Jack blog 1

International relations is characterized by both change and continuity, sometimes simultaneously. A fascinating illustration of this idea in current events is the predicament with Ukraine and Russia. The United States has been at odds (in varying degrees) with Russia and previously the Soviet Union, for over a century. The reasons for the animosity and distrust have varied, as well. One could make the argument that in modern international relations, negative feelings between Russia and the United States have provided continuity to the international politics of the United States and Russia.


What has changed is how that looks within the political landscape of the U.S. interest. Even with Putin as a constant for almost twenty years (with the four year exception of Medvedev) the political machines within the United States have switched up in a dramatic way. For many decades, Republican presidents have been considered “hawk” administrations, ready for war. Republicans vote for troop deployments, increased military spending, and praised the use of overwhelming force in foreign lands. During the Cold War, the Republicans were so concerned with being anti- Soviet Union, one Republican senator made it a habit of researching and attacking anyone he feared was a Communist sympathizer. Democrats would strongly oppose the spending of these exorbitant sums of tax dollars. They would make the case for the need to spend domestically and to invest in our own citizens. A palpable shift in this mindset began in the centrist Democrat Clinton administration and carried into the Obama administration, as well. Now the Biden administration, after ending a twenty year war in the Middle East, seems prepared to oppose Russia over Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO and the sovereignty of the Ukrainian border. Two thousand troops from my hometown in North Carolina were deployed to a staging area

in Europe this week. Republicans are now the ones opposing a foreign intervention. They are concerned about the southern border of the United States and arguing for it to be secured before assisting Ukraine. Many conservatives in the media are suggesting the military industrial complex is behind our possible involvement to keep Russia out of Ukraine. Certainly, the American military supported corporations, Raytheon, Northup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics donated enormous sums of money to both sides of the aisles and may have great influence. 


Currently, both Republicans and Democrats have bills to support Ukraine circulating in Congress. There is certainly a rush to get one of them passed soon. The Democratic version calls for more sanctions of Russia in addition to millions of dollars of aid. The Republican bill involves strengthening the Ukrainian Defense Act and sanctioning, more specifically, Russia’s NordStream 2 project. It also calls for about $50 million less in U.S. aid. Critics feel it does not send a strong enough message to Putin. Both Republicans and Democrats say they do not want war, but it does seem (with this recent philosophical twist) the Republicans are working harder on diplomatic solutions.  


In the end, there is a paradox. There is great change and fluctuation in influence, political philosophy, and political powers. However, both of the major U.S. political parties continue to view Russia with suspicion and concern. That seems to be the constant.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 4

                                                                        Paris climate accords The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying ...
Read more

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more