin's thoughts, relationship with Russia and other nations, Putin's programs, and Putin's actions. For example, Putin is trying to forge a new Rossiiskii state nationalism, launch a program of "de-offshorization", and Putin now mistrusts the elite and see them as unpatriotic. One of the liberal theories is the Democratic Peace Theory, where Democracies never go to war against each other, they promote interdependence, and democratic citizens are less likely to view other democratic citizens as threats. Even though Putin is not a democrat, I think this idea can apply to him as well. He is increasingly autocratic, since his circle of allies and advisers has shrunk to those who only share his exact ideas. This shows that people who are more closely similar in thoughts are less likely to view each other as threats. This is why this article resembles the thoughts of a liberal. A liberal believes that Russia's economy will be harmed severely if they launch an attack.
In NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank-You, the ideas resemble the thoughts of a social constructivist. You can tell by the first few sentences of the article: "I'd suspect some bureaucrats at NATO headquarters in Brussels are secretly glad about the crisis in Ukraine. Why? Because it gives the aging alliance something to do." This shows an interaction and how they are mutually shaped between actors and systems. A socialist constructivist will believe in the point of view from both sides, meaning Russia won't dare to launch a nuclear attack and NATO will not drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.
In my opinion, I believe that a policy of containment will be a better solution than appeasement in the issue of Russia. In the article Putin's Nuclear Option, Piontkovsky states that the "War Party" believes that World War IV, not World War III since they believe that the Cold War was World War III, will begin between NATO and Russia, and things wouldn't go well due to NATO's superior armed forces and Russia's comparative economic, scientific, and technological weaknesses, resulting in Russia's defeat. This shows that Russia wouldn't go head-on into a war, thus, containment might be a better solution. On the other hand, if a policy of appeasement is used in this crisis, things might turn out like World War II. During World War II, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's concession of the Czech border areas to Hitler was a sign of appeasement. Chamberlain thought this will grant Hitler with what he wanted, therefore, stop him. However, he was dead wrong. Hitler, on the other hand, saw this as a sign of weakness in the other nations. He thought that the other nations were too weak to stop him now. This is similar to what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. If NATO decides to concede, Russia might grow bolder! This is why I believe that a policy of containment will be a better solution.