Preventing Enemy Coalitions: How Wedge Strategies Shape Power Politics

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 155-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy W. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Break Up ◽  
Neutralize Potential

States use wedge strategies to prevent hostile alliances from forming or to disperse those that have formed. These strategies can cause power alignments that are otherwise unlikely to occur, and thus have significant consequences for international politics. How do such strategies work and what conditions promote their success? The wedge strategies that are likely to have significant effects use selective accommodation—concessions, compensations, and other inducements—to detach and neutralize potential adversaries. These kinds of strategies play important roles in the statecraft of both defensive and offensive powers. Defenders use selective accommodation to balance against a primary threat by neutralizing lesser ones that might ally with it. Expansionists use selective accommodation to prevent or break up blocking coalitions, which isolates opposing states by inducing potential balancers to buck-pass, bandwagon, or hide. Two cases—Great Britain's defensive attempts to accommodate Italy in the late 1930s and Germany's offensive efforts to accommodate the Soviet Union in 1939—help to demonstrate these arguments. By paying attention to these dynamics, international relations scholars can better understand how balancing works in specific cases, how it manifests more broadly in international politics, and why it sometimes fails in situations where it ought to work well.

Trust, but Verify

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
East West

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.

KYRGYZ - US RELATIONS AFTER 1991

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-229
Author(s):  
Kaniet Zhamilova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Relationships ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
The Relationship

This work is dedicated to learn about the Kyrgyz - US relationships after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The paper analyzed the political and economic relationships between two independent countries after 1991. This work is identified the three steps of the development of bilateral relationships, analyzed how the cooperation changes during the different president administrations and how do external and internal problems affected on it. It has also identified that the relationship between the United States and Kyrgyzstan in political and economic sphere was different as far as presidents were different. So, every president had their own ideas, provisions, strategies and priorities based on their awareness and knowledge of politics and international relations.

Derogation of Human Rights in Emergency Situations

1979 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 92-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Green
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Olympic Games ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
The Soviet Union

Since Mr. Carter became President of the United States, there bas been a revival in the use of human rights as a weapon in international politics. More and more western countries have stated that they are contemplating measuring the aid they give to members of the developing world in proportion to the extent to which the latter conform to basic humanitarian standards or improve their own record in relation to observance of human rights. In addition, there have been calls for the cancellation of visits by politicians, academics, and artistic performers; for non-participation in international athletic contests — a western adaptation of the African ban of the Montreal Olympic Games because of New Zealand’s participation while the latter’s athletes were not barred from competing in South Africa; for non-participation in technical and scientific conferences; and for the breaking of town-twinning arrangements. This attitude has been fed somewhat by reason of the activities of “Helsinki watchers,” who contend that this or that country, and particularly the Soviet Union, is not living up to its human rights obligations as embodied in the Helsinki Agreement.

Soviet reform and the end of the Cold War: explaining large-scale historical change

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Deudney ◽  
G. John Ikenberry
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Collapse Of Communism ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Theoretical Issues

IntroductionAfter years of retirement in the academy, macro’historical commentary on contemporary events has returned to fashion. Radical domestic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and new patterns ofEast’West relations-in short, the collapse of communism and the end othe Cold War’mark the end of an era and present an invitation to international theorizing.1 Few would deny that these changes are momentous, but there is little consensus concerning their origins, trajectory, and implications. Explaining these events will necessitate a reweighing of fundamental theoretical issues. Thesize and speed of these changes were largely unexpected,reminding us how primitive our theories really are and encouraging us to broaden our theoretical perspective. To capture these events, theorists must reach across the disciplinary divides of Sovietology, international relations theory political economy, and political sociology.

FORMATION OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ARISING IN THE COURSE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 221-225
Author(s):  
Поляков ◽  
Aleksandr Polyakov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Public Organizations ◽  
Joint Activities ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Break Up

The article considers the issues of interaction between public organizations and municipal authorities after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The author presents the analysis of some enactments regulating the work of public organizations and their relationships. Current problems in organizing joint activities of the presented structures are shown.

The Soviet Union and World Peace

1946 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-474
Author(s):  
N. S. Timasheff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Post War

On the two victory days, military action on the fronts stopped. But peace did not return, nor does anyone know when it will. Peace is not simply absence of military .ction. It is a state of international relations corresponding to “periods of normalcy” in the internal affairs of a nation. Peace exists, when these relations are dominated by good will, mutual understanding and friendly cooperation.The post-war world longs for peace. But there is no peace because, among the sovereign states, there is one which acts against peace. This is the Soviet Union. Is it, however, certain that the foreign policy of the Soviets is aggressive? Is it not true that, in Moscow, aggressiveness is ascribed to the United States and to the alleged Western bloc headed by it?In March, 1946, Professor E. Tarle, an authoritative spokesman of the Soviet government, placed in opposition “the old imperialistic concept of international relations” practiced by London and Washington and “the Soviet conception which is based on respect for the rights of the peoples and their real independence.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document