A New Cold Word Order

This study will examine Gorbachev's understanding of the Glasnost policy and the role of Glasnost in Gorbachev's larger political reform program with the help of the Gorbachev Factor, by Archie Brown, and Gorbachev's Glasnost, by Joseph Gibbs.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more

Characterized by the ideological divergence of Communism and Capitalism as well as the intense economic rivalry when World War II came to an end, the political tension between the only two world’s superpowers, United States and Soviet Union, was inevitable. While both of these two nations were motivated by the ambition to expand their worldwide influence, Soviet Union carries more responsibility for instigating the Cold War and exacerbating its discord with United States. While critics argued that America initiated the war by carrying out the Marshall plan when there was no solid evidence about the threat of Communism posed on the United States, it is unassailable that Soviet’s aggression and expansionism prior to the Cold War led to America’s mindset about the nature and potential danger of Communism. The Telegram from Moscow clarified the

The collapse of the communist Soviet Union ultimately led to the end of the cold war. The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 left the United States as the sole superpower. Thus highlighting the inferiority of communism and the superiority of western capitalism. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, however, was a result of both domestic and international factors including policies established by both the US and the Soviet leaders, most importantly Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ reforms combined with the hard-line approach of Ronald Reagan. It has also been argued that the collapse of communism in eastern Europe was inevitable due to its moral bankruptcy, as well as the growing economic pressures which ultimately forced the Soviet Union to

The final conclusion of the Cold war has created dubiety in historians which they have stayed with their doubt on viewing the perspective if president Ronald Reagan actually won the Cold War. Some historians have came upon to conclude that it was Reagan’s policies help with the war.While on the other hand, historians may say that it was the actions of Gorbachev that held lead to the end of the Cold War. During 1940-1991 the Soviet Union was already facing economic problems, in which once Reagan raised the amount of money for the arms race, the Soviet union began to struggle.Not only that but, “The conflict was a geopolitical and ideological struggle, which not only involved armies and resources, but ideas and values”(Gurney pg.1).The Cold

This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the

As president Reagan said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization...open this gate... tear down this wall.” (3, Reagan)

The Cold War was easy: Capitalism vs. Communism, West vs. East, Good vs. Evil… however you wanted to define it, the dichotomy was simple to understand. When the Soviet Union officially dissolved in 1991, the New World Order was going to be a little more difficult to define, and to comprehend.

After World War 2, faith in the United States government was at an all time high. A brief, superficial, and weak understanding of the history on the aftermath of World War 2 leads the reader to understand that not only did the United States help defeat the evil Nazis, the fascist Italians, and the imperial Japanese. In the wake of World War 2, the United States of America ended up cementing itself as a world power – if not the world power, usurping the empty throne previously held by Great Britain and subsequently sharing it with the Soviet Union. Yet as is typical, there can never be two champions. There can never be two reigning super victors – one of the two powers had to lose. So began the conflict that never was, the cold war – a global chess match of attrition. Neither the USSR nor the USA would outright engage in conflicts with one another, but in the thirst and pursuit for more influence and power, they continually opposed each other through pawn states on a global scale for approximately 44 years. This type of warfare was known as ‘proxy’ warfare, and though the dates specifically for the Cold War are not known, the common dates for the war range from 1947 to 1991. With this understanding, it can also be inferred that it was not just a war for power, it was a war of ideologies.

Shortly after World War II, the world’s two most powerful nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, emerged as arch-adversaries and in doing so, they created a rivalry that casted a shadow over international affairs for decades known as the Cold War. The Soviet Union saw the United States as a ruthless, imperialist power whose goal was to destroy communism and encourage the growth of a capitalist world. In contrast, America saw the Soviets as a ruthless, imperialist, and totalitarian power whose goal was to destroy democracy and encourage a Communist revolution through expansion. Therefore, the United States’ actions toward the Soviet Union was justifiable after World War II. American diplomat George Kennan said how the Soviets were

The United States came out of World War II ready to concentrate on domestic issues, but unfortunately, the more pressing issue of the Cold War needed addressing. Democracy and communism challenged the world order and the United States and the USSR took center stage on determining the world’s economic, social and political future for the next forty-five years. Each American president handled the power differently, acted on what he thought was in the best interest of the United States, and took on the Cold War through words and actions that often translated to real war but never directly with Russia.

For more than 50 years, the cold war grabbed the attention of many of the world’s nations. This happened due to the evident rising powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Both of them wanted an upper hand on the power influence and hence half the century was spent under conflict and unsettled disputes. Later the Soviet Union broke down and divided into separate republics, giving freedom to the West. But this liberation led to uncertainties for the West’s future leadership. Many issues arose questioning whether the change will decrease the danger or will the West be able to maintain the position in world’s affairs during the millennium? Will the twenty-first century be more peaceful and have productive outcomes than the twentieth

Is peace possible in the Middle East? This question weighs heavy on the minds of many individuals and international players. Turmoil and conflict in the Middle East not only affects the people inhabiting this region, but also has global consequences. To answer this question, one must analyze the sources of conflict in the Middle East, historically, currently, and in the future. The limited amount of natural resources in this region has arguably served as the most major source of conflict in the Middle East. Other contributing factors to conflict are the leadership styles of the key players in positions of power, and religious strife. History is often the best indicator for the future. Unfortunately, the Middle East has had a history of

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.