National Security Requires a Clear Acknowledgement of the Shifting of Power and Peace

The famine too was an assault on Ukraine’s rising nationalism, which threatened to remove the country from Soviet influence and thus undermine the Party as Stalin saw it. Thus, in those few months during which millions died, not only was the traditional Ukrainian village effectively destroyed, but much of Ukraine’s political and cultural elite were purged. Moreover, Russian settlers were brought in to repopulate the *devastated countryside, altering the country’s ethnic makeup. Take together, these factors severely retarded the country’s nation-building and nationalist ambitions, and it would not be until 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union that the country would achieve independence. In this paper I will describe the events which led up to the famine, the famine itself, the subsequent Russification of Ukraine, the extent of Stalin’s knowledge and intentions toward Ukraine, explanations for the famine including the role of ideology and the importance of individual personalities, outside reactions from foreign nations and journalists, and the famine’s lasting impact.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

In the chapter about the Second World War, in addition to traditional common attitude, S. Yekelchyk stresses on some conceptual problems, ignored by other researchers. He notes that with the inclusion in the 1939-1940 of Galicia, Volhynia and Bukovina to the USSR Stalinist ideologists had to review the concepts of the word “Ukraine”. Stalin's regime had to “swallow” millions of western Ukrainians with their high level of national consciousness, and for that some kind of the national identity was needed in the Soviet Ukraine to touch national feelings of people and thus unite Ukrainian East and West. And at the same time they had to bring in the united socialist consciousness of the nation to keep it in the Soviet Union... At the end of the war, nationalists in western Ukraine became independent military and propaganda force, and they had to take them into consideration. Since late 1943, Soviet authorities tried to establish control over the western regions and to ensure their

America’s role in the world is to advance the cause of a rising global middle class— free from oppression, free from want, free from fear. But after twelve years on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and after a global financial crisis and long recession that our people are still struggling to recover from it is understandable that many Americans would like to disengage from the world. Understandable, but not responsible. Because our country’s security—and our children’s prosperity—demand that we be more engaged with the world around us, not less. We do this primarily by making our nation more prosperous and secure here at home. And we do this by exercising our economic, diplomatic, military, and healing power around the world, in ways

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

One of the most vigorous debates focuses on the current status of the United States hegemony and whether or not it is in decline. This begs the question, if the United States is indeed declining in status, will it still be an influential player or not? I argue that the United States is losing its prominent position as the hegemonic leader of the world, but will still remain an influential player in global politics in the following decades to come. Its decline is an imminent result of their domestic issues, the violation of international laws and economic deficit, which have posed a grave and serious challenge for the United States. On the other hand, I propose that the United States will remain a dominant force due to its innovation,

Washington Rules emphasizes that the United States should order world politics. It is safe to say that since the Post-Cold War era; The United States is seen as the world’s superpower, and it is to a point where numerous countries expect us to protect them, and intervene in any situation that is not “right.” The US has taken a preemptive role on ordering the word and senses the need to help those who are not super powers in order to promote peace. America’s military remains unchallenged, spending around 736 billion dollars yearly. In addition, the American economy remains strong amongst the global financial system, and the United States political influence around the world remains very strong as well.

During the course of this paper we will examine whether or not U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century has either, fundamentally changed, or if the U.S. is using the same policies it has been using for centuries. First we will discover that much is new in the realm of U.S. foreign policy and lastly we will explore the aspect of globalization. Next we will examine the new approaches the U.S. has used in the 21st century to address the new issues on foreign policy and how they have greatly changed, from President Bush’s focuses on the use of unilateralism and primacy to President Obama’s separation from Bush’s policies and embracing the use of multilateralism and ‘smart’ power. Finally, while we examine a few resolute aspects of the current global stage we can then come to the conclusion that while much is new on the world stage in the 21st century, some aspects of the current foreign policies have remained the same, and will probably stay that way in the future.

President Barack Obama’s (2014) commencement address at West Point was an effort to dispel all doubt of the United States’s (US) “exceptionalism” and the belief that America was in decline. In that speech, he emphasised how America was still a global leader, in all counts militarily, economically and most importantly, on global affairs, with regards to liberal internationalist pursuits. And indeed from the end of the second world war, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been an unmatched unipolar hegemon in the world. Issues such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis have greatly affected US standing in the world (American Political Science Association, 2009). This is also further challenged by rising powers, most notably China and the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. All four countries have in recent years significantly increased their military budget (Kruger, 2011) and are currently, by International Monetary Fund (IMF) predictions, to contribute to over half of the world’s growth and predicted to overtake most developed economies by 2050, with China projected to have the world’s largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the same time (Financial Times, n.d.). This essay will look at various aspects of traditional US dominance, namely military, economic, as well as soft power in relation to other states to determine if a relative decline is evident. Additionally, US world leadership in international

Throughout the twenty-first century, the global balance of political, economic, and military power underwent several paradigm shifts. Each of these transitions defined the security policy of the United States and changed the course of America’s grand strategy for advancing its interests and defending its territory. At the beginning of the century, the United States tried to avoid being drawn into two major European military conflicts yet found itself emerging victorious and relatively composed and powerful. World War II effectively ended a multipolar world with several great powers and replaced it with a bipolar international environment with only two superpowers. For more than five decades, the United States faced only one true rival, the Soviet Union, which not only mirrored the United States in military power but also opposed it ideologically, creating a high risk of major power war. Throughout the Cold War, United States security policy had but two key

When it comes to the topic of the distribution of power in international arena, there is one state that cannot be left behind in any debate. The US has been considered as a global hegemon since the end of the Cold War, but more recently there has been no clear vision about its role in transformation of current international system. Although, other great powers tend to pick up pace in gaining strength in some dimension, the US status of the strongest superpower that dominates the global governance can be backed up with its economic and military capacity as well as its geopolitical influence.

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

The conflict between the Ukraine and Russia is the Ukraine's most long-standing and deadly crisis; since its post-Soviet independence began as a protest against the government dropping plans to forge closer trade ties with the European Union. The conflict between Russia and the Ukraine stems from more than twenty years of weak governance, the government’s inability to promote a coherent executive branch policy, an economy dominated by oligarchs and rife with corruption, heavy reliance on Russia, and distinct differences between Ukraine's population from both Eastern and Western regions in terms of linguistics, religion and ethnicity (Lucas 2009).

The invasion of Ukraine caused the interest of non-state actors, key individuals, international governmental organizations,

The stability of political, economic, and security conditions in the international environment can not be separated from the role of the superpower, particularly the United States which can now be regarded as the only superpower. Although there are some scholars who doubt the leadership and dominance of the United States in the international environment, this essay takes the position that the American hegemony impacts the international community greatly in every aspect, especially economy, political, and security. In the first part, this essay will discuss about the international order and hegemon position of the United States. Furthermore, this essay discusses the role of the United States as a hegemon