Print Сite this

Comparative Political Science

Among the all countries on the Earth the United States of America is considered to be a unique phenomenon as a country. Founded on a new land by almost hopeless people whose only desire was a total freedom, this state became a huge machine that tends to be the giant in all spheres and in all senses.

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

The United States is the lone superpower and de facto leader on a globe divided by levels of development, trust in globalization, and great power rivalries. With this status comes unparalleled opportunity to shape world affaires and enormous responsibility to temper unilateral policies in order not to drive rival powers into opposition alliances or reckless acts, in a world endangered by weapons of mass destructions (Rabel, 2002).

The twentieth century can be considered as American century as well as the eighteenth century is classified as a French century or the nineteenth century as the British one. During the last one hundred years this state made a big step forward to promoting the globalization. In this way the rate of globalization might have created a favorable background for the political and economic changes in Eastern Europe.

This question as well as lot of other important was considered on the agenda of 2008 NATO Leaders Meeting in Bucharest. It goes beyond speech that the prosperity of the whole world depends on the common efforts and close cooperation of countries leaders of which are concerned not only about people living during their governing but about future generations as well. That’s why such organization as NATO was found to cope with the most burning problems together.

As mass media resourses (Myers, Shanker 2008) inform us, during Mr. Bush’s presidency, NATO has added seven new members — Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — bringing the number of allies to 26. During the 2008 NATO Leaders Meeting in Bucharest three countries became members of this union: Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. Except those nations the other most impacted by NATO countries were Georgia and Ukraine. It became obvious that since the times of the Cold War the United States’ policy is directed to smooth the relationships with the former members of Soviet Union. The former rivals now become allies.

But there were certain prerequisites that provoked a divergent understanding of outcome of the 2008 NATO Leaders Meeting in Bucharest. First of all, the perspective of Ukrainian membership caused the strong opposition from some countries, the allies of the United States of America. The fear of Germany provoked the fear of Russia. The Russia’s president Vladimir V. Putin expressed reservations of NATO’s rights to install missile defense systems on Ukraine’s territory and the Black sea water area. From the history we know that, as the Cold War unfolded, the United States and the USSR built up their nuclear, conventional, and other forces. Washington sought a military posture that would deter the USSR and other rivals from attacking the United States or its allies. Washington and its NATO allies wanted conventional forces, buttressed with tactical nuclear weapons, able to stop a Soviet invasion (Clemens, 2000). No wonder that after such sad experience the reaction from Russia couldn’t be another.

Such course of events could impair not only relationship between Russia and America but between Russia and Ukraine which would bring unfavorable terms for the foreign-policy development.

Get your
100% original paper
on any topic

done in as little as
3 hours
Learn More

Defense Secretary Robert M.Gates warned that NATO could become a two-tiered alliance with “some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not” (Myers, Shanker 2008). This declaration caused some misunderstanding. From the one hand, one of the most important principles of United States’ policy is disarmament. (This is a straightforward proposition, including prewar and war times. This idea implies that the nation’s wealth shouldn’t be based on the arms buildup but must be devoted to the future independence among all nations). From the other hand, on the meeting there were announced about USA intentions to appeal to allies to contribute more troops to fight with the rising violence in Afghanistan. It seemed the promoted domestic well-being can be reached only through the war.

According to the Study, countries seeking NATO membership would have to be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled certain requirements. These include:

  • a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
  • the fair treatment of minority populations;
  • a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
  • the ability and willingness to make a military contribution NATO operations; and
  • a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.

In conclusion it should be said that neither Ukraine nor Georgia still haven’t fulfilled those requirements, the question about their membership in NATO is a matter of time and depends on the political programs of those countries’ governments. Thus, requirements mentioned above, are the main goal for the both countries to achieve.

NATO, by-turn, continues to occupy the position of opened-door organization, ready to become an ally and support to every country in its willingness to provide democracy on every inch of its territory.


Clemens Walter C. (2000). America and the world: 1898-2025: achievements, failures, alternative futures. Palgrave Macmillan.

Myers, S. L., Shanker T. (2008). NATO expansion, and a Bush legacy, are in doubt. The New York Times.

NATO enlargement. (2010). Web.

We will write a custom
for you!
Get your first paper with
15% OFF
Learn More

Rabel, R. G. (2002). The American century?: in retrospect and prospect. Greenword Publishing Group.

Cite this paper

Select style


StudyCorgi. (2021, December 12). Comparative Political Science. Retrieved from


StudyCorgi. (2021, December 12). Comparative Political Science.

Work Cited

"Comparative Political Science." StudyCorgi, 12 Dec. 2021,

1. StudyCorgi. "Comparative Political Science." December 12, 2021.


StudyCorgi. "Comparative Political Science." December 12, 2021.


StudyCorgi. 2021. "Comparative Political Science." December 12, 2021.


StudyCorgi. (2021) 'Comparative Political Science'. 12 December.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.