As Nicholas Burns, the US Ambassador to NATO, said recently, 'the EU's push for greater military autonomy [poses] the most significant threat to NATO's future.' Thus there is still a role for NATO in the modern world, although this role has shifted from being defensive to being offensive, as above examples have shown. The question now must be, then, whether NATO can function effectively has an organisation in the coming years. Many would say that the polarising effect of America's aggressive foreign policy under George Bush and the recent expansion or the organisation Eastwards towards Russian borders will mean that NATO will cease to have a role in the future, since it is now a body which such conflicting interests.
Russia is surrounded by multiple military bases in eastern European sector. Ukraine was the primary forward base for Soviet union during the cold war. So a hostile governent in one of it's forwards bases poses a subtle strategic threat for Russia. In order to counterweight the regime backed by west Russia may support the favourable group. Being a diverse country comprising of multi ethic population its quiet natural to have diverse opinion.
Although the S... ... middle of paper ... ...s should continue efforts to ensure the security of Georgia during their development. These efforts should not be exclusively limited to military support but through the negations of peace talks between Georgia and its neighbors. Conclusion Georgia is a strategic regional ally that is developed substantially since its independence. Georgia has attracted the attention of the international community because of its potential to set precedence in future NATO enlargements. The international community should act with caution when intervening the South Caucuses.
These liaisons tie Kissinger’s starting point (policy needs to focus on outcomes) to his thesis (the outcome needs to foster greater cooperati... ... middle of paper ... ... failures of these nations as well as their responsibility to affect resolution of this conflict by adopting smarter policy. The final liaison allows Kissinger to offer principles that should guide the handling of the crisis. His suggestions are aimed at producing an amenable outcome for all parties involved. Kissinger calls this “balanced dissatisfaction” that could slow the momentum moving everyone toward confrontation, an outcome he does not desire at all. Kissinger departs from the Perelman model at the end of his argument where he appears to suggest that confrontation with Russia is inevitable.
This help for South Korea meant that a communist nation would be weakened and therefore possibly cripple a potential ally for the Soviet Union. Also, South Korea would then respond to a call for aid if the Soviet Union ever attacked America. 2. The implications of NSC-68 for military spending by the United States and its allies. The NSC-68 stated that “budgetary considerations will need to be subordinated to the stark fact that our very independence as a nation may be at stake.” This meant that no matter how much it cost to build up our military, it would be done in order to protect our nation.
Yet, there are a variety of political components at play, and there has been tensions due to NATO's military mission, as well as Russia and China's ambivalent role in all of this. How all of these factors play out will essentially affect the peacekeeping efforts by the U.N.In examining the potential for the U.N.'s presence in the region, the political implications as well as the reasons for the war in the first place, are all important. First, an in depth look at the conflict in Kosovo is necessary in order to analyze the effects and necessity of a potential U.N.-led force.II. The Crisis in KosovoEvery war has to have a reason. For the Kosovo conflict, one reason NATO gives for initiating the conflict is to prevent another holocaust (Cotler 8).
Southeastern Ukraine was settled during the Russian empire in the late 18th century and people in this area are very closely tied... ... middle of paper ... ...d into Russia while western Ukraine remain its own sovereign state left with the task of rebuilding its government and electing a new president. This way, it could eventually be voted into the European Union. Given the current and ongoing state of turmoil in Ukraine, it is important to consider potential future leadership for the country Ukraine. Professor Fedyashin argues that Ukraine needs to be looking for the right institutions, not necessarily the right leader. The Ukrainian people are not looking to a leader to save them, as they have been largely let down after Orange Revolution.
In 1990 the newly united Germany replaced West Germany as a NATO member. "In 1955 West Germany was accepted under complicated arrangement whereby Germany would not be allowed to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons." (www.encarta.com) Over the years the endurance of NATO has led to closer ties among its members and to a growing community of interests. The treaty itself has provided a model for other collective security agreements. NATO activities are no longer small only to Europe.
Although this is a crisis we do not need to turn this into World War Three. The repercussion of war would have dire consequences for all. The U.S. should keep a close but a watchful eye over the events in Ukraine, to keep what they have been doing so far. Instead, of acting for war act for an agreement, this is still a crisis yes, but one that can still be resolved without further bloodshed. It will take much time, planning preparation and money.
An EU planning cell in now in full operation at SHAPE, NATO’s military epicenter.1 Ideas harbored and contrived from cold war rhetoric argue that cooperation between NATO and the EU will not last. Some players with in the organizations even have the attitude that the two organizations should not work together. However, in a world where military means alone will not resolve conflict and maintain peace, EU civilian capabilities working in tandem with NATO military expertise is the answer to managing crisis and perpetuating liberal democracy and content stability. Investigating this postulation will require an answer to three key questions: can these two organizations work together towards a common security defense policy? Are the goals, values and structures of each organization too fundamentally different for cooperation?