Russia and the United States Relationship in History Research Paper

Introduction

Within the past few years, Russia and the United States have been entangled in a new form of conflict that could have new political, security, and economic implications for the world. Just like the infamous Cold War, some specific events and occurrences are notable that explain why a similar conflict is becoming a reality. This discussion gives a detailed analysis of the available evidence, the similarities, and trends that support the nature of the ongoing ideological and political upheaval between the two countries.

Alternative Hypotheses

Two hypotheses will guide this study by providing an overview of the intended findings. The first hypothesis is that the contemporary relationship between the United States and Russia presents a new Cold War. The alternative hypothesis is that the facts and issues on the ground do not qualify the relationship between Russia and the United States as a new Cold War.

Background Information

Historians agree that the end of the infamous Second World War led to one of the worst rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. To worsen the situation, the two superpowers emerging from the global conflict were able to attract different partners and allies. Consequently, a political, propagandist, and economic turmoil emerged that brought the two rivals close to wars. To achieve their ambitions, these nations engaged in dynamic pursuits with the aim of emerging victorious. Some of the key areas of focus included proliferation of military equipment, advancement in the fields of science, space exploration, and technology. This upheaval emerged after the U.S. and its allies realized that the Soviet Union had succeeded in installing several governments in Eastern Europe that would help support the economic model of communism.¹ With the Soviets convinced that there was a need to have to control over the region and spread communism, the Americans chose to be on the frontline to install capitalism and prevent the spread of the Soviet ideology.

Some of the subsequent developments emerging from the Cold War included the blockade recorded in West Berlin and the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). By 1949, the Soviet had already experimented with and denoted their first atomic bomb. This development would shift the playing ground and make the Soviet a force to reckon with at the international level. The subsequent events recorded during the Cold War revealed that these two rivals were unwilling to be involved in any form of military or atomic contest, such as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union would also begin a journey of revolutionizing and improving its military forces.² Fortunately, these countries would never engage in any meaningful confrontation throughout the period. During the same era, new countries would emerge and showcase their military and scientific prowess, such as China and North Korea. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the German Berlin wall would bring the Cold War to an end.

Despite the nature of these developments, new events have been recorded in the recent past that exposes a complicated relationship between the United States and Russia. These two countries continue to maintain their influences at both the regional and international levels. The governments of the two countries have also succeeded in sustaining their hegemonies. Additionally, new wrangles and conflicts have emerged that could guide analysts and theorists to declare that a new type of Cold War has become a reality.³ These realities explain why there is a need for global partners to reconsider this complicated relationship and identify new strategies to intervene.

Evidence

The past two decades have presented unique facts and developments that show conclusively that the west led by the United States is at loggerheads with the United States in a number of fronts. The first outstanding evidence is that the current president of Russia, Vladmir Putin, has been keen to engage in actions and support a wide range of decisions that have left the people of his country questioning the validity of Russia-western relationships. Specifically, the Kremlin has been engaging in actions that have helped establish the United States as an enemy.⁴ The leaders in the country have succeeded in distracting Russians in such are way that they identify the U.S. as a major threat. In such a scenario, these people have continued to support the president’s agenda, including extending his presidential term limits.

While pursuing such an agenda, Russia has been keen to play Adolf Hitler’s card whereby he has been trying to convince the people that the end of the Cold War only painted Russians as bad people. The government is encouraging Russians to start a new journey of viewing Americans as hypocritical and bad. During the same time, the U.S. considered a new world order whereby it was not the only superpower. In such a scenario, it encouraged other nations to take a center-stage and be involved in international affairs, such as the United Kingdom. With every American president considering some of the best ways to befriend Russia, the country has been keen to invade new territories, actions that have been viewed by many as efforts to convince the world that Russia is indeed pushing for a Cold War-like era. Some of the recent developments that show conclusively that the country has been opposed to the global peace pushed by the U.S. include the subsequent invasion of Ukraine and subsequent annexation of Crimea.⁵ Following such decisions, different forces in the West responded with immediate sanctions against the Russian government while offering military and financial aid to the government of Ukraine. Such a move was intended to support and ensure that the Ukrainians were in a position to deal with the Russian threat. These developments could reveal that the Russian and American governments were entangled in a new kind of conflict that echoes the realities of the infamous Cold War. For instance, the stalemate arising from the Cuban missile crisis could form the basis for learning more about Ukraine crisis and the involvement of these two nations.

The second supporting evidence for the first hypothesis revolves around the issue of internal politics and elections in the United States. From a theoretical perspective, countries should manage and pursue their political affairs internally without any form of external influence. Using this kind of knowledge, it would be notable that the case for the past two elections in the United States has been quite the opposite. A strained relationship has emerged between the U.S. and Russia.⁶ Many professionals and experts believe strongly that Moscow interfered with the presidential election of 2016. Some sceptics were also keen to indicate that the Russian government had the potential to interfere with the 2020 elections. These scenarios present a toxic situation that has never been recorded between these two countries even during the time of the Cold War.

These problems are being recorded at a time when the global society expects the United States to have the highest level of security. Reports indicate that Moscow interfered with internal elections tries to expose some of the threats that more Americans might continue to encounter in this era of cyber insecurity and crime.⁷ Without proper security mechanisms, chances are high that the current nature of relationship between the countries might remain strained. The events leading to the removal of President Donald Trump and the chaos surrounding the 2020 presidential elections mean that any form of political interference in elections could affect the quality of results recorded. These issues explain why the United States continues to identify Russia as a major threat and a rival whose actions should not be taken lightly.

The third unique evidence that can support the hypothesis that a new cold war situation has emerged between these two nations is that Russia has become a stronger and politically centralized state that is promoting authoritarian tendencies. Specifically, the leaders in Russia are keen to take the country back to its role as a global player.⁸ The main goal has been to ensure that the nation is capable of competing for global attention and influence. In such a scenario, Russia will be able to intervene in a wide range of global initiatives and goals. The unique issue that stands out is that the country is keen to thwart the goals and interests of the United States. At the same time, the U.S. would be unwilling to support such a trend and do anything in its capacity to prevent Russia’s rise to economic and political power at the global level.

Following Putin’s return to presidential power in 2012, Russia has been keen to engage in actions and initiatives that have been observed to be against America’s interests. For instance, Putin was accused of providing asylum to one of the NSA contractors who had stolen confidential information. Additionally, Russia would provide asylum to Viktor Yanukovych after several months of political unrest in Ukraine. As a way of retaliation, the U.S. would support the country to get a pro-western president. Soon, the Russian government would go a step further to occupy and take control of Crimea. This region had remained in the hands of Ukraine since the year 1954.⁹ Within a few months, Russian troops would continue the conquest after which they succeeded to occupy additional regions in different parts of Ukraine.

Following these developments, the American government would go a step further to impose a series of financial and economic sanctions, some of which affected Putin directly. In 2015, Russia would consider the move to join the crisis in Syria and supported the region’s leader by the name Bashar al-Assad. Such a decision was observed to be a move against the wishes of the Americans. These events would trigger additional conflicts between the two nations.¹⁰ To make things worse, Russia has been on the frontline to consider some of the gaps and areas whereby it can undermine America’s operations while at the same time pursuing its political and economic ambitions. These trends and developments show conclusively that a cold war might have taken shape between these two nations. These facts are more or less the same as the issues recorded during the post-war Cold War period. This is true since the countries have been keen to expand their military forces and economic strengths. Russia has been focusing on these efforts to strength its dominance in the region and be prepared for possible conflicts in the future. While some differences are evident, the agreeable fact is that the nations are pursuing their goals in accordance with the changing political dynamics and environments at the global level.

Finally, the realism theory of international relations has presented a unique development whereby Russia is keen to pursue its national and hegemonic goals. In the East, China has emerged as a superior country whose foreign policies and initiatives are competing with those of the United States. At the same time, China and Russia have developed a strong relationship that is presently posing a significant threat to the U.S. From the emerging trends, it is agreeable that Washington can only do very little to prevent these two countries from pursuing their common ambitions.¹¹ In fact, the U.S. has been engaging in various rivalries and conflicts with China that will continue to push it closer to Russia. Most of the sanctions against the government of Russia have resulted in a scenario whereby China remains involved to support its social, political, and economic ambitions.

Experts in international relations strongly believe that most of the sanctions the west has been imposing on Russia have played a significant role in destroying its economy. However, the subsequent outcomes have not compelled Russia to moderate or get rid of its actions against Ukraine. Additionally, it has continued to engage in numerous initiatives that amount to cyber intimidation against the United States. As a form of retaliation, Russia decided to control gas supplies to Germany. The end result is that the initiative has affected the economic outputs and experiences of most of U.S. allies. Most of the measures the U.S. and other western nations have been imposing on Russia have not helped improve the situation. The reality is that this nation is far from rethinking or adjusting its policies. Additionally, the Russian government has been engaging in actions that are intended to avenge the United States’ failure to honor the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion.¹² On the other hand, some sceptics go further to indicate that Russia is utilizing the idea as a pretext for its adventurism.¹³

For the U.S., it is agreeable that sanctions remain ineffective in compelling Russia to adjust its behavior. The initiatives have presented numerous challenges and predicaments that might have far-reaching consequences of the existing relationships between the two countries. It is evident that the leaders of the two countries have acquired numerous ideas and strategies for controlling and driving international politics. The government of Russia under the leadership of Putin is keen to support the establishment of a new world without much influence of the West.¹⁴ The initiatives are intended to support Russia and make it a dominant superpower. The possible outcome, according to Putin’s leadership, is that the U.S. will only remain a player that might not have much influence at the international scene.¹⁵ The Russia strategy is necessary since it is intended to compel the U.S. to accept its new position as a collaborator rather than a source of influence in international politics and economics.

These facts should, therefore, warn more leaders at the international level to accept the fact that Russia is engaging the U.S. in a strained relationship that is similar to the infamous Cold War of the post-World War II era. The country’s foreign policies, partnerships, and economic strategies are designed in such a way that the citizens are able to be part of the process. Additionally, the country’s top leadership has been ready to reiterate with unprecedented strategies that might trigger a possible regional war or upheaval.¹⁶ At the same time, most of the countries remain cautious because any war outbreak could have disastrous implications for global economy, peace, and unity.¹⁷ This kind of understanding is critical since it will guide more countries to appreciate the reality on the ground and consider evidence-based approaches to manoeuvre and address some of the challenges that might emerge should the current situation escalate and become a full blown international conflict.¹⁸

Conclusion

The history of the Cold War presents a number of problems and unrests that emerged from the ideological and political differences between the U.S. and Russia. Despite such issues, the available evidence supports the argument that these two countries are experiencing a strained relationship that could be described as a Cold War. The above discussion has indicated that Vladmir Putin has been keen to make decisions that are intended to make the country a superpower. Many professionals and experts also acknowledge that Moscow interfered with the presidential election of 2016. On top of these developments, Russia has become a stronger and politically centralized state that is promoting authoritarian tendencies. From the completed analysis, the realism theory of international relations becomes a powerful model for describing the current trends, identification of different allies, and developments recorded between these two countries.

Bibliography

Charap, Samuel, and Jeremy Shapiro. “US-Russian Relations: The Middle Cannot Hold.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72, no. 3 (2016): 150-155.

Fisher, Aleksandr. “A New Cold War? International Public Opinion of Russia and the United States.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 32, no. 1 (2020): 143-152.

Graham, Thomas, Menon Rajan, and Jack Snyder. “Ukraine between Russia and the West: Buffer or Flashpoint?” World Policy Journal 34, no. 1 (2017): 107-118.

Hove, Mediel. “The Emergence of the New Cold War: The Syrian and Ukraine Conflicts.” Jadavpur Journal of International Relations 20, no. 2 (2016):135-156.

Karaganov, Sergey. “The New Cold War and the Emerging Greater Eurasia.” Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9, no. 1 (2018): 85-93.

Mccourt, David M., and Andrew Glencross. “Great Expectations: The EU’s Social Role as a Great Power Manager.” New Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2019): 17-42.

Monteiro, Nuno P. “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful.” International Security 36, no. 3 (2011): 9-40.

Paul, T. V. Accommodating Rising Powers: Past, Present, and Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Shifrinson, Joshua R. “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion.” International Security 40, no. 4 (2016): 7-44.

Simons, Greg, and Marina A. Kukartseva. “New Cold War and the Crisis of the Liberal Global Order.” Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law 12, no. 3 (2019): 61-77.

Footnotes

1. Greg Simons and Marina A. Kukartseva, “New Cold War and the Crisis of the Liberal Global Order,” Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law 12, no. 3 (2019): 61-77.
2. Sergey Karaganov, “The New Cold War and the Emerging Greater Eurasia,” Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9, no. 1 (2018): 89.
3. Mediel Hove, “The Emergence of the New Cold War: The Syrian and Ukraine Conflicts,” Jadavpur Journal of International Relations 20, no. 2 (2016):139.
4. Hove, “The Emergence,” 140.
5. Aleksandr Fisher, “A New Cold War? International Public Opinion of Russia and the United States,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 32, no. 1 (2020): 148.
6. Fisher, “A New Cold War?,” 150.
7. Ibid., 151.
8. Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro, “US-Russian Relations: The Middle Cannot Hold,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72, no. 3 (2016): 152.
9. Fisher, “A New Cold War?,” 150.
10. Ibid., 151.
11. Ibid., 152.
12. Joshua R. Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security 40, no. 4 (2016): 7.
13. Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal,” 7.
14. Hove, “The Emergence,” 141.
15. David M. Mccourt and Andrew Glencross, “Great Expectations: The EU’s Social Role as a Great Power Manager,” New Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2019): 19.
16. Nuno P. Monteiro, “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful,” International Security 36, no. 3 (2011): 9.
17. Ibid., 152.
18. T. V. Paul, Accommodating Rising Powers: Past, Present, and Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 24.