The End Of The Cold War Between The United States And Soviet Union 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.

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

‘For Marshall Planners, it (economic growth) was...the key to social harmony, to the survival of private-enterprise capitalism, and to the preservation of political democracy’ , additionally, by setting up European economies in the image of America’s capitalist, free-market economy, it became far more difficult for Communist beliefs in the state controlled market to prevail in the struggle for power that consumed many European countries. An analysis of America’s foreign policy by Nikolai Novikov, Soviet Ambassador, shows that the Soviet Union also saw the Marshall Plan as an attempt to impose America’s political views on the peoples of Europe ‘obvious indications of the US effort to establish world dominance’ . Novikov suggests that America is trying to become the leading world power ‘The foreign policy of the United States... is characterised in the post-war period by a striving for world supremacy’ , and emphasises the role of the American military to impose the policies of the White House on the world, ‘indications of the US effort to establish world dominance are also to be found in the increase in military potential in peacetime’ . This view is expressed by Soviet deputy foreign minister Andrei Vyshinsky where he states to the UN General Assembly that the Marshall Plan is an American attempt to ‘impose its will on other independent states’ . There was a strong feeling in the Soviet Union

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

In 1961 President John F Kennedy put together a doctrine, which altered from President Eisenhower’s one. It was to “Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially guerrilla warfare.” (Roskin & Berry, 2010, p. 58) It was a time when the Cold War was at its height and nuclear weapons a mass threat and source of power. This doctrine was aimed at using alternative means before opening into combat. This, in light of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it succeeded in doing.

Role of the United States during the Cold War The role of the United States during the Cold War, specifically in Korea was containment. Not so much containment as far as containment of forces but the containment from the spread of communism. The United States was leading the fight in the spread of communism and Russian influence across the globe. At home the country was experiencing fundamental changes socially, politically, and in the area of civil rights.

Throughout the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War the main problem was communism. Although the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in World War Two, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were known as enemies. The Soviet leaders bragged to other nations that communism would “scrape apart” free-enterprise systems around the world. This attitude angered the capitalists which led into the fifty year Cold War. The United States tried creating many tactics and strategies to contain the “bleeding” of communism, but during the cold war, communism spread faster then it could be restrained. The United States used the Marshall Plan , the Trueman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift to help lead people to a

The Cold War was the ideological conflict between the two superpowers of the world, the democratic United States of America and the communist Soviet Union. For over fifty years the two superpowers fought each other indirectly for power and control of the world. The Cold War started after the end of the Second World War in 1945 when the eyes of both superpowers were no longer looking at Nazi Germany, but instead at each other and the fate of the rest of the world. The Cold War began after the Second World War had ended, although tensions between the two new superpowers, United States and Soviet Union, had been lasting since 1917 with the start of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. With the start of the Second World War, tensions were put

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of its economic system the United States became more powerful than ever. Now as world hegemon, the United States continued to trump its cultural values in their quest to spread the American ways around the world. It is during this period that we adopted the grand strategy of promoting a more liberal international order. The world experienced a proliferation in international organizations as well as more open and inclusive trade

The end of the Cold War brought about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, paving the way for an unprecedented new paradigm – one characterised by the end of hostilities between the two dominant ideologies: Soviet communism and American liberal capitalism. This dominant new paradigm encouraged the homogenisation of ideas, in the form of exchanging ethos and values along former cultural, ideological and geographical divides. As such, this integration of world societies has earned the title ‘globalisation’, forcing the global community to appear so united as to warrant the metaphor of a global village. (Note: This paragraph pains me to read – I will eventually re-write it.)

Neoliberalists consider the state as the most important actor in world politics and they admit that anarchy has an effect on state’s decision making but international organization makes each state to be cooperating. Also, as increasing common interests in the state, the international organization becomes necessary. Therefore, the WTO is created by “states to serve their self-interest” (Dunne, Kurki, and Smith 98) and the necessity of “increasing interdependence in a variety of global issue” (Dunne, Kurki, and Smith 91). In addition, for neoliberalists, the WTO provides the solution to overcome barriers for international cooperation.

The framework of global political economy has evolved through a series of historical periods. For this paper, I will be comparing the overall structure and organization of the global political economy during the Bretton Woods period (1945-1975) and the Contemporary period (1975-2010). The main objective will be the United States’ projection of political power throughout these two historical periods. By comparing, the Bretton Woods period and the Contemporary period, it can be determined that the US projects its political power on the global political economy.

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal

During the 1960’s there were many radical movements that changed society. One radical movement was the cold war. During this time, the Americans and Soviets were considered the two most dominant countries in the world. There was great tension worldwide due to the fact that if a war broke out it would mean the end of the world. The soviets and Americans had nuclear weapons powerful enough to destroy the whole world. This war instilled fear to all neighboring countries around them.

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.