Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Business
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 21st September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

Current tension between USA and Russia in the middle east.

United States of America and Russia have a long-standing history of rivalry. The two superpowers are constantly involved in controversies on various fronts. This rivalry dates back to the great cold war, back then it was a battle for power and supremacy which resulted in loss of countless lives as collateral damage. A few years later after the end of cold was this battle for blood got converted into battle for information. Both the countries were keeping heavy tabs on each other, both of them had deployed highly trained spies into the enemy territory, their main motive was to know the latest military inventions, shift in local power, war tactics, technological advancements or any such thing which would lead to the other country thriving ahead.

As late as 1939, it seemed highly improbable that the United States and the Soviet Union would forge an alliance. U.S.-Soviet relations had soured significantly following Stalin’s decision to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August of 1939. The Soviet occupation of eastern Poland in September and the “Winter War” against Finland in December led President Franklin Roosevelt to condemn the Soviet Union publicly as a “dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world,” and to impose a “moral embargo” on the export of certain products to the Soviets. Nevertheless, in spite of intense pressure to sever relations with the Soviet Union, Roosevelt never lost sight of the fact that Nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union, posed the greatest threat to world peace. In order to defeat that threat, Roosevelt confided that he “would hold hands with the devil” if necessary.

Despite outwardly cordial relations between the two countries, American misgivings regarding Soviet international behavior grew in the late 1930s.  The August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, which paved the way for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September, followed by the Soviet invasion of Poland’s eastern provinces of Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia, caused alarm in Washington.  The Soviet attack on Finland in November 1939, followed by Stalin’s absorption of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940, further exacerbated relations.

The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, however, led to changes in American attitudes. The United States began to see the Soviet Union as an embattled country being overrun by fascist forces, and this attitude was further reinforced in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.  Under the Lend-Lease Act, the United States sent enormous quantities of war materiel to the Soviet Union, which was critical in helping the Soviets withstand the Nazi onslaught.  By the end of 1942, the Nazi advance into the Soviet Union had stalled; it was finally reversed at the epic battle of Stalingrad in 1943.  Soviet forces then began a massive counteroffensive, which eventually expelled the Nazis from Soviet territory and beyond.  This Soviet effort was aided by the cross-channel Allied landings at Normandy in June 1944.

These coordinated military actions came about as the result of intensive and prolonged diplomatic negotiations between the Allied leaders, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, who became known as the “Big Three.”  These wartime conferences, which also sought to address issues related to the postwar world, included the November 1943 Tehran Conference.  At Tehran, Stalin secured confirmation from Roosevelt and Churchill of the launching of the cross-channel invasion.  In turn, Stalin promised his allies that the Soviet Union would eventually enter the war against Japan.  In February 1945, the "Big Three" met at Yalta in the Crimea.  The Yalta Conference was the most important--and by far the most controversial--of the wartime meetings.

Recognizing the strong position that the Soviet Army held on the ground, Churchill--and an ailing Roosevelt--agreed to a number of things with Stalin.  At Yalta, they granted territorial concessions to the Soviet Union, and outlined punitive measures against Germany, including Allied occupation and the principle of reparations.  Stalin guaranteed that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan within 6 months after the end of hostilities in Europe.

While the diplomats and politicians engaged in trying to shape the postwar world, Soviet forces from the east and Allied forces from the west continued to advance on Germany.  After a fierce and costly battle, Berlin fell to Soviet forces on May 8, 1945, after Allied and Soviet troops had met on the Elbe River to shake hands and congratulate each other on a hard won impending victory.  Although the war in Europe was over, it would take several more months of hard fighting and substantial losses for Allied forces to defeat the Japanese in September 1945, including the first use of the atomic bomb.  In accordance with the Yalta agreements, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in early August 1945, just prior to Japan’s surrender in September.

The alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union during World War II developed out of necessity, and out of a shared realization that each country needed the other to defeat one of the most dangerous and destructive forces of the twentieth century.  Ideological differences were subordinated, albeit temporarily, to the common goal of defeating fascism.  As a result of this cooperation, the groundwork for a new international system was laid, out of which came the United Nations organization.  The Soviets had suffered tremendous human and material losses during the war.  Approximately 20 million people were killed, thousands of villages, towns, and cities were destroyed, and the Soviet Union’s economic infrastructure was devastated.  Despite the subsequent postwar controversies and the beginning of the Cold War, nothing can diminish the importance of the wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Following the Nazi defeat of France in June of 1940, Roosevelt grew wary of the increasing aggression of the Germans and made some diplomatic moves to improve relations with the Soviets. Beginning in July of 1940, a series of negotiations took place in Washington between Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Soviet Ambassador Constantine Oumansky. Welles refused to accede to Soviet demands that the United States recognize the changed borders of the Soviet Union after the Soviet seizure of territory in Finland, Poland, and Romania and the reincorporation of the Baltic Republics in August 1940, but the U.S. Government did lift the embargo in January 1941. Furthermore, in March of 1941, Welles warned Oumansky of a future Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Finally, during the Congressional debate concerning the passage of the Lend-Lease bill in early 1941, Roosevelt blocked attempts to exclude the Soviet Union from receiving U.S. assistance.

The most important factor in swaying the Soviets eventually to enter into an alliance with the United States was the Nazi decision to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. President Roosevelt responded by dispatching his trusted aide Harry Lloyd Hopkins to Moscow in order to assess the Soviet military situation. Although the War Department had warned the President that the Soviets would not last more than six weeks, after two one-on-one meetings with Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, Hopkins urged Roosevelt to assist the Soviets. By the end of October, the first Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union was on its way. The United States entered the war as a belligerent in late 1941 and thus began coordinating directly with the Soviets, and the British, as allies.

Several issues arose during the war that threatened the alliance. These included the Soviet refusal to aide the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944, and the decision of British and U.S. officials to exclude the Soviets from secret negotiations with German officers in March of 1945 in an effort to secure the surrender of German troops in Italy. The most important disagreement, however, was over the opening of a second front in the West. Stalin’s troops struggled to hold the Eastern front against the Nazi forces, and the Soviets began pleading for a British invasion of France immediately after the Nazi invasion in 1941. In 1942, Roosevelt unwisely promised the Soviets that the Allies would open the second front that autumn. Although Stalin only grumbled when the invasion was postponed until 1943, he exploded the following year when the invasion was postponed again until May of 1944. In retaliation, Stalin recalled his ambassadors from London and Washington and fears soon arose that the Soviets might seek a separate peace with Germany.

Furthermore, during the wartime conferences at Tehran and Yalta, Roosevelt secured political concessions from Stalin and Soviet participation in the United Nations. While President Roosevelt harbored no illusions about Soviet designs in Eastern Europe, it was his great hope that if the United States made a sincere effort to satisfy legitimate Soviet security requirements in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia, and to integrate the U.S.S.R. into the United Nations, the Soviet regime would become an international team player and moderate its authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, soon after the war, the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union began to unravel as the two nations faced complex postwar decisions.

During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together against the Axis powers. However, they had a sour relationship. The Americans were wary of Soviet communism, whereas the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate power.

After the end of the World War II the disagreements in the policies of the anti-Hitler's coalition (USSR, USA and Great Britain) deepened their distrust in each other. After 1946, In Western Europe fundamentals of socio-economic and political structure ad exemplum of " the western democracies " started to be formed. The USSR's foreign policies post-war were directed towards building a safety system for themselves in Europe and Far East boundaries.

After the victory, the influence of Soviet Union in international matters increased  which fueled the Americans’ fears of Russia planning to take over the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent America building up ammunition, interventions and defensive approach in the international talks and relations. USA brought the Containment policy which was basically formulated to contain Russia from spreading their communist policies to other countries through military and economic measures. As a part of this policy, they stationed military forces in confrontation with the Soviet Union in places such as: Greece, Iran, Germany, Turkey, Korea, and Vietnam. The United States employed the CIA to support anticommunist groups in many countries. The USA supported brutal and unfair tactics to remain in power and influence other regimes. In 1947, the Rio Pact further deepened Russia's worries as it provided that "an armed attack by any State shall be considered as an attack against all the American States and, consequently, each one of the said Contracting Parties undertakes to assist in meeting the attack." Signed in 1949, it created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

CURRENT

Over the years, the continuous shift in leadership and the increasing internal problems in both the countries has caused this tension to alleviate but not completely wipe out. Currently the US and Russia are battling out for supremacy in the middle east region.

The United States have their air and naval bases in Qatar, Bahrein, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. They have deployed over 55,000 troops and civilians, and rising contingents in the war zones of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Despite such destructive fire power being deployed by America in the feud region they are facing stiff competition from the soviets. Since Russian president Putin saved the Syrian president’s empire from collapse, He has established working relations with every major power in the middle east including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran. The kremlin has struck successive deals with Saudi to uphold international oil prices.

Turkish President Erdogan and the Russian leader have overcome the tension of fighting on opposite sides in Syria and of Turkey’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation membership, to agree on Ankara’s purchase of Russian air defense missiles and a Russian nuclear reactor. Egyptian President Fattah, like Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, has made multiple trips to Moscow, and now Egypt and Russia have signed a draft agreement giving Moscow access to Egyptian airspace and possibly bases. Moscow has agreed to sell Egypt the same advanced missile system Turkey is buying and to build Egypt’s first nuclear reactor.

Except in Syria, all of this has been achieved through diplomacy. In the space of a few years, Putin has ended decades of Russian irrelevance in the Middle East and built a stronger position than the Soviet Union enjoyed years ago. There is nothing mysterious about how he has done it. Putin understands the power of diplomacy. You can bet there are no unfilled Russian ambassadorships in countries that matter to Moscow as there are today, almost unbelievably, vacant American posts in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and of course, Iran, where we have no embassy.

Putin has been immeasurably helped by the conviction of American decline that prevails throughout the region. As much perception as it is reality, the belief took root in the early Obama years and has grown steadily since. What the president ought to notice is that no amount of military presence makes the slightest dent in it.

Yet, in order to make room for defense increases “like no one has ever seen,” Trump’s 2019 budget proposes that all nondefense discretionary spending, which is everything other than entitlements and interest on the national debt, should drop over 10 years to 1.3 percent of gross domestic product. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that would be a third of the average level of the past half century and the lowest level since the Hoover administration.

The State Department and international assistance would be slashed. Adjusted for inflation, the cuts would also amount to a 42 percent plummet from today’s spending for education, science, health, housing, nutrition assistance, which is virtually all federal programs that provide opportunity, reduce inequality, strengthen human capital and stoke innovation. These are the sources of long-term growth and national cohesion, two of the three pillars of national greatness.

We have a military designed for a global power and it has funding shortfalls that need to be fixed. On the other hand, we’re not acting like a state with global responsibilities and interests. We also continue to allow ourselves the luxury of enormous waste in the Pentagon budget by building tanks we will never need, airplanes that cannot operate in modern combat airspace, and redundant nuclear systems beyond what’s needed for deterrence. With 21st century military needs, domestic requirements and those of international leadership, and with an exploding deficit, the waste is no longer affordable.

No great nation has ever been built on military strength. The Soviet Union tried and left its people standing in line for soap and matches. No democracy as unequal and divided as we are can allow the fissures to continue to widen without mortal risk. No country that has built its well-being on alliances, trade, and leadership of an international order based on the rule of law can afford to treat its commitments with contempt or to forget that diplomacy is the primary instrument for promoting national interests. Military power is only the fallback when diplomacy fails.

Trump has plenty of company in confusing military spending with military strength and military strength with national greatness. The difference is that he wants to make the mistake on a larger scale than anyone else has imagined since at least 1945. A far lesser state, not a greater one, is at the end of the path he wants to head down.

One thing should be very clear in everybody’s mind that it’s not for what every country spends billions of dollars but Its purely for its self-defence and when two logical super powers the Russians and the Americans would be at war. The rest of the world would be automatically on its toes, that includes India, China, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Iran and sanely thinking supporting any single party to the conflict won’t be in India’s Interest so the best thing what India would and can easily do is to bring both America and Russia on the tables to talk.

Because the Russians and the Americans won’t just be fighting a simple land sea or air warfare it could lead to a catastrophic Cyber, Diplomatic, Aero-space or a possible Nuclear war.

So it’s better to understand the reality both the nations and of their capabilities as well. And they are Russia and America they both have vested economic interest in each other they understand each other very well and respects others capabilities… And off course they are not India Pakistan or China Vietnam or Iran-Saudi. To be on high due to any circumstances and take a foolish step by going to war with their nearest adversary but they prepare for war.

.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/business/2018-5-9-1525846484.php > [Accessed 04.03.21].