Political Disagreements Between Russia And The U.s. Essay

In the period after World War II, from the late 1940’s up until the 1990’s, the United States and their allies were engaged in a “cold” war with the Soviet Union and its allies. Except for minor proxy wars between countries supported by the respective sides, no major wars were fought between the U.S. and the USSR. Nonetheless, tensions were extremely high for many years and the two superpowers constantly went back and forth trying to best the other. Likely the most well-known of these competitions was the Space Race. Battling for cosmic supremacy from the late 1950’s to 1969, the two countries traded many victories over the years and pushed each other to their technological apexes.

The United States and Russia both emerged from WW2 as superpowers. Both of these nations had vastly different ideologies regarding government and the economy. As these two nations struggled to gain increased power and influence globally it seemed almost inevitable that yet another war would ensew. Yet matters were complicated by what had originally been an American super weapon- the atomic bomb which first tests were conducted in 1945. This atomic bomb technology had been stolen by the soviets and each side now possessed enough of these deadly weapons to end the world. As such neither side could choose to directly confront one another as such as action would almost certainly bring about M.A.D. Simalutanly the waning influence of the French and British empires led to numerous liberation movements globally in which various groups fought for control of the former colonies. Such an environment fostered much concern and brought about the American policy of Containment. Containment was a policy originally devised by U.S. diplomat George F. Kennan. Kennan had long observed the soviet union and was aware of the desire of the Soviet Union to expand and become a global empire through the use of Marxist satellite states and allies. Kennan theodore established the basis of containment which involved effectively stopping the formation of new communist nations (with military force if necessary) in order to subvert soviet influence whilst simultaneously avoiding a potential nuclear war.

During the cold war, both nations built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to achieve nuclear supremacy over the other. Both the soviets and the US hoped to use nuclear weapons as leverage against each other by assuring Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.

From the years of 1941 to 1949, there was an increase in suspicion and tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a Communist country ruled by a dictator while America was a capitalist democracy that valued freedom. Their completely different beliefs and aims caused friction to form between them, which contributed to the creation of the Cold War.

The Cold War was the name given to the time period from 1945 to 1991. After World War II, tensions began between the United States and the Soviet Union. Fighting between the United States and Soviet Union did not happen directly against each other. Instead they fought with arms races, space races, and spying. Both superpowers set aside their differences to defeat Adolf Hitler, even before the war the United States distrusted the Soviet Union. The United States disliked the way the Soviet Union ran government. They believed that the Soviet Union wanted to overthrow the non-communist governments.

The objective of ‘the U.S. foreign policy’ course is to develop personal ability for applying IR theories to the U.S. foreign policy. Then, students will be able to understand the direction as well as the grounds of the U.S. foreign policy. To achieve this objective, I will discuss major the theoretical issues through the brief history of the U.S. foreign policy until the Cold War. After that, I will examine the challenges which the U.S. confronts.

The end of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Unions was a start for a new Western order. Many expected that it would be peaceful, free trade and expanding markets and cooperation among states (Hawthorn, 1999). However, some scholars might argue that neoliberalism preserved the dominance of wealthy states. A variety of different arguments have been raised taking into consideration democracy and international order. This essay will consider three different theoretical perspectives on the topic through summarising the key points and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of these perspectives. Firstly, American hegemony will be considered, secondly, civic identity of the Western political order will be discussed and finally, economic openness liberal order will be taken into account.

Classical deterrence prevented a nuclear exchange between America and the Soviet Union because both nations had well defined interests, they effectively communicated their intentions and both were willing and able to use the credible threat of mutual assured destruction. This strategy of “deterrence by punishment” made the cost of using nuclear weapons excessive in comparison to the benefit. This strategy cannot be applied successfully against today’s non-state

On May 8th, 1945, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel surrendered the German armed forces to the allies in Berlin, thus ending the war for Germany. The German people were then confronted by a situation never before experienced. All of Germany was occupied by foreign armies, their cities and infrastructure lay in ruins, and millions were homeless and starving. Following the unilateral surrender by Germany, the country was divided into four zones, governed by each of the allied powers: Britain, France, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As diplomacy between the West and the Soviet Union began to deteriorate, each zone became more self-sufficient and independent of the others. Tensions between the West and the Soviet Union also began to rise as it became apparent that the two super powers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would vie for dominance throughout the world, each seeking to spread its ideology and stop the spread of the other’s. The first real exacerbation of this conflict came when the Soviet Union blockaded the divided city of Berlin, which lay in is zone of control. The U.S.S.R. wanted to test the Western resolve to hold Berlin and maintain control. The response the U.S. chose was to keep Berlin supplied by air, through constant resupply by aircraft, a feat never before accomplished. The airlift lasted for nearly eleven months and kept the Western controlled sectors of Berlin adequately supplied, and showed the Soviet Union the U.S.’s resolve to hold out against the spread of

Nuclear deterrence was a key component of American security during the Cold War. The nuclear stockpiles accumulated by the United States and Soviet Union throughout this time period produced a situation of mutual deterrence. The catastrophic risks of a nuclear strike kept the countries from all-out war. In the aftermath of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union took steps to reduce their nuclear arsenal, first in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty (INF) then with START I (Pifer, Bush, et al, p. 8, 2010). New START, like its predecessors continues the bipartisan process of reducing U.S. and Russian strategic arms. In doing so, the Treaty presents several key benefits to U.S. national security.

Within our global political arena, many parties have varying motivations keen on improving their national repute and military ability, but it essential to the preservation of ourselves and our planet to think objectively about the consequences of uninhibited and ever-advancing military possibilities. We must learn from the past to be able to better prepare for the future. We have witnessed the pervasive harm that has come from the irresponsible use of nuclear arms. This has instilled in modern cultures worldwide a wariness about these weapons. We recognize the importance of keeping military technology in check in order to prevent another arms race and to mitigate current rivalries and instabilities within the global political arena. Treaties such as the NPT demonstrate the unanimous consensus of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and the CTBT emphasizes the stark contrast between states which have little interest in ever conducting nuclear weapons research and those which view their ability to test nuclear technologies as essential to remaining global military and political powerhouses. All states, however, regardless of their ambitions with nuclear technology, are aware of the repercussions of the proliferation and use of these weapons, and recognize the importance in continuing to regulate both peaceful

Pakistan and North Korea are the center of U.S. concern involving nuclear weapons. Pakistan, as of 2011, has 90-110 estimated nuclear weapons stockpiles (The U.S. 32). As a result, the United States has offered both military and economic aid to Pakistan, and in return, Pakistan has claimed to be a U.S. ally in the Middle East region. In recent years, the always unstable relationship has deteriorated even more. “The United States has cut both military and economic aid to Pakistan sharply in recent years, reflecting mounting frustration among a growing number of officials with the nuclear-armed country’s support for the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan,” (Ali). The United States has become too tolerant of “allies of convenience”, such as Pakistan. The U.S. should adopt a new policy in which Pakistan must agree to denounce the Taliban and rigorously fight terrorism inside their boarders. If Pakistan fails to comply, the United States should withdraw all military and economic aid. The risk in this aggressive policy includes, “worry that weapons may fall into the hands of extremists in Pakistan,” (The U.S. 34). If the United States cuts all aid to Pakistan, there is a chance the semi U.S. friendly government could collapse. This collapse would put the 90-110 nuclear weapons stockpiles at risk. Although this

Americans often think that they have a better chance of finding a common ground with aliens from outer space than with "resident aliens" from Russia. Frequently Russian immigrants feel exactly the same way about their American co-workers, classmates and even spouses. A key to gaining and sustaining a mutual respect in cross-cultural relationships is an understanding of distinctive cultural norms of people from different countries. Without going too deep into historical and psychological aspects of typical Americans’ and Russians’ behaviors and traditions, let us look at a few dissimilarities between representatives of these two cultures.

The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

In effect, due to the US political power, different sanctions against the DPRK have been promoted and actively supported by the international community . These sanctions include restrictions on arms deals, banned trade in technology, travel bans, and economic embargoes. Hence, one might think that realistic measures adopted by the North Americans have served to protect not only its current national interests, but also to neutralize potential enemies which may represent, in the long term, a threat to its hegemonic place. In summary, the US favors the realistic political approach to address security concerns due to the absence of a superior entity which can protect its national interests. Equally, the US embraces hegemonic desires which actively require its political participation and influence in the international arena.