US Involvement In The Korean War

The United States has recognized that local threats have worldwide consequences. Recognizing our global interconnectedness was essential for any foreign policy, especially in a world where traditional borders are quickly breaking down. The Doctrine highlighted that foreign intervention does not need to rely solely on military action. Today, political and economic sanctions are a key part of American foreign policy (Bolinder 2013). The Doctrine also calls for the U.S to lead the international community in spreading peace, prosperity and democracy around the world. It has become the foundation for United States foreign policy and a guidebook for international relations in a nuclear and digital age.

I believe that the United States’ involvement in the Korean war was worth it in the end. If we had not stepped in, South Korea would have been completely taken over by North Korea. The people of North Korea today, deal with a very restricting lifestyle. None of North Korea’s citizens are allowed access to the internet and all radio and television stations, newspapers and magazines are government monitored. There are also North Korean concentration camps with around 200,000 to 250,000 prisoners in entirety, with the annual casualty rate of 25%, and the enforcement of loyalty and obedience through its Ministry of People's Security (Head). With how the war was headed, without our assistance, Korea possibly, as a whole would be living under these

In the past several years, there have been many occurrences of conflict between different nations, about their nationality and being stripped of their own birth place. The United States has a tendency to associate themselves in the center of these foreign affairs. The United States, in order to maintain good economic relations and their super power status, feels the need to always get involved and provide support for the country they believe is receiving unjust treatment. Recently, Vladmir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, took over the formerly Russian region of Crimea. The Crimean people voted in a referendum to separate from Ukraine and for Russia to annex

Russian cyber-interference in the 2016 U.S. elections as well as its aggressive posturing in Eastern Europe have proven to be a significant threat to U.S. security, both at home an abroad. HR 3364 proposes to punish Russia for its ongoing crusade in meddling in democratic processes/elections, while still maintaining support for U.S. allies around the globe. In order to combat Russian hostilities against the U.S. and its allies, U.S. foreign policy should first, place an emphasis on fiscal penalties over militaristic punishment, while still maintaining strong alliances in NATO; second, promote multilateral cooperation on past, present, and future economic sanctions; and third, balance punitive measures with positive incentives to signal to

economy on the basis that a communist view would fight against the government. When it comes to the Korean war you can see not just these principals of fear but the development of trying to stop the forcement of communist principles onto an unwilling country. One states “Our free society finds itself mortally challenged by the Soviet system… and no other has the support of of a great and growing center of military power” (American Past, 219). This expresses how the communist Soviet view was so troubling that a stopping force of this, the U.S. was key not just with helping the Korean people. The “US went to war in Korea to check spread of communism—war of choice-no vital national interest—no oil, not strategically important” (Class Notes). Gives a background as to why the Korean war came to be and demonstrates just how important it was for the U.S. to get involved. It was brutal “1.8 million North Korean soldiers were killed and 1 million South Koreans” (class notes). Shows just how willing we were to send South Koreans to kill North Koreans. It “reflecting support for transforming the military objective from containment to elimination of the enemy and unification of Korea” (American Promise, 694). The government was more keen on killing at this point and felt it the best way to stop the spread of

Summary: As of 25JUL17, the U.S. has said it is actively reviewing whether to send defensive weapons to help Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed rebels. Russia warned that anything that heightened tensions could jeopardize a solution to the conflict. This comes following a recent increase in violence over the last week where five Ukrainian soldiers were killed, and another eight were wounded in

Imagine the United States’ acrimony and fear when China and Russia ally with Canada, Mexico and Cuba. Imagine its fury when totalitarianism and socialism dominate its neighbours. How far will the United States go to ensure its national security at that point? In “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” an article wrote seven months after the Annexation of Crimea, John Mearsheimer not only analyzes the causes and effect of the crisis explains Russia’s rationale for its action. Without a doubt, the article successfully fulfilled accomplished its purpose. Mearsheimer is correct; indeed, the west is responsible for the Ukraine Crisis, thus it should adjust its foreign policies toward

Following the conclusion of World War II, the hostility between the two newly emerged superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, dominated international relations until 1991 in a period known as The Cold War. Although this was a war of ideological rivalry between communism, the ideology of the Soviet Union, and capitalism/democracy, that of the United States, was originally focused in Europe, it became global when tensions erupted in Korea between the North and South from 1950 – 1953. As the first global testing ground for the opposing ideologies of the superpowers, which had resulted in the outbreak of war due to the extent that it had been established, the involvement of the superpowers in the Korean War occurred as a ploy to consolidate

Russian Aggression is referenced over 6 times in the National Security Strategy (NSS) dated in February 2015 with similar references being made in the excerpt from Reagan Administration (March 1987) Soviet Military Power (SMP). Two documents with almost 28 years’ time difference show the continued importance that aggression by a Russian element still play in today’s environment. More importantly the method of how such aggression continues towards those states who are struggling to maintain a functioning government. Important similarities to take into account for both time periods are these conflicts are focused around failing states in areas such as the Middle East. These types of geopolitical locations continue to be the outlet where the conflicting ideals from the United States

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

One being that Germany’s economic dependence on Russia is long overstayed. “If a nation is to be constructed or preserved, however, national memories and allegiance need to be stronger.” (Nau pg. 311) I believe that if Ukraine wants the United States to aid them in this matter, they should get in a uniform and fight for their country. The Ukrainians should keep in mind that when the United States intervene it sometimes allows a political party to rise. “In 2012 the United States initiated separate discussions with the Taliban under the good offices of Arab country Qatar, creating further suspicions in Kabul that a U.S. exit will result in a return of the Taliban government.” (Nau pg. 315) Nevertheless I believe the United States should have a more diplomatic approach than just pushing back at Russia like she mentioned. We can’t just close our eyes to the atrocities that are taking place in Ukraine, but we also can’t jeopardize our own national security. I say this because I fear what would happen to the world if another cold war were to take place. “Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was responsible for the Cold War; rather, the cold war was a consequence of the security dilemma. The two countries faced one another across a power vacuum in central Europe and had to compete to fill that vacuum whether they were aggressive or not.” (Nau pg.

Ukraine made the news a lot in the past year, but for anything Ukraine discovered or made. In the past year the country has been in crisis due to the events that started off as a riot for Ukraine becoming a part of EU and leading to annexation of Crimea and war in east part of the country. Ukraine has been ruled by corrupt politicians and oligarchs and has been strongly influenced by Russia. These two countries always had close ties, because of their past as Soviets countries, they share a common language and are currently in "pre-war" status right now (McMahon, 2014). This past year has been rough with crisis and has affected areas like: social, cultural and economic. Ukrainian government has failed its purpose to protect and make improvements in the best interest of the country, and now thousands of people lost their homes and thousands have died, with hundreds being killed directly at the request of former President Victor Yanukovych, who now has escaped and currently staying in Russia with a political support from their side (Babich, 2014). The question now is; with everything that 's happening inside the country, should Russia be allowed to invade and destroy cities and squares, while the peace agreement and sanctions are attempting to stop this chaos? No, but the aid from countries like Germany and United States of America is not significant and influential enough to stop Russia from military

In response to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean region of Ukraine and ongoing military intervention in eastern Ukraine, the United States has imposed a number of economic sanctions on Russia’s financial, energy and defence sectors (The White House, 2014). The measures imposed by the United States are expected to increase Russia’s political isolation as well as increasing the economic costs to Russia (The White House, 2014). Russia is a major player in the international economy: it has the world’s ninth largest economy, is home to a population of more than 140 million, and is a major producer and exporter of natural gas and oil (Nelson, 2015). The Russian economy is predicted to contract by 3.0% in 2015, however, it is difficult to assess whether targeted U.S. sanctions on Russian individuals and entities have contributed to worsening economic conditions in Russia (Nelson, 2015).

The President of the United States is largely regarded as the most powerful political leader in the world. He is the commander in chief of the world’s most advanced military, and the leader of the largest global economy (Meacham 2008). Due to these influences, as well as other duties held to the American people, it is improper and harmful to have a president who is beholden to another sovereign entity. In exchange for aid in being elected, the Russian government could expect the new president to help them in return; a quid pro quo relationship resulting in lifted sanctions and trade deals that might not be in the best interest of the United States. Russia might also expect the president to turn a blind eye to further improprieties and conquests, similar to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, or influence global attitudes toward the Russian government. The knowledge that the president was elected with the help of the Russian government can also cause allies to question the motives of new policies and decisions, harming our global relationships. Finally, and most importantly, the trust of the people of the United States in their

For example, nearly 80% of all gas exports from Russia to Europe cross Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Russia has shut off energy supplies to Europe, which often pass by way of Ukraine. For the EU, the conflict showed that Ukraine is perhaps more strate-gically located than was thought before. The EU is also interested in stabilising the wider region which is plagued by many problems: the breakaway republic of Transnistria, the tension between Georgia and Russia, but also more di-rectly relevant issues such as organised crime, illegal migration and the environment.