Russia disrupted the 2016 United States election by attacking America’s intelligence agencies (Leonhardt 2018). President Donald Trump has failed to protect his country and defend United States’ constitutional rights by refusing to recognize the Russian attack. The president refused to respond to the attack or set up protective measures to defend the state against another attack by the Russian state.
A good example of the president’s denial is an incidence of the attack and mass murder of 17 citizens in Florida (Leonhardt 2018). Trump made a statement that the attack occurred because of failure of the F.B.I. to set preventive measures and being too preoccupied with investigation on the Russia attack. In addition, Trump failed to acknowledge the Russian as a threat. By putting his interest ahead of the nation’s needs, the president of the United States demonstrates he is not a patriotic leader. This has become a big threat to the country’s democracy.
Discussion
Some of the world’s greatest philosophers describe that war occurs not only because of the ill nature of human beings but also due to bad states. Bad states make war against other countries while good states make peace with other states. This statement was justified by Kant, is Plato, liberals of the 19th
century and revolutionist socialists. Rousseau however contrasts with other Marxists and liberals by stating that war between states is caused by neither human beings nor bad states but by the states systems (Waltz 3).
According to the “state of war”, a country that advocates for peace may be forced to retaliate against another state that offers threats. This term is referred to as preventive war. If the peaceful country does not strike against the threatening country when terms are favorable, the threatening state may strike later when conditions are favorable. This analytic evaluation accounts for the balance-of-power approach that explains international country relations and world-federal system. Apart from Rousseau, Machiavelli and Hobbes explain that a state’s internal structure must be evaluated in order to understand its external behavior (Waltz 4). Some philosophers assert that improvements made to a state’s systems enhance peaceful strategies whereas others believe that a state’s nature is dependent on its external relations. Woodrow Wilson, a historical philosopher remarked that countries which wage war are authoritarian states while countries that advocate for peace are democracies (Waltz 6). A peaceful state cannot wage against another unless it is coerced. Similarly, all citizens including those living in warring countries confess that they would advocate for peace if they were handed the opportunity.
Peace is a major concern of the twentieth century as pointed out by political philosophers. Waltz states that St. Augustine, Luther, Machiavelli, Bodin and Hobbes argue that life and security take more priority over freedom and justice (7). The prescription for war is based upon three assumptions. For instance it would be pointless to solve war between states by resolving internal reforms if the cause of war was the evil nature of man. Similarly, changing the nature of man would not bear significant results if war is caused by international anarchy. However, a combination of all three factors namely nature of man, political systems and bad states makes interventions complicated to implement. Philosopher Waltz states that war is caused by three factors namely individual, national and international factors (Levy 2). The individual level focuses on the nature of human beings and theories revolving around individual political leaders and their beliefs, personalities and psychological attributes. The national level is comprised of governmental structures like policy-making processes and nature of political systems, societal aspects like public opinion roles, economic system structures, ethnic factors, political ideologies, nationalism, economic and non-economic interest categories. The international level consists of the anarchic structure, the number of major power states around the globe, distribution of major economic and military systems, military alliance patterns, patterns of international trade among other factors. Some philosophers eliminate the individual and national levels by stating that the systemic level can impact on individual level foreign policy structures and national level policies. Moreover, individual and national levels can greatly affect systematic level outcomes. For example compromises, political pressures, bureaucratic conflicts and belief systems are individual based factors that could spark war (Levy 3).
According to traditional literature, sovereign countries wage war to display their wealth, advanced security and power in a manner that in threatening to the international system and anarchy (Levy 5). From a realistic perspective, political leaders focus too much on short-term security needs along with the position they occupy in the international system which sometimes makes them adopt evil thinking such that they engage in international power struggles, utilize forceful threats to enhance their interests, maintain their reputation and influence their adversary state. Additionally, enhancement of security measures by one country through establishment of alliances, deterrent threats and armaments can be considered as a threat by another country. This situation is referred to as security dilemma and it causes counteractive measures and massive conflicts that are usually irreversible.
The balance of power theory states that great states in power seek to establish equilibrium of power thus avoiding hegemony by opposing threatening states who oppose their interests and a secure hegemonic position (Levy 6). An alternative to the balance of power theory is the power transition theory which focuses on the hegemonic nature of powerful states. Hegemons use their established systems to create economic and political structures and norms of behavior that improve their stability and security. According to Levy (7), both hegemonic and transition power theories are greatly affected by military technology especially the presence or absence of nuclear ammunition. The need to establish military superiority has sparked many wars in history however the conception of nuclear war to establish nuclear power leaves no room for misconceptions in this contemporary age. The USSR Secretary General Gorbachev and U.S. President Reagan both agreed that nuclear war could never be fought because no state stands the chance of winning (Levy 10).
War begins by disagreement between two countries which could lead to peaceful attempts to solve issues or spark serious political conflicts. Territorial issues are major contributors of war (Hensel 59). Scholars argue that territory has been the cause of war for nearly two to three centuries. Territory is viewed as a salient factor because it determines a country’s reputation, it has tangible attributes and it has great psychological value (Hensel 61). Tangible factors under territory affect dispute when boundaries containing valuable resources such as fresh water, fertile agricultural lands, oil and minerals are crossed (Hensel 62). Territory also affects a country’s security and political power. Under intangible factors, territory determines state identity and cohesion therefore crossing such boundaries could cause serious political conflict. A country’s reputation is another factor worth fighting for in fact leaders risk their state’s safety to fight for reputation. The territory factor is projected to be the most difficult issue to resolve.
Conclusion
Theories used to explain conflicts between Russia and America can be based on three factors namely individual, national and international factors. In this contemporary era however, Russia is seen as a challenger to U.S.A. because America is currently declared to be the most powerful country in the globe. U.S.A. is a hegemony state and it attempts to establish equilibrium of power for its own interest and expand its territory. Russia threatens U.S.A.’s political state by overstepping its boundaries to secure a more favorable hegemonic position. Furthermore Russia feels the need to exercise military dominance over U.S.A. however; currently the possibility of a nuclear war is beyond recognition because it could lead to destruction of both nations. Other than military technology, territory is another major factor contributing to political conflict between America and Russia especially the need to maintain reputation. If Russia continues to threaten America’s reputation and identity, overstep security and political boundaries, U.S.A. might be forced to retaliate in a likely manner despite its advocacy for peace as a democratic state. However, failure of the current president as a democratic leader to set up defensive measures against Russian threats questions the state’s hegemonic nature.
Works Cited
Hensel, Paul R. "Territory: Theory and evidence on geography and conflict." What do we know
about war (2000): 57-84.
Leonhardt, David “Who Still Thinks Russia Didn’t Meddle in the Election?” The New York
Times, Feb. 2018, http://nyti.ms/2Cd0G0y
Accessed 6 March 2018.
Levy, Jack S. "Contending theories of international conflict: A levels-of-analysis approach."
Managing global chaos: Sources of and responses to international conflict (1996): 3-24.
Waltz, Kenneth Neal. Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. Columbia University
Press, (2001): 1-15.
