Introduction
Relations between the US and Russia are tense and confrontational. In recent years, there have been frequent disagreements between countries, but in 2022, amid the war in Ukraine, other issues related to cyberattacks and fighting in Syria became more acute. Against this background, one wonders whether it is possible to suggest that the world is moving towards a new Cold War in modern times.
To address this issue, the essay will examine theories of liberalism, realism, and constructivism and make recommendations based on the latter principles for United States policy. In addition, the situation in Ukraine, which affected global policy, as well as constructivism’s positive and negative impact on international policy, will be taken into account. Contingency planning for the international situation is an important step, and the use of the theories mentioned above can make a difference.
Realism and Liberalism Theories
To begin with, two political theories dominate the analysis of international relations. These directions are liberalism and realism, which are in constant competition for the title most suitable for describing world politics. Liberalism emphasizes the protection of human rights and humane treatment of them and offers optimistic views on human existence.
On the contrary, realism reflects the world’s power and the importance of ensuring the defense and security of countries. The problems with these theories are the limitations of international actors and the inability to deal with modern threats to security. At the same time, realists are criticized for pessimism about cooperation between states, and liberalism, on the contrary, for being too optimistic.
Constructivism as an Alternate Theory
An alternative theory is constructivism, whose existence is relatively new and emphasizes identity and ideology in shaping international policy. It has been argued that the rift between this theory and realism can be overcome by systemic theorization, as these theories are more similar. For example, in the case of this theory, actors motivate their actions with values and ideas, not just with material benefits.
From a constructivist point of view, war is more of a clash of different opinions about what a modern, safe world should look like. In turn, these beliefs are shaped by public opinion or, rather, by social interactions between people. Based on this information, this modern theory provides a more detailed understanding of the international situation, as it focuses on more significant factors.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Constructivism
While continuing to talk about constructivism, it is essential to note its advantages and disadvantages. As already mentioned, this theory is more straightforward for understanding the current international situation, while liberalism or realism focuses only on certain aspects. This theory offers a framework for human understanding of the role and conduct of States in the international arena.
One of the disadvantages of constructivism is the difficulty of implementation, which is connected with the complexity of the theory itself, even at the stage of identification. Moreover, it is often criticized for devaluing the decisions of power and material interests in the conduct of States.
Recommendations for the US Dialogue With Russia
The best solution for the US is to focus on dialogue with Russia and respect for its identity. Foreign policy must be careful because it must take into account the fact that Russia considers itself a hegemon that is different from Western countries. Building trust among countries and finding common ground will make it possible to control armaments and prevent the escalation of conflict over more territory. Each country’s diplomacy must be more direct and focused on the goal of peacekeeping, as this will reduce the already high tensions between the US and Russia.
Application of the Constructive Principles in Settlement
Building on the foundations of constructivism, we can once again conclude that the US should focus on a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. In this case, it is necessary to stress the importance of the absence of military mixing, which could aggravate the international situation. The military action in Ukraine can be described as the result of a clash of American and Russian ideologies, which increased tension and led to the current situation.
Based on the cause of the conflict, dialogue should aim to reach a consensus and encourage Ukraine to seek peaceful political solutions. One step towards overcoming conflict is financial support for organizations that encourage countries to make calm, independent decisions. Thus, the principles of constructivism are challenging to implement in times of conflict, as they are not easy to apply in practice to resolve problems.
Impact of the Conflict in Ukraine on the International Situation
One of the most pressing issues for the US and Russia is the conflict in Ukraine, which since 2014 has been the cause of global unrest between the countries. Since Russia began supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea, tens of thousands of people have died, and millions have been forced to flee the war. As a result, the territory of Ukraine is divided into pro-Russian and pro-Western parts, although the US stands for legitimate self-determination by Ukraine of its status. In addition, this war has affected the role of NATO. It is a direct threat to the security of the European continent and the preservation of the principles of international law.
Impact on the International Community and the Plan B
The plan’s impact on the international community is that it could reduce tensions between the US and Russia. This factor would contribute to nuclear disarmament and economic and political interaction. The global world would then be more stable and secure for mankind’s existence. However, if the original plan fails, a plan B consisting of alternative diplomatic approaches may be developed. Allies could mediate between the US and Russia to help these countries reach a consensus.
Cooperation with International Organizations
While focusing US attention on maintaining diplomatic relations with Russia is crucial, it is essential to restrain the latter’s aggressive actions simultaneously. This goal can be achieved by strengthening cooperation with NATO, as well as by supplying weapons to the Ukrainian military and training them in warfare tactics. In addition, international organizations of the OSCE and the United Nations should be actively involved in the conflict to prevent its escalation and to observe constant monitoring of the situation.
The plan’s implementation could not come from one side and, therefore, required a multi-level approach. In order to identify areas for cooperation, countries must communicate with each other, including those at war. For example, one of the negative steps was to close the Moscow office, which would be responsible for the observance of human rights in the country. These actions are unacceptable to the modern world and are increasing domestic tensions, while the US can offer a system of rewards as diplomatic leverage for Russians.
NATO’s Role in US-Russia Relations
NATO’s role is significant in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, and it often exacerbates the situation. While Russia views NATO expansion as a threat to its security and a breach of its sphere of influence, it is a collective defense force for the United States. Thus, while for the former, it is a dangerous act, for the latter, it is a defense of democratic values and the right to secure coexistence among countries in the world. Using constructivism principles to analyze this problem, NATO can be described as a historical factor reflecting Western values and Alliance interests. Again, diplomatic relations with Russia become essential so that Western allies can convince it of NATO’s security and reduce national security concerns.
Perspectives and Participation of Other Countries
The plan’s short-term expectations guarantee a stable situation in Ukraine and the creation of favorable conditions for diplomatic negotiations. In the long term, it is expected to create a peaceful Europe, where countries will perceive Russia not as an aggressor but as a beneficial partner for cooperation. Other states and non-state actors must be included in the settlement, as the United States could not implement the plans alone. For example, the US can forge cooperation with developing countries such as China and with international media to accelerate peaceful dialogue among war-torn countries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the world is on the verge of a Cold War, but this problem can be resolved through diplomatic negotiations between the US and Russia. The clash of these countries’ ideologies has led to a conflict that affects the security of the entire European continent. According to the constructivist theory, consensus can be reached by achieving the two countries’ ideas in dialogue and ensuring security for each. Thus, with the help of the international community and non-governmental organizations, the US can start a peaceful dialogue with Russia while continuing to support Ukraine in the war and pushing the parties towards peaceful coexistence.
References
Ahmad, Faqi. “The Theory of Constructivism in International Relations.” International Research Journal of Commerce and Law 8, no. 10 (2020): 1–8. Web.
Amnesty International. “Russia: Authorities Close down Amnesty International’s Moscow Office.” Amnesty International (2022). Web.
Gvosdev, Nikolas. “The Confrontation with Russia and US Grand Strategy.” Foreign Policy Research Institute (2023). Web.
Nagourney, Eric, Dan Bilefsky, and Richard PĂ©rez-Peña. “A Year of War in Ukraine: The Roots of the Crisis.” The New York Times (2022). Web.
Osnos, Evan. “Sliding toward a New Cold War.” The New Yorker (2023). Web.
Syed, Imran, and Lubna Ali Abid. “Systemic Theorizing: Traversing Between Constructivism and Structural Realism.” Journal of Political Studies 25 no. 2 (2023): 55–67. Web.