South African crisis

There is a problem brewing in South African, and it has been building for a while. This disconnect that the African National Congress has with its white counterpart is frustrating. Tensions are at an all-time high, and the mainstream news outlets have yet to cover this problem at all. This has huge foreign policy implications, as well, immoral repercussions. The African National Congress has passed a motion that will expropriate lands without compensation in South Africa, this was actually tried in Zimbabwe about 18 years ago and we can see the impact it leaves. However, there are two other arguments besides economic that are important in this discussion. The first is that is a racist act, focusing specific on white farmers we can be honest and say that this is a systemic problem. White farmers in South Africa also are dealing with targeted violence as well. There were about 74 murders that occurred against farmers in April of 2016 to March of 2017. This is a statistically puzzle since that would mean that in that time period farmers were three times more likely to get murder than police officers. Also most of these murders were white farmers, and white South African Farmers are four times more likely to get murder than any other South African.

With these high murder rates and intentional systemic racism white South Africans are being pushed out of their homes literally. I am shocking surprise that nobody in the mainstream media is covering this, and I will give an example why. Cape Town’s Day Zero got more coverage in the media than this expropriation. Which I find peculiar because after it blew up in the media the people of Cape Town started rationing better and received aid from their neighboring countries. Slowly the day kept getting pushed further and further away, whereas, this expropriation has been building for a while and now is at its boiling point the media is silent.  Maybe it was that people hoped that they wouldn’t pass this motion but this would be naive since the leaders of the African National Congress have been hinting at this for a while. This expropriation will have huge foreign policy implications the first is this could lead to a humanitarian crisis. If the people refuse to leave they will be locked in prison or murder, some of these farmers have been living for five to six generations. Force would be the only approach by the government, and when governments historically do these types of actions humanitarian problems ensue.

When humanitarian problems occur migration happens. This would be my biggest concern. Europe is experiencing setbacks from Syrian migration due to the Syrian War, and even though the war is indeed more important in the sense for foreign policy and because it is an ongoing war it feels like this can be similar situation that builds upon this trend of migration. Migration can affect that region's economy enormously, more importantly this migration seems very realistic because the African National Congress is proceeding with these changes, and as I mentioned earlier that Zimbabwe tried this, and it seems like the geopolitical climate setting up a trend for white African movement. Since this movement is more than likely to occur I would like to propose a solution, this is a practical solution for where to put these people, I purpose that if this humanitarian crisis occurs that these white South Africans move to Australia, United Kingdom, or the United States.

I only put the United States on this list because Australia and the United Kingdom have taken in Migrants from the Syrian War already. However, I feel that Australia and the United Kingdom are the best fit for them because of their culture, customs, and language. The United States would work however the other states are better suited for those migrants. How this could happen is if the United Nations could help these people migrate there, and it would be easier than the Syrian’s and other Middle Eastern countries because the conflict is not a War. This means that the pathway for white South Africans will be easier because they are not coming from a War-torn area, this is not minimization just the reality of two similar problems of migration with different variables. I hope that some international coalition steps us, we don't want another Rwanda.

Israel-United States Alliance - Kevin Conne

                                        Israel-United States Alliance

A major alliance for United States in the Middle East is the alliance between the United States and Israel.  This alliance seems to be even closer with the election in the United States of Donald Trump and the takeover of Congress in the 2016 election season. However, news has surfaced that the prime minister of Israel is facing legal trouble of his own in terms of corruption and bribery. The likelihood that he will face some sort of impeachment is rather unlikely due to a multitude of reasons. The fact that he has been in power for a very long period of time and particularly in Israel is known for being somewhat of a hard line ruler. Specifically, in the past, he has shown opposition to the peace process between the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. For all of these reasons, it is quite likely that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has more or less held the position since 1996 could likely not be reelected.  If this would happen, it would provide not only a more moderate ally for United States in Israel, but also a new hope for Palestinian-Israeli peace.

If a new prime minister of Israel is elected, this would open the door for new era of political diplomacy in the United States and Israel alliance. With Israel's not only historical close ties to the United States, but also its geographical location, they can provide the United States an extremely important ally in an otherwise hostile portion of the globe. It is because of this that I feel the United States needs to keep a particularly close watch on the situation in Israel and specifically the election. If Benjamin Netanyahu is not reelected, then the United States needs to seize the opportunity to create an even closer ally with the new prime minister. I feel that since the previous regime would have been in power for almost 20 years, the United States could easily overlook the importance of keeping a strong alliance with any Israeli administration. While there might be some destabilization in the Middle East as a result of this type of transition, it could also provide the United States and the Middle East as a whole, the ability for some stabilization, as well as provide some peace in an otherwise hostile corner of the world.

If Netanyahu loses power in Israel, this could provide a key opening for a more moderate Israeli leader to emerge. This could open the door to widespread reform in Israel on a broad range of issues. Netanyahu's hard line stance on many things, including the settlements in Gaza, Israeli-Palestinian peace and a potential two state solution. Any flexibility on any of these issues by the new prime minister of Israel could promote peace and stability in an otherwise quite corrupt and violent portion of the world. As promising as an Israeli Prime Minister who would be in favor of reforming might be, the United States must not meddle or take any action to sway the election.  It would certainly discredit and threaten our alliance if the Israeli government felt like we meddled in their election. We can however be fully ready and willing to work with a new regime that could help promote reform, once the election is over. After all, the United States knows all too well what it's like to have a foreign government influence the elections of your highest office.

            Israel once played an important role for the United States and the Middle East because it was a key ally with unbelievable intelligence of the region. Their ability and willingness to share the intelligence with the United States proved invaluable to not only the United States’ national security but also to the security of the world as a whole. Netanyahu historically seemed to have a very tense relationship with certain American presidents. While most American and Israeli intelligence officers would agree that this did not interfere with Israel's intelligence sharing towards the United States, it did inevitably create a rift between the two countries. Now the United States and Israel seem to have similar hard line leaders that do seem to get along. However, they do leave some wondering if these leaders are truly looking out for the best interests of their nation and the world as a whole, or if they are simply looking at how they can use the position to benefit themselves.

T is for Trump and Tariffs

AC Christopherson

American Foreign Policy

March 6, 2018

Op Ed Week 8

T is for Trump and Tariffs

Last week President Trump announced he would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. Following this announcement via twitter many companies, countries, and politicians have chimed in either supporting or opposing the proposed tariffs. The worry now is that a trade war could occur, which I think will happen at the expense of America. I agree with Speaker Ryan and hope the President will compromise but I don’t see that happening. I think President Trump will continue to threaten or even implement certain tariffs until he gets all of what he wants out of NAFTA. Ultimately, I feel this continuance of threatening tariffs by President Trump will hurt the U.S. economy and relations that the United States has with other countries, and make them resentful or unwilling to engage in other foreign matters with us like providing aide.

The President’s tweet came after the seventh round of talks between the United States, Mexico, and Canada over the NAFTA that took place in Mexico City. The tariffs imposed would be 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum.The White House has said those tariffs would apply to imports from all countries with no exemptions. This did not settle very well domestically or internationally. The European Union, Canada and other countries have already threatened retaliation on American products and submitting cases against the United States to the World Trade Organization. Domestically, only steel and aluminum companies were happy about President Trump’s announcement. The stock markets dropped and industries that need metal to make their own products worried that their own prices would rise.

Republican party leaders have spoken out about the tariffs proposed by Trump. Speaker Ryan is, “extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan.” In regards to the tariffs and NAFTA Mitch McConnell said “We’ve benefited from it in every way, and so I think the best way to characterize where most Republican senators are right now, including myself, is genuine concern that this not escalate into something much broader.” The steel tariff could cost Ford and General Motors $1 billion a year. MillerCoors, which is the second largest brewing company in the United State tweeted back to the President saying, “...We buy as much domestic can sheet aluminum as is available, however, there simply isn’t enough supply to satisfy the demands of American beverage makers like us.” They also expressed concern for Americans saying, “American workers and American consumers will suffer as a result of this misguided tariff.”

The European Union has responded to President Trump’s potential tariffs by announcing a list of 100 U.S. goods worth $3.5 billion that would be taxed by the E.U. The European Union would only take this action if the United States did go ahead with applying the tax to European steel. Some major goods on the list are: bourbon whiskey, orange juice, jeans, t-shirts, corn and other agricultural products, steel and industrial products, cosmetics, consumer goods, motorbikes, and luxury boats. President Trump responded to this in a tweet saying,  “we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S.”

China has said given the proposed tariffs that “some friction will exist” between the U.S. and China because how much trade occurs between the two countries. China also did say that if they felt their interests weren’t being kept in mind that “necessary measures” would be taken. As for Canada, they feel the tariffs would cause disruption on both sides of border. Prime Minister Trudeau said, “he was confident we’re going to continue to be able to defend Canadian Industry”. Other countries including Brazil, Mexico, and Japan have said that they will consider some form of retaliation if the President continues on with the tariffs. Trump tweeted out that the tariffs would only “come off” of Canada and Mexico if a new and “fair” multilateral trade pact was signed.

Given the response both foreign and domestically the overall conesus isn’t a positive one in response to the tariffs the President wants to impose. President Trump could impose a 10% tariff on steel and keep the aluminum but exclude Canada and the E.U. This would still benefit American steel and aluminum producers and not hurt the economy along with large corporations and foreign countries. The odds of other countries retaliating and with tariffs of their own against the U.S. would drop significantly. However, President Trump isn’t very eager to compromise so I see a trade war breaking out affecting the economy negatively but also U.S. foreign policy due to all the countries that these tariffs could affect.  

Political Polarization in America is...Russia's fault?

Political polarization has always been prevalent in the United States, but those of us in the masses are feeling this polarization now more than ever, especially after the 2016 election. The common thought behind this is that the choices between candidates were so awful that the voting population was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. However, this does not really explain the polarization between the parties. This polarization has occurred because candidates have had to cling tighter and tighter to their respective party’s ideologies in order to win their difficult primary elections. This is turn yields candidates who represent the most extreme values of their party, something the average, moderate voter has difficulty relating with. Lately, this moderate voter has been lost in an identity crisis, unsure of which party best represents the values he or she truly stands for. Alas, not all of the voting population is facing this identity crisis today. In reality, according to what we see in the media and on social media, there exists only two camps within the voting population; the extreme left and the extreme right.

            Connecting political polarization in the United States to foreign policy might seem far-fetched or feeble, but the connection is not so distant after all. In mid-February, the Mueller special counsel indicted 13 Russian individuals in connection with interfering with the 2016 United States presidential election. This may seem insignificant to some, but to others, the situation could not be more daunting. These individuals are thought to have been a part of an organization more or less assembled indirectly by Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President. These individuals, employees of the Internet Research Agency, created thousands of false accounts on social media sites and spread extremist propaganda. This acted as a catalyst for the public’s bubbling emotions surrounding the odd and unique nature of the 2016 election, and further deepened the cleavage between Democrats and Republicans. These Russian individuals were able to expose feelings of citizens, specifically social media users, that would more or less not have surfaced otherwise, allowing significant feelings of resentment from members of one party to develop towards the other. Through the use of “Russian bots,” or falsified profiles of users, generated to seem like genuine American citizens, the Russians were able to send comments or tweets to other users that exhibited extremist views and elicited extremist responses from actual people. And the emotions felt by the real people were very real. Russia and Vladimir Putin, unable to defeat the United States on their own, were able to get American citizens to tear the country apart from within. Even worse, they used a damn bird.

            Twitter was the main weapon used that saw the most divisive turmoil from these Russian bots. This is troubling for many reasons; cybersecurity, social media access, foreign involvement in elections, etc. But most troubling is the willingness and gullibility of U.S. citizens to turn on one another so quickly. How quick are American citizens to dig into the depths of prejudices of all kind based on a comment on the internet? The whole premise behind this is so ridiculous, it sounds like an episode of South Park. Russians causing Democrats and Republicans to fight each other over fake tweets and viral Facebook photos? Come on. Americans need to take a step back from their “keyboard warrior” roles and engage in legitimate, real life interactions with other human beings, perhaps even voters. Engaging with people face to face will allow voters to develop opinions based on something much more than opinions on the internet. Democrats and Republicans are far from the days where a civil debate could occur and both sides could walk away semi-satisfied, at the very least recognizing they may have learned something from it. Connecting and networking with people in real life has become a thing of the past, and as cheesy, overplayed, and lame as this sounds, it needs to be said. We, as American citizens and voters, need to engage in face-to-face interactions with one another that are meaningful both in the information exchanged and the feelings we get from it. Allowing ourselves to get worked up over tweets and Facebook pictures that pit Democrats against Jesus is ludicrous. Step (or roll) away from the keyboard and just assume it is a Russian bot on the other side of the screen. So please, do not direct your anger at the opposing political party. As Dr. William Muck says, “Direct your anger at Vladimir Putin.”

The Problem that is Russia

      It was on March 4th that Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found collapsed on a park bench in Salisbury, England. They were taken in by the local hospital where their condition was deemed critical, as they had been exposed to a potentially toxic substance. It should be no surprise to anyone that the British government is placing the blame on Russia herself. The former Soviet Union is famously known for knocking off people who show opposition to the extremely nationalistic regime. After decades upon decades of work to make amends with Russia, this news should strike fear into the heart of America, as progress has been made since the Nixon era to wean off the use of nuclear weapons and also to reacquire an ally we lost so long ago. The question here is, will Russia's clandestine actions bring about another Cold War?
     The potential poisoning of this father-daughter duo is eerily similar to that of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former Russian spy for counter-terrorist activities was exposed to radioactive polonium and, ultimately fell prey to its toxicity. Litvinenko claimed that Russian president Vladimir Putin was responsible for his fate and I see no reason why this should be considered false. Putin is obsessed with power. It was gifted to him after Boris Yeltsin resigned in 1991 due to his excessive drinking habits and pro-democracy attitudes that were sinking the economy, and he has been expectant of the same gift every election period. Ever since the start of his era, Putin has boosted Russia's economy and proven to world leaders like former British prime minister Tony Blair that he is ever willing to improve his relationships with the United States, as well as the European Union. While the improvement of the economy has been statistically proven, I will go so far as to label the idea that Putin is open to both cooperating with the West, as well as the European Union, complete and utter hokum. This man has proven time and again through his words and actions that he is nothing short of a radical nationalist who would do anything to stay in power and protect his dear Mother Russia from the progressive forces of the West.
      During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a battle of ideologies. It was liberalism versus capitalism. Paranoia ran amok on both sides, as ideology is not something that is physically detectable. A piece of Soviet propaganda from 1954 engages this idea as the text translates to, "If you do a pointless chat, you are helping spying rat", highlighting the concept that anyone could be a spy for the enemy government. Since then, Putin has come to put a physical label on the ideology of liberalism, through various forms of propaganda that have referred to Europe as "Gayropa". This is obviously a slander towards the progressive movements toward gay rights in the West, which he feels are clearly influences of Satan. It is devastating to see a state that has made so much improvements since the abandonment of communism and human rights abuses fall back into old patterns. Despite the fact that Putin does indeed have high approval ratings, I think that there is a strong undercurrent of manipulation that is hard to detect among equally nationalistic Russian citizens who seek a stable economy and political climate.
      What does all of this mean for the United States? Well, for starters, with the evidence to suggest that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election for the purpose of getting back at Hillary Clinton for supposedly inspiring Ukraine to disrupt the Sochi Olympics (or Putin's Olympics), the implication that Putin can undermine democracy with a few false Facebook accounts is nothing short of horrifying. The broader meaning here is that Russia is forcing America's hand into having to cut ties, and in a world of NAFTA, NATO, the EU, and other various economic coalitions, the pressure to have to tread back into almost isolationist territory really is insulting to all the work that has been put into working with Russia to develop a diplomatic relationship. The poisoning especially is really crossing the line, as it means that Putin truly is power hungry and can not tolerate anyone like Sergei Skripal who communicates Russian intelligence to another nation. Granted spying is a treasonous act, however, because Putin is so paranoid, people have to resort to spying just to communicate what is actually occurring within the country just to let the world know if any human rights abuses are happening. These actions signal to the United States that, once again, there are "good guys" and "bad guys" and that they must act accordingly, which might mean, descending into nuclear warfare. There should be serious consequences for Putin's actions. He should not be able to get away with the murder of other human beings. I encourage citizens, whether American or Russian, to proceed with caution. Putin is a manipulating and conniving force and will use his minions for evil. Fact check. Do not talk with strangers over the internet regarding political matters. Be on guard and do not let evil win. There is power enough for everybody.
     
   

Racism in South Africa

Farris Ahmad 

Racism in South Africa 

Last week, the National Assembly in South Africa voted overwhelmingly to seize land owned specifically by white South Africans. According to Newsweek, the vote was spearheaded by Julius Malema, leader of the Marxist-Revolutionary Economic Freedom Party, who in 2016 suggested “he was not calling for the slaughter of white people - at least for now”. The inherently racist vote sent shockwaves throughout South Africa. The agriculture industry is faltering and international investors have lost confidence in the country’s leadership. The vote to amend the constitution, to allow the government to seize the land without compensation, comes as a result of white citizens seizing land from black land owners nearly 100 years ago. Malema claims the time for reconciliation is now over. Recently, he advocated his followers to go after a white man, in order to “cut the throat of whiteness”. Sadly, his harsh rhetoric is in stark contrast of the great Nelson Mandela, who united the country and gave hope to the entire continent because of his strong belief in reconciliation. Mandela spent years in jail fighting against apartheid, and is seen as a hero by the world for his lifelong efforts in striving to eradicate racial discrimination, only to see it return in 2018.

The amendment, led by the African National Congress, has prompted comparisons to Zimbabwe, who in 2000 attempted to amend the constitution to steal land from its white farmers without compensation. When that plan failed, allies of Mugabe marched on white owned farms and killed white farmers on 7 different occasions, according to the Human Rights Watch. They inevitably stole the farms and distributed them amongst government officials. Mugabe awarded himself with 15 stolen farms, and government officials claimed ownership of thousands of farms in total. As a result of the theft and large scale corruption, thousands farmers were displaced and unemployed. Nearly two-thirds of the farming production fell in just five years, a dramatic fall which has had long-term consequences. Zimbabwe was once hailed as the bread basket of Africa, with tremendous productivity in agriculture. Since the theft, starvation rates have skyrocketed, the government has been put on a credit freeze, and inflation has hit levels never seen before. The Zimbabwean currency eventually became so worthless that they switched to the US dollar in 2015. Finally, the resilient people of Zimbabwe ousted the inept Robert Mugabe. After unemployment hit 90%, the government is going back to correct its fatal mistake, and has agreed to compensate its farmers nearly $11 billion. Sadly, South Africa is following in their footsteps with their catastrophic vote last week.

The motion to amend will need to pass one final barrier, a review from the country’s Constitutional Review Committee. 12,000 people have signed a petition asking President Trump to allow South African farmers to migrate into the country. President Trump has an opportunity to take a stance against racism, which he failed to do during the Charlottesville protest. According to a recent BBC investigation, farm murders are at the highest level since 2010. President Trump can express his concern regarding the theft and murder of farm owners solely because of the color of their skin, by encouraging Rex Tillerson to be vocal about the issue in the upcoming days. Furthermore, he can pressure newly elected President Cyril Ramaphosa to resist Malema’s efforts. According to NBC News, preparing for his upcoming trip to Africa, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the continent’s rapid economic growth and growing population means its future is increasingly linked to America’s. If the administration truly believes this, South Africa’s economic future is a direct interest of the United States. Perhaps showing his lack of interest in the region, or a sign of incompetence, President Trump still has not named an ambassador to South Africa. If the United States wants to deviate South Africa’s government from the disastrous land grab, at minimum our President must appoint an Ambassador. Tillerson also announced half a billion dollars in aid to various countries in Africa, showing the administration is still committed to a stronger continent. Ensuring stability and prosperity in South Africa would require initiative by Tillerson on behalf of the United States.

Nelson Mandela famously said “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience oppression of one by another”. We must adhere to his wisdom and promote a free South Africa, and resist oppression and racism wherever it forms.




www.newsweek.com/thousands-sign-petition-asking-trump-allow-white-people-south-africa-migrate-826126.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tillerson-heads-africa-explaining-do-trump-n854251

The North American Free Trade War

The vast majority of President Donald Trump’s campaign was founded on the idea of American isolationism and exceptionalism. The United States was to be the sole focus of American politics from his inauguration forward. We would once again become the “great” nation that could squash any foe economically or otherwise. Focusing primarily on domestic concerns regarding the economy was what composed much of the stance President Trump took on when he began his tenure. He planned that we would only engage or cooperate with others if it was absolutely crucial to our own safety or success to do so. Now, President Trump is taking on the controversial opinion of how large a role we should allow the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to play in our global economy.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was made between the United States, Canada, and Mexico regarding continental trade. President Trump is not very fond of the deal that was first proposed during the President George H. W. Bush administration. To President Trump, he sees NAFTA as a way for Mexico and Canada to cost us money while imposing stricter restrictions onto the United States and its exports. While there have been some disputes in the past regarding what products can cross the border for sale, NAFTA has not been brought up in the news as much as other multi-national groups or deals have been in the past. During the 2016 election cycle we heard quite a bit about the Iran-Nuclear deal or about NATO. Now our neighbors to both the North and to the South are to blame for our “$800 Billion Dollar Yearly Deficit,” according to President Trump’s Twitter.

President Trump has already insulted President Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico with his threats of a border wall and calling illegal immigrants “rapists” and “criminals.” Now, we have denigrated Canada and its trade protocols as well. Like any multi-national agreement, NAFTA too has its flaws but that does not mean we should not support it, as well as continued trade with our two closest neighbors. Treaties and agreements can always be remedied as history sees fit, but the critique should lie with the agreement itself and not the other nations involved. NAFTA is not merely an economic agreement regarding what products can be shipped to and from nations; it serves as a pact that we are connected to other countries and that economies other than our own matter as well.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best economically for your country, especially when you serve as an example for the rest of the world as a financial powerhouse. Placing tariffs on steel and aluminum seems like a positive sign for economic nationalists who want evidence that President Trump is attempting to put “America first,” like promised. Sadly, these tariffs would only hurt American workers and businesses even more. Inevitably, this issue ties back into how President Trump chooses his words when speaking about other nations.

It is not in your best interests to insult the nations that physically touch you or those who are also economic powerhouses, such is the case with China. While I doubt President Nieto will ever genuinely enjoy working with President Trump in the next couple of years, our relationship with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not all lost. Choosing his words carefully has never been President Trump’s strong suit but claiming your “friends” have “taken advantage of the U.S” via NAFTA is not the smartest move.

President Trump’s announcement that he would place tariffs on steel and aluminum until a “new and fair NAFTA agreement is signed,” is not the best option for American workers. It does have the capability to scare some legislators into creating a more “fair” agreement. However, there are still many companies that function within the U.S. that could be hit pretty hard if their materials are suddenly more expensive or more difficult to obtain. Americans love the idea of all products being made right here in the United States of America. Realistically, if we were to rely solely on domestic production and materials, most of us could never afford to buy an iPhone, cars, or toys for our kids. International trade is necessary to maintain economic reliance on one another and ensure that you stay on one another’s good sides in case conflict does arise. If President Trump is not careful, we may lose valuable allies that lie directly beside us.

Thomas Semanic

3-3-18

Dr. Muck

Russia’s Nuclear Program

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/1/17066598/putin-speech-missile-nuclear-election

            On March 1st, 2018 Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia has developed new nuclear technology that can reach the United States. New nuclear weapons that can evade any missile defense system. They have unstoppable drone submarines that can be used to destroy foreign ports. Here, Putin has purposefully raised tensions against a decades-long nuclear standoff between Washington and Moscow. This threatens the relationship between Russia and the West. During his speech, he even showed an animation of these new missiles hitting Florida as if he is provoking a response from the United States. This kind of weapon moves so quickly and flies so low to the ground that it could dodge any U.S and European missile defense systems. Putin continued to call the U.S out saying that this new technology makes American missile defense “useless,” but US officials still say it needs further testing and is not yet operational. The U.S has tried to calm the situation by saying they are not surprised what Putin has said/done and assured everyone that they are fully prepared if necessary. Putin also discussed his aggravation with the U.S and NATO how the international organization has left them out. He does not want to allow anybody to contain them in any way, shape, or form. He sounds like a Soviet Union guy who is still upset about how things turned out at the end of the Cold War. Another reason the author brings up about why this announcement and belligerent language is being brought up now is that Russia’s election are coming soon. Putin wants to prove to the people that he is strong and capable of leading Russia until 2024. If Putin can continue to convince the people of Russia that the rest of the world is out to get them, he can paint himself as the savior of Russia. Though the U.S claims they are not worried, it is reported that the U.S has at least 20 nuclear weapons in Germany, but U.S officials consistently decline to confirm that. The U.S has also placed multiple missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, worrying Russia that Western powers threaten its territory.

            This situation definitely has me worried. I definitely think Putin is trying to revive Cold War affairs and poke the United States/the West in general. With the U.S defense budget skyrocketing, the threat of North Korea’s nuclear program, and the rise of China, the entire situation has me worrying about a bigger Cold War II. I think our response to Putin’s speech and the new weapons they have should be to brush this off, act not surprised if we happen to be. If we were to give this a lot of attention to this it would give off the impression that we are worried, that we are weak and would not be able to respond to a Russian attack. We want to give the impression this is no big deal, that we can stop any aggressive move Russia has to offer. At the same time we need to be more aggressive with Russia regarding economic sanctions now due to this act of aggression as well as meddling in the 2016 elections. If we and our allies can unite against them and hurt them in an economic way, they will change their habits just like they did in 1991 when the Cold War ended. If they do not have the money to support a massive defense system they will have to back down and the people will rise against Putin if they are broke. Putin is very attuned to domestic public opinion so he will be paying attention. There’s no doubt Russia will be a problem of ours for years to come but under the current administration I am not sure how diplomacy would go. For certain this administration needs to take a more aggressive approach to Russia and realize they are a threat and not our friends.