The Ukrainian revolution of 2014 and the Russian takeover of the Crimean Peninsula presented the US with what appeared to be unique political challenges. On closer inspection, the Ukrainian crisis is actually quite similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the opponents in opposite positions. With these two crises in mind, the paper will discuss how the ability to understand one's enemies, gain public support, and effectively utilize nuclear weapons presents a significant challenge for the US to leverage its military power to accomplish its political objectives.
In order to discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is important to go back to the roots of US involvement. According to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, it is clear that the US considered Cuba and the entire Western hemisphere inside its sphere of influence. When the US intervened in the Cuban War of Independence and declared war on Spain in 1898, the US intended to eliminate Spanish influence in the Caribbean. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris in which Spain ceded several Caribbean islands to the US and liberated Cuba. Unlike Puerto Rico, the US did not make Cuba a possession. Instead, Cuba was bound to US influence through the Platt Amendment in which Cuba was unable to incur foreign debt, negotiate treaties, nor allow foreign powers to control any portion of Cuba. Additionally, the US retained the right to intervene in Cuban affairs when US interests were in danger. In September 1906, the Platt Amendment was enforced during the Second Occupation of Cuba which lasted until February 1909.
The US continued to exert its influence over Cuba until January 1959 when Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba and Fidel Castro took control. Formal diplomatic ties were severed in Ja...
... middle of paper ...
...es attempt to gain nuclear weapons.
Throughout history, the ability to understand one's enemies, gain public support, and utilize nuclear weapons have created challenges to translate military power into political objectives. Even though the Cuban Missile Crisis is considered a success for the United States, the end state did not accomplish all of the political objectives. The missiles were removed from Cuba and Soviet influence in Cuba was damaged, but Cuba was no longer in the US sphere of influence and Castro and communism remained entrenched. It is too early to tell for the Ukrainian crisis. It is possible to gain insight by analyzing US motives and public support during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The nuclear implications to US policy due to the breach of the Budapest Memorandum will certainly have long lasting implications and is worth further research.
International politics as one may imagine includes foreign affairs. This is why the topic and focus of this paper revolves around the current event within Eastern Europe. It will focus on both Russia, Ukraine, and the world, and from it, it will be analyzed by using the resources provided within class. After all it is a International Politics course, and one of the best ways to effectively put the skills and knowledge to use is to focus on an event or current event. The paper will attempt to go over in a chronological order of the events that has happened, and what is happening currently over in Ukraine. Afterwards, an analyzed input will be implemented providing reasoning behind Russia's actions, and actions of the world, and potentially some solutions.
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
The U.S.’s relationship with Cuba has been arduous and stained with mutual suspicion and obstinateness, and the repeated U.S. interventions. The Platt agreement and Castro’s rise to power, served to introduce the years of difficulty to come, while, the embargo the U.S. placed on Cuba, enforced the harsh feelings. The two major events that caused the most problems were the Bays of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.
In 1959, Fidel Castro had become the powerful leader of Cuba. Castro was a communist and became hostile to the Unite States two years after he became Cuba’s leader (Encarta). People associated with Castro had taken ownership over United States companies and Eisenhower was forced to put in place a trade embargo. Cubans during this time had gone to the United States to escape the communist leadership that Castro was imposing on people. When Eisenhower had told the CIA to train Cuban exiles, they were planning on an invasion when Kennedy became president (Encarta).
The relationships of the United States and the Soviet Union were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. The distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box "Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War". New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc. 1992.
Frustrated by the economic domination and policing of the United States, Castro started to cut the U.S. out of the economy and find sources elsewhere, the Soviet Union. This eventually led to the end of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. Castro’s popularity grew considerably, making him a “heroic symbol of anti-imperialism.” (Charlip)
The Cold War is famous not only for its long engagement between the two super powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but also because of the heightened physical tension that nuclear power brought to the global stage. Winning the war at the cost of human annihilation was not abnormal political conversation, and from the 1940s onward, fear of global destruction became a daily concern (Granieri, 2011). The circumstances of the Cold War made it different than previous international conflicts because it was the first conflict that could potentially lead to massive, worldwide destruction. Without the dangers of nuclear power, the Cold War wouldn't have differed much from previous historical conflicts between powerful states.
The Cuban Missile Crisis exhibits the struggle for power between the two dominant powers of the time. The realist theory believes that world politics is a repetitive struggle for power and or influence. Power, in politics is largely perceived as influence and military capability. Power in mass amounts are located in objects such as nuclear missiles that have an immense influence on others. (Schmidt, 2007; Sterling-Folker & Shinko, 2007). This is clearly depicted through the actions taken by both leaders, as the simple placement of a missile had such a tremendous effect.
Castro’s involvement with the foreign and domestic politics during the early Cold War period greatly influenced the outcome of the Cuban Revolution. Without the actions taken by foreign powers like the United States and Russia, some events on the domestic front may have had very different results. It is important to understand how every nation’s foreign policies can influence more than just one other nation, and this was especially true for Cuba. It was because of these events that produced the communist Cuba that we are familiar with today.
By the early 1960’s the U.S. had cut off ties with Cuba and was engaging to overthrow the Castro regime. In 1961 the Bay of Pigs Invasion, a fumbled CIA attempt to crush the government, inflamed
With the bombings in Syria and now the dropping of the Mother Of All Bombs or M.O.A.B. in Afghanistan the Russian interference has fallen out of the public eye and they are now focuses on the new tension between the two nations. But the most common theme in the news articles this that this is a troubled time from Yankee strategic nuclear forces doing drills in Europe “The drills were conducted to train actions in the event of a conflict with another nuclear power in the European theater of operations. The Pentagon did not clarify the imaginary enemy, although the United States has only one possible enemy in the above-mentioned theater of operations - Russia”. to the bombing of other nations by The United States. “In these troubled, uncertain times, we don't need more command and control; we need better means to engage everyone's intelligence in solving challenges and crises as they arise”. For the future to be safe we need to figure out the problems that our nations face today. The people of our nation's don’t want to go to war but with the current leadership of the United States it seems that is the path we are heading
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe, that borders Russia north and northeast. Lately Ukraine has been making international headlines; the country is in complete and total turmoil or for lack of better words a crisis. What started as a request from the Ukrainian citizens for a change in government, limit the powers of the president, restore the country constitution back to its original form from 2004-2010, and get closer ties to the EU. Peaceful protesting turned in to a nightmare, when the then president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych failed to make good on his word. Instead, he made a deal with Russian president and late sought refuge in Russia. A few weeks later, he was ousted from this prompted the Ukraine revolution and the annexation of Crimea also known as the Crimean crisis. A revolution in Ukraine took place in February 2014 for a period of 5 days in Kiev the capital of Ukraine, after a series of violent events in the capital culminated with the ousting of the then-President of Ukraine. Immediately following the ousting of Yanukovych, immediate changes took place in Ukraine’s sociopolitical system. Starting with the a new interim government being installed and the constitution was restored to its original state, and plans to hold impromptu presidential elections in the months to follow. Before the revolution, Ukraine had been sunken by years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of growth economically , their currency value had dropped , and they had the inability to secure funding from public markets. Because of this, president Yanukovych wanted to establish closer relationship with the European Union (EU) and Russia in order to attract the money necessary to maintain Ukraine's standard of living without a...
The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most important events in United States history; it’s even easy to say world history because of what some possible outcomes could have been from it. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was a major Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. After the Bay of Pigs Invasion the USSR increased its support of Fidel Castro's Cuban regime, and in the summer of 1962, Nikita Khrushchev secretly decided to install ballistic missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy and the other leaders of our country were faced with a horrible dilemma where a decision had to be made. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara outlined three possible courses of action for the president: