Question When states make decisions about forging alliances, they must keep in mind the many risks of sharing their fate with other states. Although realists generally see alliances as potentially beneficial, they caution that making a defense pact with an ally will also carry a heavy price. Creating alliances will: -Limit the foreign policy options [You cannot have good relationship with the enemy state of your ally] -Reduce the state's capacity to adapt to changing circumstances [You cannot make major shifts in your foreign policy with changing global politics without taking your ally into confidence] -Weaken a state's capability to influence others by decreasing the number of additional partners with which it can align -Eliminate the advantages in bargaining that can be derived from deliberately fostering ambiguity about one's intentions -Provoke the fears of adversaries -Entangle states in disputes with their allies' enemies -Interfere with the negotiation of disputes involving an ally's enemy by preventing certain issues from being placed on the agenda -Preserve existing rivalries -Stimulate envy and resentment on the part of friends who are outside the alliance and are therefore not eligible to receive its advantages These potential dangers explain why alliance decisions are so controversial, even when advocates enthusiastically propose that another state be sought as an ally for mutual defense. The posture of leaders about the advantage or disadvantage of alliances has depended on their personal philosophy and the country's circumstances. Now imagine you are a policy maker for the country "Russia" List down Any three countries with which you would seek an alliance And any three that you would avoid.

[Be careful in choosing your partners, taking all points mentioned above in consideration] Explain why you chose these three countries over the ones you avoided.

[You must include the real-world information about that country "Guatemala" to justify your choice]