Essay on Battlefield in the Ukraine

Vladimir Putin, who is the president of Russia, the man that is held responsible for tearing Ukraine apart into a battlefield. The eastern region of Ukraine withheld a city (Crimea), which became the headlines of all western and global war for its significant role in the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict. This was due to the city that was being fought over by the two countries. As Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin was bashed by the world for being the new modern Hitler; which Hilary Clinton had compared

The Ukraine crisis has emerged from a domestic conflict and developed into an international issue because of the Russian federation intervention. The evolution of the Ukrainian crisis demonstrated the inability of the international community to handle it in a timely manner and prevent conflict escalation and ultimate stalemate. Although Ukrainian separatists seek to follow the Crimean strategy, many Western countries are strongly opposing to the Russian annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts due

Casualties By first attacking and annexing Crimea with stealth powers and after moving into and possessing eastern parts of Ukraine, Putin was sending clear flags to his neighbors that endeavors to democratize, change, and incorporate all the more intimately with Western establishments like the European Union would not be allowed. Crimea is currently part of The Ukraine however

The ongoing conflict in the Ukraine is both unsettling and advantageous for the United States and its NATO allies. For the first time in nearly a generation Western Allies are able to see the capabilities of the Russian military, much like they’ve been watching us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Considering this is the first near peer conflict in the 21st century, and “the largest scale battles in Europe since the end of the Second World War”, Western policy makers are able to glean some information on

Strategic studies is the study of conflict and use of military, it is a subfield of security studies which is a part of one of the five core branches of study for political science, international relations. Critics of strategic studies argue that it is obsessed with war and conflict, lacks concern for ethical issues, and they consider it to be a part of the problem of starting and continuing wars rather than a part of the solution of reinforcing peace. Do the strengths of strategic studies outweigh

The first half of the twentieth century has been the most dreadful, and the most unstable of all time for the humanity. Wars, conflicts, and genocides plagued many parts of the world during that time especially in Europe which became the main battlefield for two major wars. It is certainly the worst period of human kind’s history. Millions lost their lives in what became the deadliest period of humanity. Beyond its dreadful aspect, this period showed how radical nationalism combined with deep imperial

advantages: They do not need food, they do not have to pay, they do not get tired or need to sleep, also they follow orders automatically, and they do not feel fear or anger. Also few back home would mourn if robot soldiers were destroyed on the battlefield. Advantages to

or the Iraq and Syria ISIS siege. Even there, the superpowers are indulging in their dominating game to establish themselves as the strongest countries. The game is the same, only the location has changed. The world has been transformed into a battlefield with new territories like the Internet coming into the forefront. We have what we call the Internet battles where countries try to oust each other on the global electronic level. Threats and propaganda are floated through this space just like in

Gideon Rachman suggests perceptions of America’s economic and military power in the U.S. and around the world experienced a sharp decline during the presidency of Barack Obama. After presenting evidence to support the notion of declining economic and military power of the sole super power of the last few decades, the author leaves the reader questioning whether the U.S. can adapt to a bipolar or multipolar power structure or whether the U.S. will pay to recover its’ dominance. At the outset, the

Renowned historian and classicist scholar Victor Davis Hanson’s January 11, 2012 commentary entitled “Heavy Price of Defense Spending Cuts: Nations That Choose Butter over Guns Atrophy and Die” warrants a thoughtful analysis of its merits and shortcomings by U.S. military officers entrusted with leading this nation’s youth while implementing our national strategy. Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds