The Influence Of Russia In Russia?

There are many reasons why Russia was difficult to govern, such as the size and diversity of the country and many differences in opinions contributed to the resentment of the government which in turn made the country very difficult to govern.

It massive forests and frozen tundra’s have picturesque views that would astound anyone. The country has a land surface area of 6,592,735 square miles, making the largest country by land comparably to the world. Since Russia is the biggest country in the world, it has every landscape imaginable. From Lake Baikal, the biggest lake in Europe, to the Ryn desert, and the cold Siberian forests. Russia has it all when it comes to land geography. The northern part of Russia concealed with the Arctic Ocean, which is froze for the majority of the year. To the west the only way Russia has access to the Atlantic Ocean is through the Black Sea, and then through the Mediterranean Sea. Another way to access the Atlantic Ocean is through the Baltic Sea or through the Barents Sea, which is only operable in the summer, since in the winter everything over the 60-degree latitude line turns into ice. Even though Russia can access the Atlantic Ocean through the sea when you look at a map, there is two more non-geographic obstacles. The first one is that countries that are around the sea, for example, Turkey, and Denmark, which are part of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), can deny or make it hard for Russia to use those routes. NATO’s purpose is to pledge the liberty and safety of its members through military and political methods. In other words, if one NATO country takes a conflict with a non-member of NATO, then all

|After receiving a warning that Russia would not defend its Balkan ally, Serbia submits to nearly all of the humiliating demands of |

by the East Slavs who had pagan beliefs, but in the 10 th century adopted the

Russia has built a strong, but stagnating economy on several natural resources to include the refinery and export of natural gas and oil. According to the Jim Picht (2014) exportation of natural gas and oil to Eastern Europe account for 70 percent of Russia’s exports and 53 percent of the government’s revenue. Along with exporting oil to Eastern Europe, Russia also exports too many countries to include China and Belarus. Europe fueled majority by Russian supplied natural gas and oil, the dependency of Europe’s need for this natural resource is the reason Russia’s economy is so strong. In 2014, when Russia decided to invade the neighboring country of Ukraine has led Europe to begin searching for other suppliers of their natural resources. If Europe finds other countries to supply the natural resources

military expansion challenged the core interests of several other major powers and endangered the sovereign system that was then laid down by some treaties. His predatory behavior inspired nationalism in various countries. In order to resist Napoleon, they adopted a coalition strategy to jointly resist this potential overlord. Even if some big countries in the usual contradictions exist, but at this time for the future not to be controlled by Napoleon, they can do only unity and defeat Napoleon. “Austria, regarding the Balkan states as potentially a single bloc—and, as such, the equivalent of a new Great Power—worried that it might become a Slav and Greek Orthodox entity, aligned with Russia, which therefore might fundamentally shift the balance of forces in Europe in favor of France/Russia.” Not only the five major European countries, the other countries are also faced with a balance between the power of the scene was broken. So some countries will feel happy when they see some hegemonic countries to be defeated, because they may not do much to change the balance of power things, but other countries will do to bring them the corresponding benefits. It can be seen that all countries are dissatisfied with potential overlord or hegemonic countries. Because in the unbalanced conditions, the strength of the weak countries have no way to talk about the conditions, the strength of the country can do whatever they

In the 7th century, a central Asian Turkish tribe joined with the local Slavic community to create the first Bulgarian State. This state quickly fell to the Ottoman Empire, struggling to fight for independence for centuries until 1908 when autonomy was finally achieved. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) took over Bulgaria in 1949, and it wasn’t until 1990 that the country was an independent nation again. Since the fall of communism Bulgaria has been working towards democracy and a free market economy, though they are often hindered by object poverty and corruption, as this essay will further discuss later. Despite these negative aspects the country managed to join the North American Trade Association (NATO) in 2004 and the

The two countries, Russia and Ukraine, had different reactions towards the armed violence and impeachment of the Ukrainian president. Although the majority of the Ukrainians opposed Viktor’s decision to procrastinate the signing the EU-Ukraine integration agreement, all the ex-presidents accused for its interference with the affairs of Crimean. The former presidents of Ukraine, including Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma described the present crisis as Russia’s political interventions designed to interfere with the internal affairs of Ukraine and its relationship with the European Union (Hanschke 1). The people of Crimea have not been seeking for secession from Ukraine, but their interest is to have extended autonomy and rights to govern the Crimean affairs with minimum involvement of the government of Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, have dismissed the accusation and stated that it is pursuing the interest of the people of Crimea to join the Federation of Russia. Russia holds that the people of Crimea have the power to decide the future of their territory and Russia will be ready to respect their decision. Study shows that about 90

NATO lost its principle match after the crumple of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union. Be that as it may, the partnership was kept up with a specific end goal to avoid military patriotism and give the premise to European security. NATO in this manner chose to participate with its adversaries once and build up a Partnership for Peace to bring Central and Eastern European nations nearer to the Alliance. The following noteworthy advance in NATO's history was the amplification of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary on 12 March 1999. Proceeding with extension happened in 2004 and 2009.

Well, history never quite repeats itself. Furthermore clearly you might see critical contrasts between what's happening Right away and the frosty war of the past: Russia is not a full-scale superpower, there may be no Warsaw agreement alliance and the Nat doesn't bring At whatever true associates in Europe, absolutely not in the eastern European alternately national European zone even velar will be not very a dependable Russian ally. An alternate Contrast may be that Throughout the frosty war of the previous it might have been broadly accepted that those soviet alliance revealed in unrivalled customary forces, including in national Europe, What's more it might have been nato that might have been relying once atomic discouragement. Today those

Post-WW2, the Yugoslavian Communist-led government, already fought for the ‘brotherhood and unity of the peoples of Yugoslavia’3, p.17. Nevertheless, the US Reagan administration’s policies such as ‘NSDD-133’ purposefully tried to Collapse communism and were successful. The United States through foreign policy was arguably a direct cause of Yugoslavia’s desperate state where inflation soared between 80 to 160%, the unemployment rate was at 12%, federation debts were near $20 billion USD, and ethnic groups began to turn against each other3, p.17. 4, p.22-23. 2. Historian Gale Stokes elaborates, ‘Almost every ethnic group became frightened that they would be relegated to the status of a ‘minority’, who were discriminated against’ in a divided Yugoslavia3, p.84-85. Then afterwards, the Bush Administration was afraid of getting involved in fear of losing the Presidential Election3, p.156. 1. Likewise, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) among other foreign entities such as the United Nations (UN) helped the Albanians throughout the war, without understanding the effects of past Serbian discrimination. The Serbs were returning the treatment they received which was historically considered acceptable3, p.99, 117. 4, p.25-49. 5. NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign was arguably harmful to the present day with cases of civilian deaths and the Albanian KLA still persecuting Serbs4, pp.25-41. 5, p.46. Nevertheless, NATO, among other foreign influences at least ended the war through forcing Milosevic into treaty negotiations and lessening his military capabilities3, pp.323, 334-335. 2. Michael Libal, the former head of the German Foreign Ministry additionally accuses Germany, Australia, Hungary, and Denmark of ‘covertly supporting and encouraging Slovene and Croatian strivings for independence’. Historian Dusan Janjic agrees that ‘The inaction and wrong actions of the

changed their position. The Bosnian Serbs, and Milosevic – their patron “perceived that [their] relative power positions have changed” Habeeb 29) due to the recent developed. This was further reinforced by the fact that the Serbs, the reluctant players, were not left with a “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (Fisher and Ury 99). The alternative for Serbs was a continued NATO air assaults, which were detrimental as they would increase Bosnian Muslims and Croatian forces’ ability to expand their territorial gains. Holbrooke also made it clear that “If this peace initiative does not get dramatically moving in the next week or two, the consequences will be very adverse to the Serbian goals. One way or another, NATO will be heavily involved,

Russia’s reaction to the ultimatum and its counsel to Serbia reflect a commitment on their part to preventing a war. Russia, with its military preparations not fully completed until 1917, did not wish for a

First I examine how EU institutions promote linkage and leverage with the West with the newest members in Eastern Europe. In particular, I examine the role of EU policies and initiatives in promoting Western 1) linkage by guaranteeing security and 2) leverage through conflict resolution in Eastern Europe, since those are the two main issue areas that enabled Western presence and cooperation in the region. The predominant impression is that the majority of Europeans still favor defense from outside from structures like NATO; therefore, NATO is a significant source of linkage and leverage with the West in Eastern Europe.

NATO encourages Russia to resume co-operation on the broad range of issues foreseen in the Founding Act and to engage actively in the EAPC and the Partnership for Peace. NATO also emphasizes that the further development of their co-operation depends on Russia's respect for international norms and obligations.