没时间翻译，只好用英文将就了。

【话说回来，这题并不是太难】

1)      B should come to the conclusion that A is more likely to be an offensive realist (OR) state（6pts）. This part is crucial for B’s choices of strategies）.

2)      thus B’s choice are two (total 12 pts)

a)        If B itself is a defensive realist (DR) state, it should reject A: 1) teaming up with an offensive realist state (A) is not in B’s interest, and such an alliance will be very difficult to manage. 2) Even if A goes to seek an alliance with C/D/E, such an alliance will not be able to conquer B. Indeed, such an alliance can be easily wedged (see the steps below).[Of course, B can go one step further: by seeking alliances with CDE to defend against A: and B can even become co-leaders within such an BCDE alliance. 这个步骤是显而易见的，我也不要求学生答这么多，所以没有写入答案。不过，感谢杨原同学提醒。] (4pts)

b)        If B is an OR state and it is not so strategic (in other words, B is myopic), it will join A. (As we will see, the logic next step for such an offensive alliance of A and B is to ask E/2 to join in their alliance, and then try to conquer to conquer C2 and D3.) (4pts).

c）If B is an OR state but it is very strategic (that is, it focuses on the long term outcome), it should still sit back but encourage C/D/E to form an alliance (by revealing A’s intentions to these states and promise to support the alliance of C/D/E) and let A fight the alliance of C/D/E out. By letting A and C/D/E bleed each other and hence weakening each other, B will have a chance to become the strongest state within the system (which would be an OR state’s dream). This is more long-term/devilish strategy. [BY the admission of Zbigniew Brzezinski(布热津斯基) , the United States lulled the USSR into Afghanistan in 1979 for this purpose: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/brz.htm ](4pts). This strategy is more sophisticated. 如果我没有记错的话，目前没有学生答出这个部分。

3)      If A and B have already formed an alliance, other states (C, D, E) would recognize that both A and B are OR states (and hence, the alliance of A/ B is an OR alliance). When this is the case: E’s the only option is to refuse joining the AB alliance and form an alliance with C&D. [12pts] The logic is the following:

a)        E’s position is pivotal: why AB asks E to join the alliance: from a strategic point of view, E is crucial: if AB can lull E into the alliance, AB essentially make conquest of C/D much easier: C and D would be more difficult to coordinate their military strategy). In other words, with E as the hinge, C/D would be in a severe disadvantage in defending against A/B.

b)        Yet, after C and D are gone, E is the next target: and by then, E would have no chance of survival. A and B would have no use for E after eliminating CD: dividing E between A and B will still make the system quite stable, and E has no utility for A ad B. This logic reinforces the logic of why B---if B is a very strategic OR state---should refuse A’s overtone but encourage C/D/E to form an alliance to fight A. This is so because if E calculates correctly (B can assume E will do so), then AB alliance will simply drive the system into two alliance blocs without any conquest possible. In the end, forming an alliance with A does not do B much good: in fact, it merely adds cost to arms race. Instead, the only viable option for B to become the strongest state in the system is to let A and C/D/E fight and hence weaken each other.