Answer:
Explanation:
First, globalization has weakened nation states: Countries and individuals alike are exposed to unprecedented risks in the face of international capital. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union, the Western capitalist world order saw a golden opportunity to sweep across the planet. Expansion of such an order was given the name of “globalization” in the mid and late 1990s. The generally shallow interpretation of globalization refers to the increasingly strengthened global connections and interdependence in economy, trade, transport and communications. But the insight of such scholars as Herbert Hart is especially worth notice, as he pointed out the essence of globalization is the global expansion of capitalist production and economic relations. In this sense, globalization obviously has a longer history, only that it had not become true to its name until after the Cold War. Globalization benefited many countries and individuals, but has at the same time brought about great risks: First is the extreme imbalance in distribution of the benefits, resulting in greater gaps between nations and individuals; second, capital’s easy penetration of national boundaries has also weakened countries’ capabilities for managing and coping with such a phenomenon, exposing individuals more directly to the control of international capital, rendering them helpless.
Second, Russia-West relations are difficult to ease. Their relations are in part extension of the confrontation between the US and Soviet camps, only that Russia is evidently in a more defensive position now. After the Cold War, the West has seen unprecedented success in expanding its own sphere of influence and security boundaries, the rapid expansion of the European Union and NATO in the former Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, in particular, has inevitably made Russia nervous. The West’s success has taken advantage of its triumph in the Cold War, and come with its long-standing arrogance. In complete disregard of Russian feelings, it has extended its sphere of influence to Ukraine, a core source of Russian pride. The reactions of Vladimir Putin on one hand reflect his individual personality, but are on the other hand natural Russian defensive responses to the overbearing West. Geo-strategic factors aside, cultural factors can’t be ignored in Russia-West ties. In Russia, there has been the long-standing debate and tension over whether the country belongs to the East or West. Europeans have shown universal refusal of Russia, believing that Russia isn’t a part of Europe. The latest meeting between heads of the Catholic and Orthodox churches in Cuba again brought to attention the convoluted relations between Russian and European civilizations. Their divergent values, rooted in differences in culture, civilization and system, have demonstrated profound impacts on bilateral ties, resulting in structural and psychological standoff that is difficult to reconcile. Russia’s refusal to back down on the Ukraine issue and subsequent Western sanctions against Russia have made it possible for Putin, who is good at manipulating nationalist feelings, to maintain relatively high approval ratings at home; in the face of Western sanctions and dramatic falls in international energy prices, it is within anticipation that Putin has chosen to seek a breakthrough by intervening in Syria.
