Russian Aggression Analysis

It was therefore the intention of the authors to bring about a general recession of Soviet power by gradual coercion, or in other words, by calculated diminution of Soviet military and economic capabilities. In strategic terms, the primary aim therefore was to contain Moscow penchant for world domination. This aim could only be attained by building up superior American military power and by creating an atmosphere that would severely compromise the ideological “attractiveness” of global communism. In other words, NSC 68 called for policies which would best confront the Soviet Union in the most critical and inclusive way. Nonetheless, this report, according to Professor May, was not just a foreign policy apparatus. It was more or less a compendium of strategic imperatives which sought, for all intents and purposes, the destruction of the Soviet Union and communism. Professor Cardwell agrees. The fact that NSC 69 accepted the possibility of nuclear confrontation speaks to an atmosphere of “waiting for eventualities” – a condition which the authors of the report never denied nor

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). He argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.

When one can truly understand and uncover the meaning behind these articles and how they fit into one or more of the ‘boxes’ we call paradigms and perspectives. In order to dissect and analyze the case of the Cold War, especially its origins, one must not only skim through the text and uncover main ideas, but also must also relate the readings to these paradigms and establish one’s own ideals and opinions regarding the study of international relations. Personally, I believe the articles associated with the origins of the Cold War along with Professor Katzenstein’s lecture on the topic provide strong arguments for the use of a ‘middle fish’ perspective and a ‘big fish’ paradigm: domestic politics and realism, respectively. Through George Kennan’s personal accounts, experience and analysis at both the time of the Cold War’s inception and forty-plus years later after the fall of the Soviet Union, a point is made regarding the nature of Soviet expansion as an offensive maneuver, which he believed must be contained by a defensive strategy. This point of conflicting strategies by the U.S. and (especially) the Soviet Union provides the reader with a realist argument and perspective. Also, in his second piece, which details remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations in 1994, Kennan explains that instead of whole-heartedly adopting

Between the cessation of the Second World War and the onset of the 21st Century, the United States of America and the Soviet Union were embroiled in a geopolitical standoff known as the Cold War. In this international “game” of strategic maneuvers and incidents, both nations attempted to assert their influence over other states in what was essentially an ideological clash between democracy/capitalism and communism/socialism. Although the Cold War did not involve a full-scale, direct military confrontation between both powers, this notion manifested itself in the form of proxy wars and sub-conflicts. The United States and the Soviet Union backed countries that aligned with their respective interests, and through financial, political, and

“Following World War II (1939-45), the democratic United States and the communist Soviet Union became engaged in a series of largely political and economic clashes known as the Cold War” (“Red Scare”). During this so called Cold War, the correlation between the United States’ global objectives and its foreign policy was very clear. The intentions of the United States during the Cold War were to combat the spread of communism to the best of their ability on all fronts, to be militarily superior to the Soviet Union, and to allow their country to grow without impediment. These ideals were developed both as a result of and in the midst of their political opposition to the Soviet Union. These intentions developed by the United States during the

The cold war, which lasted from approximately 1947- 1991, was a state of political and military tension between the powers of the western and the eastern bloc- as championed by the United States and the Soviet Union. During the period of the seventies through the early eighties, the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Brezhnev entered into a period of détente- the easing of hostilities and strained relations- with the United States. In comparison to Khrushchev’s policies of near brinksmanship, one can say that Brezhnev pursued a more peaceful foreign policy. During this period, hostilities between both powers began to diminish and peace long hoped for was close to being realized. However, Brezhnev’s policies were not enough to guarantee peace and in the period of 1979-85, the second phase of the cold war started. It wasn’t until the advent of the Gorbachev government in 1985 that peace talks were resumed and policies that truly ended the cold war were implemented. This paper will seek to explore the USSR’s foreign policies under Khrushchev and Gorbachev, while seeking to understand why the period of the détente did not lead to the end of the cold war. Why was the Gorbachev administration was so successful in guaranteeing peace, where the Brezhnev administration was not? To understand the answer to this question, one first has to explore the foreign

While Mr. Putin’s vanguard military apparatus was taking over Crimea, Syria’s self styled hitherto President Bashar Assad was writing a letter of congratulation for Vladimir Putin’s “wise policy” and his efforts to restore “security and stability” in Kiev after an “attempted coup” by “terrorist extremists.” What is happening in Crimea today mirrors what has happened and unceasingly happening in Syria with multiplied brutality. Russia’s military involvement in Crimea shouldn’t come as a surprise to the US or the west at large. The European Union and the United States have wanted Ukraine to tilt into their geopolitical axis, but, alike with Syria, they wanted it at a discount rate and hence now it is too late.

The Cold War was one of the most fear-inducing situations in American history. Post World War II, the superpowers of the world, namely the United States and the U.S.S.R, struggled to settle issues that arose from initiatives and responses after the war. These created the climate of tension and distrust between the two nations (Sibley 1). The United States held tightly to its liberal-capitalist beliefs while the Soviets “…professed fervent belief,” in their Marxist-Leninist ideology (Sibley 1).

The Cold War was a state of political and military conflict that tested the vigor and fortitude of a multitude of United States presidents. Throughout the Cold War, various different strategies and foreign policies were tried and tested by US presidents. However, the environment in which these policies operated in did not stay consistent. Correspondingly, the Soviet Union’s potency fluctuated consistently, meaning that during some periods the “Red Scare” was not nearly as threatening as others. The ever-changing state of affairs throughout the Cold War was spawned from a number of reasons, including both the belligerency of what was then the current Soviet administration and the acting effects of previously implemented American foreign

Fuelled by aversion and escalation of competition, the Cold War marks history’s height of political and military tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite fighting alongside in the Second World War, tensions heighted and conflicting ideologies ripped these two nations apart. The rivalry, that consumed a large portion of the twentieth century, nearly brought the world to the brink of disaster. The strenuous relationship was characterized by the overwhelming sense of mutual doubt, animosity, and lack of communication. As two nations eminently divided by ideological differences, the mutual misperception between the US and the USSR is undeniably imperative to the development of the early Cold War in regards to Soviet

In the post -World War II era, the competition of global supremacy between the superpowers of the time, United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War. Many countries in the world were pulled into this rivalry including many of the states of the Middle East. Allies against the Soviet Union received substantial quantities of United States aid and were encouraged to purchase weapons of Western means. Those who were in opposition to the United States’ power received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union. The United States were inclined to view the rivalry between them and the Soviet Union as a vie for global supremacy. The challenge of attaining democracy in the Middle East has been insufficient leadership specifically in those who shared a common border and were in proximity to the Soviet Union. The United States, in their determination to impede the threat of expansion of the borders of the Soviet Union as well as contain the spread of communion, provided economic and military assistance to keep Iran, Iraq and Turkey politically stable. Although this was the goal of the United States, they actually impeded the democracy and political stability of these countries through its persistent influence in government affairs, determining its future’s livelihood.

Tarock looks at the reasons behind the friendly relationship between Iran and Russia and its impact on central Asia and the Middle East. He argues that a harmonious relationship between Iran and Russia is mutually beneficial – for Russia, access to the Persian Gulf through Iran benefits the Russian economy because it facilitates trade and cooperation with “moderate regimes in the region who can help maintain peace and security close to Russian boundaries” alleviates threats on one front. For Iran, Russia’s “political support at both the international and regional levels at a time when the USA is attempting to isolate Iran internationally and pressing its Western allies to do likewise”, and “Russia’s sale of weapons, building nuclear power

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

The Sources of Soviet Conduct, a highly influential article written by George Keenan in 1946, states that the US must pursue afirm and consistent opposition to the Soviet Union. In Keenan's argument for this, he explores the two factors of ideology and circumstance which shaped the Soviet Union. This is used in order to explain the behaviour of the Soviet Union. Thus, the most effective method for the US to counteract this behaviour is then explained.

While the Ukraine crisis possesses every characteristic of a Cold War, it is important to stress the fact that it is far from one. The Cold War was a period of global assertion between two almost equal powers – an Eastern blockade (led by Russia and her allies) and the western blockade (led by the United States and her allies). The rest of the world was divided along these two blockades based on individual countries’ inclinations. However, none of these events is true today with regard to the Ukraine crisis (Smale, 2015). While Russia and the United States may appear to have ideological differences over the plight of the Crimea, it is important to note that Russia seems to be all alone against the rest of the world in asserting for the annexation of the Crimea (Urban, 2014). Still, President Putin and Russia have been acting as if this were a true Cold War. Besides attacking Georgia, a former member of the Soviet Union, in 2006, Putin has also established a Eurasian trade union, ostensibly to rival the European Union. Consequently, the desire by the pro-West Ukrainian government to join the EU in 2008 sparked off the current crisis and amid all this chaos, Russia is seen to have escalated the conflict as a way of re-asserting its influence as a global power once more, as well as a legitimate competitor to the West. However, the present competition is nowhere near that of the former Soviet Union and the United States and her