Catch Flies with Honey, not Vinegar: A Prescriptive Analysis of the Western Response to the 2014 Ukraine Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the 2014 Euromaidan protests and deposition of the Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and proceeded to wage a proxy war through pro-Russian seperatists. As a result of these actions, international relations with Russia have sunk to the lowest levels since the Cold War. The deterioration of international relations has included individual and sector-level sanctions being employed between the West and Russia. These sanctions have been implemented with the aim of signaling intolerance of Russia's actions in Ukraine, and to promote reform of its aggressive policies in Eastern Europe. To date, these sanctions have not altered Russian policy, but rather have isolated Russia and pushed it towards increased South American and Asian economic ties. Furthermore, the current economic trough Russia is experiencing is not entirely a result of international sanctions, but is instead largely due to the drop in global oil and gas prices between 2014 and 2017. As such, sanctions are not an effective long-term tool with which to penalize Russia. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the international response to the Ukrainian conflict while emphasizing the importance of Russo-West reconciliation via economic integration. To respond effectively to aggressive Russian foreign policy, it is important to consider the innter workings of the Putin Administration and its post-Cold War political economy. With a focus on mutual interests, this precriptive review puts the Ukrainian conflict and current slump of relations into their proper contexts, while also pushing for the reconsideration of maintaining ineffective retaliatory sanctions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".