Henry Kissinger’s March 5th op-ed in the Washington Post was an attempt to influence policy toward the ongoing Ukraine crisis. The former secretary of state and decorated academic offered poignant insights and observations of the crisis and those involved. At a time when many opinion makers and influencers are sabre rattling, calling for confrontation with Russia, Kissinger adopted an opposing view, arguing for cooperation instead. The argument he formulates is served well by techniques of argumentation introduced by Chaim Perelman. Kissinger uses facts and presumptions to support truths that form the basis of his argument. He relies on historical precedents of the US’s military failures to suggest that outcomes are the most important consideration in developing policy. Once Kissinger has this truth to form the foundation of his argument, he introduced his major claim: that the crisis is an opportunity to achieve greater cooperation between the west and Russia. This is not only his thesis, but it also establishes a loci of the preferable wherein greater cooperation between global powers is deemed more valuable than confrontation. Kissinger makes use of Perelman’s modes of emphasis to strengthen his argument. He goes over each of the involved countries’ policies to establish that all are in some way at fault for their current predicament. He gives presence to the competition between the US and Russia in the geopolitical world by juxtaposing them in paragraphs eight and nine. He also spreads out his critiques of these countries’ conduct throughout the argument, using them in his liaisons. 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. It is hard to tell why Kissinger ends his article this way because the tone seemed opposed to confrontation up to that point. Perelman’s model would have an arguer defeat the opposing viewpoint. Adopting the opposing viewpoint appears to weaken Kissinger’s argument.
...as formed certain signals and understandings that are critical to our prospects for cooperation and negotiation today (Skyrms 80-104).
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.
[2] Weaver, Matthew. "Ukraine Crisis." The Guardian. N.p., 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. .
Within this controversial topic, two authors provide their sides of the story to whom is to blame and/or responsible for the “Cold War.” Authors Arnold A. Offner and John Lewis Gaddis duck it out in this controversial situation as each individual lead the readers to believe a certain aspect by divulging certain persuading information. However, although both sides have given historical data as substance for their claim, it is nothing more than a single sided personal perception of that particular piece of information; thus, leaving much room for interpretations by the reader/s. Finding the ...
The information war between the West and Russia had intensified once again and reached levels higher than the levels of Russo-Georgia war (2008). Russian media naturally is defending its annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol as a democratic referendum and justifying the military intervention as the protection of rights of the Russian population of Crimea. The referendum was very controversial since it had an unusually high voter turnout and the Pro-Russian vote has created speculations that the referendum has been falsified by the Russian government. The Western media condemns Russia for the anne...
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
Khrushchev’s finally accepts the proposal the of removing Soviet missiles out of Cuba in exchange for United States removing its missiles from Turkey in a few months. Perhaps Khrushchev’s acquiescence can be explained by the political-bargaining model, which predicts that parties involved in a disagreement, where the states are incredibly high, would be motivated to take any necessary steps via a bargaining process to reach a resolution.
Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff be...
It is the inquisitive nature of man that is primary driving force behind the Five W’s: Who, What, When, Where and Why. Though these are all meaningful pursuits in their own right, it is the purpose of this piece to shed light on the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union’s purpose, as well as the most likely causes for its manifestation. Also in question, but not out of the scope of discussion, is whether or not non-aggression pacts truly work to preserve peace, or whether they are unintentionally one of the primary fuel sources that combust to cause war amongst the nations involved. The realist holds the key to this argument. The realist perspective sits alone as being the most concise angle from which to view the events transpired. However, without understanding a bulk of the history, a moderately concise answer cannot be delivered to the reader.
4. Zinn disputes Kissinger's statement because in Kissinger's book, he discusses how from the viewpoint of the leaders of nineteenth century Europe that everything was peaceful but he ignores the working class and those who suffered from the decisions made by these leaders. Kissinger claims that "peace" had been restored in Europe, but for the lower classes, everything was far from peaceful.
One must wonder; what was Kissinger’s motive? Being pushed by “his boss” President Nixon to prevent communism in Chile at all costs is apparent, as is his friendly relationship with Pinochet that he developed. “I want to see our relations and friendship improve,” Kissinger states in a memoir to Pinochet during his trip to Chile that was intended to speak about human rights concerns (Kornbluh 1999; page 5). But what was truly the underlining motivation that caused Kissinger to risk his job and reputation to keep Pinochet in power? Could it simply be a lack of sympathy? Or was Kissinger just overly fanatical about stopping the spread of Communism?
Richard Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, were fully aware of the reality and “waged” détente vigorously to gain advantage in the global competition with the Soviet Union. They did not acknowledge the fact, however, and could not control conflicting public reaction when the Soviet leaders desired to do the same, both by intervening in the third world and by keeping up the arms race. Blame was associated not only to the Soviet leaders but also to the policy of détente, especially in the Ford and Carter
(1993), The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Volume Four, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945 – 1991, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press · Froman, M.B. (1991) The Development of the Détente, Coming to Terms, London, Macmillan Academic and Professional LTD · Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2004) International Relations Since 1945, Oxford, Oxford University Press · www.oed.com (Oxford English Dictionary online)
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
The conflict between the Ukraine and Russia is the Ukraine's most long-standing and deadly crisis; since its post-Soviet independence began as a protest against the government dropping plans to forge closer trade ties with the European Union. The conflict between Russia and the Ukraine stems from more than twenty years of weak governance, the government’s inability to promote a coherent executive branch policy, an economy dominated by oligarchs and rife with corruption, heavy reliance on Russia, and distinct differences between Ukraine's population from both Eastern and Western regions in terms of linguistics, religion and ethnicity (Lucas 2009).