Russia 's Role As A World Leader

Domestic policy differs from foreign policy, which deals with a nation’s relationship with other nations, domestic policy tends to be more visible and often more controversial. The relationship between domestic and the other nations is also commonly linked by the influence of border security, improved infrastructure, surging economy, domestic culture, political, religion, social attitudes, and many other variables. American focus on national security strategies to protect the United States, promoting economic prosperity, creating peace through strength, and gaining American influences in the world. Our relationship with other nations can vary depending on each belief or values. A basic aspect in the relation between domestic and other nations is the importance of national identity and consistent needs to protect such values. Domestic and foreign policy can be distinguished as two separate concepts in international relations, because some nations do not have a similar set of objectives. Domestic sources play their role in the forms of compromises between social structure and elements of the government. The influence of the domestic policy forms the basis of foreign strategy. The relationship between domestic and other nations are separable in the sense that global politics play a major role in the modern global society and the conduct of states in

Much of the international news right now seems to relate to the crisis situation created by the civil war in Syria. The topic is on the minds of politicians, especially regarding the Syrian refugees hoping to escape the dangers of the war. Syrian rebels are attempting to overthrow the existing government. Some of these rebels have the support of the United States while others, such as those who are connected to ISIS, do not. Russia has intervened on the side of the Syrian government. The reasoning for their intervention is perceived differently depending on the political theory followed in the explanation. The three major theories in international relations are realism, liberalism, and constructivism -- each of which will be discussed in terms of how they would explain the Russian intervention in Syria.

The foreign policy of the United States has changed drastically between eras. During the Gilded Age, America experienced isolationism. The US focused on expanding their borders locally and seizing control of Central America. With the first rise of global and total war, America transitioned to being somewhat interested in foreign affairs while still staying neutral to its own cause. However, that did not last long with America's hand forced and entered World War I as an associate to the Allied Powers. Twenty years after World War I, another World War started after Germany wanted revenge for their “unfair” treatment. America was once again forced into the war after Japan, Germanys ally, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After the end of World War II, American isolationism completely ended and the US found itself as a global superpower. With the end of the world wars came a Cold War solely focused between the US and the Soviet Union. The US got itself into unwinnable wars, attempts to overthrow communist regimes, a weapons race, and a technology race. Foreign policy shifts between Détente and escalation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end and America focused on allies and trade. The long peace ended with the September 11 attacks. These attacks launched America into a War on Terrorism, and they adopted the Bush Doctrine. Over the course of American history, foreign policy transitioned from isolationism into the “Empire of Liberty,”

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.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

In the chapter “Foreign Policy” in the book, “The Politics of Power” by Ira Katznelson, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper, describes in detail of the events leading to America’s great level of dominance. Throughout the chapter, a few key points were made. The main three points that were observed in this chapter consisted of America’s influence and global expansion, the transition into the globalization era, and environmental problems. From the beginning of the exploration era, to the globalization ear, foreign policy never escaped existence. The use of foreign policy continued into the beginning of World War II, after the war, and through present day. Between each date in history, foreign policy increasingly has played a major role in the turning tides within each event. The importance of foreign policy instructed the world into what it is today and has continued to do so. The relationship pertaining to the United States and its foreign policies have aimlessly been altered through good and bad times. At its birth, America’s international involvement began. Through time, its foreign policy has gained great interest and provided immense dominant reputation. Within the ordinance of America’s global dominance, speculation estimates that no nation truly is dominant as other problems counter true dominance. These problems consist of global warming, human rights, and ecological crisis. These problems will challenge nations in the future to answer the question: “What nation is truly

The United States gets involved in other countries even if it is not necessary. According to Mark Twain he once said that it is going against our traditions and we are entering in an unjust and trivial war. This war is against helpless people and robbery. The United States should be ashamed about the choices that we make and how we go through

The debate on American power is a complex, yet interesting argument. This essay will discuss and define power through American military and economic aspects. These are key elements that define how much power a nation holds, as military and economic superiority allows a state to intimidate, persuade, and facilitate its own agenda. Both Cox and Williams have argued the debate on US power, and therefore their work features in this essay. I will discuss both articles in depth before coming to the conclusion that American power is in decline, and has been since 1991 at the end of the Cold War.

The end of the cold war obligated the United States once again to face the old problems which weren’t based on containment of communism. Like in the aftermath of World War 2 when America’s influence in the world was expanded, the end of the Cold War did much of the same. The problem’s the Soviet Union once had of controlling and influencing smaller countries under its thumb, now were inherited by the last super power standing, which at the time was the United States. Debate began to rise on what path America should take next on foreign policy, should the U.S commit itself to small problems or hold back its fire until a greater threat emerged?

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

The Syrian Crisis began almost three years ago. Since then, the killings, the bombings and the fleeing haven’t stopped. Obama’s administration was blamed for letting

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

In addition, Russia “has been evaluated to be the second-most powerful military in the world” (O’Connor) between its Air Force, Army, and Navy.

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 present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.