American History & Politics Scientific edition最新文献

{"title":"The US gun policy: domestic and external dimensions","authors":"M. Lymar, I. Tykhonenko","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.4","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the article is to explore proliferation of firearms in the United States due to social problems (mass shootings) and public demand for increasing gun control. Primary challenges cover exploring the U.S. firearms history, which provides a key to understanding the causes of the current situation in this area; reviewing of Americans’ attitudes toward gun ownership; studying the U.S. foreign policy in the context of arms exports from Ukraine to the United States. Moreover, attention is paid to exploring the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Donald Trump’s decision on arms control and a comparative analysis of his gun policy with the policy of his predecessors.\u0000\u0000The methodological basis of the study includes a set of general and special research methods. Systematic approach is used to consider the U.S. gun policy as a complex system with the determinism of domestic and foreign policy levels. A significant role is played by descriptive-historical and chronological methods that allow to examine the evolution of the U.S. legal framework for firearms and small-arms control. The comparative method makes it possible to compare the approaches of George W. Bush’s, Barack Obama’s and Donald Trump’s administrations to the gun policy. The statistical method allows to consider the peculiarities of the U.S. exports of small arms and Ukraine’s exports of such type of weapons to the USA.\u0000\u0000The scientific novelty lies in one of the first attempts among Ukrainian authors to make a comprehensive analysis of the interdependence of internal and external aspects of firearms trafficking among the U.S. civilians. In this context, the paper examines the U.S.–Ukrainian relations. The study concludes that the U.S. gun traditions are the main stumbling block for tightening firearms legislation. On the gun issue, the U.S. domestic policy, which is heavily influenced by the NRA, determines the state’s foreign policy. At the same time, society is demanding reforms aimed at restricting the possession of firearms by the civilian population, which may increase the level of domestic security.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"25 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127232096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The crisis of American traditional political establishment and Donald Trump phenomenon","authors":"S. Tolstov, Alona Godliuk","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.2","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade the political processes in the U.S. and a number of European states have shown ambiguous changes which reflected ideological transformations and regroupings of political elites. Developments within the U.S. political system have witnessed a deep split along ideological lines which was characterized by the revival of various right-wing and conservative currents within the Republican party and the increasing influence of left-liberal groups inside the Democratic party.\u0000\u0000Taking into account the latest trends, the purpose of this article lays in the structural political analysis of political contradictions and regrouping processes within the U.S. political elites in the 2010s that prevailed during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The authors emphasise that the crisis of traditional elites has not lead to the destruction of the bipartisan system, which remains the most important political institutional mechanism and ensures election of the executive branch, representative bodies and self-government at all levels. At the same time the recent trends within the political system demonstrated the destruction of such a specific phenomenon as a relative bipartisan consensus, which for a long time ensured the stability of power and the balance of interests among different groups of influence despite the regular change of the Republican and Democratic administrations.\u0000\u0000As an intermediate result reflecting the transformation of the American traditional political establishment the authors note both the overall polarization of the attitudes of the Republican and Democratic parties, and the strengthening of ‘internal’ pluralism inside the Republicans and the Democrats as a result of growing divergence and exacerbation of contradictions between supporters of various ideological groupings and platforms. This was approved by an obvious increase of influence of center-left groups among the Democrats and the right-wingers among the Republicans. These differences caused a tough political confrontation between different groups of elites in such important areas as social policy, taxes and health care. Similar fundamental discrepancies manifest the vision of international affairs especially on foreign trade and principles of interaction with the traditional allies.\u0000\u0000The exacerbation of political collisions ultimately led to an imbalance in the American political system and the loss of ability to achieve compromises between the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats. The authors conclude that the atomization of political elites is a projection of social stratification and polarization within the American society. These processes are not directly related to the personality of Donald Trump. Given the severity and critical aggravation of political contradictions, the US Presidential and Congressional elections on November 3, 2020 will not resolve the ongoing inter-elite conflict.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114940688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cultural exchange between Canada and Ukrainian SSR as an tool of Soviet propaganda","authors":"R. Siromskyi","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.8","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the research is to analyze peculiarities of cultural exchange between Canada and the Ukrainian SSR in the 1960s and 1980s, which took place during the Cold War.\u0000\u0000The research methodology is defined by an interdisciplinary approach (history, culture, foreign relations) and is based on general scientific and special scientific methods, first of all, retrospection and historical comparison.\u0000\u0000The scientific novelty of the research is that on the basis of archival materials determined the forms and content of cultural exchange between the Ukrainian SSR and Canada, in particular its propaganda content.\u0000\u0000The Conclusions. During the Cold War the cultural sphere became an arena of confrontation, and art (or what was meant by it) became part of ideological propaganda campaigns. Cultural exchange was seen by the Soviets as a way of representing «achievements of socialist culture» to Canadian Ukrainians and as an effective propaganda tool. Formally, on the Soviet side, cultural exchanges were carried out by specially created organizations, which, however, were managed and financed through the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the International Department of the Committee of State Security (KGB).\u0000\u0000The request to maintain cultural ties with the Ukrainian SSR in Canada was largely due to the desire of the Ukrainian community overseas to maintain spiritual ties with the Motherland. Different approaches to the interpretation of cult exchange – from approval to complete denial – have provoked a lively discussion in the diaspora. Adherents of cultural programs from the Ukrainian SSR were Canadian left-wing organizations, such as the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians. The League of Liberation of Ukraine was a categorical opponent of the cultural exchange, whose representatives saw in the artists from the USSR Soviet emissaries called to «destroy» the Ukrainian community in Canada. Organizations within the Ukrainian Canadian Committee (UCC) condemned cultural exchange as a one-sided tool of Soviet propaganda, but viewed cultural ties as a way to influence Soviet artists.\u0000\u0000Because of one-sided Soviet cultural infiltration, on several occasions the UCC voiced its protest against Canada’s cultural exchanges with this country. Ukrainian Canadian artists, choirs and dance ensembles are not permitted to perform in Ukraine unless they were politically acceptable to the Soviet authorities.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128447946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"European integration in the foreign policy of Dwight Eisenhower","authors":"M. Lymar","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.27-36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.27-36","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with European integration processes through the prism of the President Eisenhower foreign policy. The transatlantic relations are explored considering the geopolitical transformations in Europe. It is noted that after the end of World War II, Europe needed assistance on the path to economic recovery. Eisenhower initially as Commander in Chief of NATO forces in Europe, and later as the U.S. President, directed his foreign policy efforts to unite the states of Western Europe in their post-war renovating and confronting the communist threat. For that reason, Eisenhower deserved recognition by the leading European governments and became a major American figure, which symbolized the reliable transatlantic ally. Eisenhower’s interest in a united Europe was explained by the need for the United States in a strong single European partner that would help to strengthening the U.S. positions in the international arena. The United States expected to control the European integration processes through NATO instruments and mediated disputes between the leading European powers. Germany’s accession to the Alliance was determined as one of the key issues, the solution of which became the diplomatic victory of President Eisenhower. The U.S. government was building its European policy based on the need to integrate the Western states into a unified power, and therefore endorsed the prospect of creating a European Economic Community (EEC). It was intended that the union would include Italy, France, Germany and the Benelux members, and form a basis for the development of free trade and the deeper political and economic integration of the regional countries. It is concluded that, under the Eisenhower’s presidency, Europe was at the top of priority list of the U.S. foreign policy that significantly influenced the evolution of the European integration process in the future.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133589559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The American View of Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1960’s (based on dissertation researches on Congo and Nigeria)","authors":"V. Latenko","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2019.08.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2019.08.07","url":null,"abstract":"The author of the article attempts to analyze the scientific achievements of American researchers on the subject of Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1960s, using the example of two countries in the region – the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria. In both countries, which decolonized in 1960 and embarked on an independent path of development, during the first decade of their existence, various stormy events took place that shook the entire Sub-Saharan region and largely reflected on processes in other parts of the continent. Therefore, these countries are a particularly striking example on the basis of which this study was conducted.\u0000\u0000Based on a thorough review of the dissertations on the list, developed and defended in the United States by different generations of researchers over the course of half a century, the main priorities and areas of interest to the American scientific community have been identified. Although this paper does not claim to be a comprehensive and complete analysis, statistics based on available material are systematized in chronological and thematic dimensions. In particular, the events and phenomena of the history of the Congo and Nigeria, which particularly attracted the attention of American scholars, are highlighted. Predictably, the lion’s share of the research was devoted to the events of the Congolese crisis of 1960-1965, as well as the civil war for Biafra independence that unfolded in Nigeria. At the same time, it is found that most researchers were not so interested in the fate of the Sub-Saharan African countries themselves as the role and place of the United States in the region, their foreign policy, and the advancement of American national interests.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128527688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany and the position of American politics and diplomacy","authors":"T. Tkachuk","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.6","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the problem of relations between the two leading states of the world in the interwar period: Germany, which withdrew from the First World War as a defeated country and after the establishment of the Nazi regime started preparing revenge, and the United States, proclaimed «isolationism» and, therefore, distanced themselves from European international political problems.\u0000\u0000The scientific novelty: the author points up primarily political «isolationism», while in the economic sphere the United States has played a leading role in the reconstruction and development of the afterwar Germany. Today, due to the difficult geopolitical situation in the world, caused by the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation, which are quite similar to the former Nazi regime, there is a chance to look at the events of the 1930s in the international arena in a somewhat new way. Regarding this, the author sets out an aim of the article to carry out a comprehensive analyze and give his own assessment of the position of American politicians on the establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany.\u0000\u0000The methodological basis of the study. In the study the author used a descriptive method to identify the essence and features of American-German relations in the 1920s and early 1930s, a comparative-historical method in analyzing the positions of President Roosevelt’s enciclement on German Chancellor A. Hitler’s policy in 1933, the principles of objectivity and systematization using only verified facts and their comprehensive assessment. This made it possible for the first time to draw attention to the position of the American leadership on the establishment of the Nazi regime and its role in international diplomacy on the eve of World War II in order to the current geopolitical situation connected with Russia’s aggressive actions.\u0000\u0000The Conclusions. Finally, the author asserts that President Roosevelt’s encirclement perceived the threat of a new world war from the German Nazis, but did not change the United States’ overall foreign policy toward Europe. The reason was that Franklin Delano Roosevelt chose a wrong strategy to avert new world conflict in the relationship with Berlin. At the same time, the author underlines the differences in the attitudes of American «isolationists» towards Germany and Japan, as well as the differences between Washington’s position on the political and non-political aspects of relations with Hitler’s regime. Therefore, the author points out that not all the American politicians perceived the Nazi «Third Reich» totally negatively. As a result, the United States chose the wrong strategy to deter Nazi Germany, which did not testify its effectiveness. That’s why, the article asserts that the current United States and the Western European countries need to anticipate their past mistakes in building of the strategy of relations with Russian Federation.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130796566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"US strategy of China’s engagement: key conceptualized regional implications","authors":"M. Taran","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2020.10.7","url":null,"abstract":"Both at the level of political ideology and in the practical sphere, the American strategy of China’s engagement was a part of a global construction of a new architecture of the world order, based on the liberal-democratic political values but at the same time in line with American leadership. The engagement was in many ways reminiscent of Obama’s strategy of «reset» in relations with Russia, especially in terms of achieving qualitative domestic political changes through dialogue and cooperation. However, the conceptualization of the Trump’s administration China’ policy approaches led to some radical revisions of the American philosophy of international cooperation were made.\u0000\u0000The objectives of the proposed paper aligned with answering the following research questions: What was wrong with the U.S. engagement strategy toward China evolved over the past decades? What are the implications of the U.S. China policy for Taiwan as well as the world at large (comparing with impact on U.S. policy towards Russia and its regional behavior regarding to Ukraine)? Will engagement be restarted or drastically reevaluated?\u0000\u0000The methods we employed to do the research: comparative case study that is widely using in International Security studies analyzing issue within a situation or framework. Another method of qualitative methodology approach is a thematic analysis method.\u0000\u0000The scientific novelty. Assuming that the model of cooperative engagement has largely exhausted itself in terms of the strategic objectives of each party we also emphasize that the model has led to the erosion of the possibility of critical US influence on key regions of the world.\u0000\u0000Conclusions. It is somewhat paradoxical that a result of US cooperative approaches has brought about greater vulnerability of US formal and informal allies. Chinese and Russian foreign policy strategies have not changed significantly, and have attached even more on the main objects of a kind of historical revenge – Taiwan and Ukraine. Chinese and Russian foreign policy values in terms of waning «Western influences» have grown into offensive political realism. Which, in particular, was generated of sensitivity to the growing US influence in the post-bipolar world.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"18 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114009235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Transformations of the US European Policy in the 2nd Half of the 20th Century","authors":"M. Lymar","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2019.08.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2019.08.01","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the European aspects of the US foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century. It also includes studies of the transatlantic relations of the described period and the exploration of an American influence on European integration processes. It is determined that the United States has demonstrated itself as a partner of the Western governments in the post-war reconstruction and further creation of an area of US security and prosperity. At the same time, it is noted that the American presidents have differently shaped their administrations’ policies towards Europe. The greatest supporter of the European integration processes was President Eisenhower. Among other things, the US President believed that Europe would become a key ally of the United States, thus, he considered the union of Sweden, Greece, Spain and Yugoslavia as a solid foundation for building a “United States of Europe”. After Eisenhower administration, European affairs, to a lesser extent, were taken up by such Presidents as Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. Showing no personal interest, Kennedy, Nixon and Bush-Sr. were forced to support the transatlantic dialogue, understanding the inevitability of European integration and the need for the United States to cooperate with the new consolidated actor. The United States aimed to strengthen its position in the European space, moving to that purpose by using NATO mechanisms and applying the policies of American protectionism against the communist threat. The main competitor of the United States for strengthening national positions in Europe was France led by General de Gaulle, who believed that the affairs of Europe should be resolved by European governments without the American intervention. However, NATO continued to serve as a springboard for the U.S. involvement in European affairs. At the end of the 20th century, through the close links between the EU and NATO, the USA received new allies from Central and Eastern European countries. It is concluded that after the end of World War II, Europe needed an assistance that the United States willingly provided in exchange for the ability to participate in European issues, solving and partly controlling the integration processes. The study found that, despite the varying degree of the American interest in transatlantic affairs, Europe has consistently been remaining a zone of national interest for the United States.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121125466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Activity of US representative Douglass Jenkins in the Ukrainian National Republic (1917-1919)","authors":"Tetiana Klynina","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.7-16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.7-16","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the issue of the activities of the American consul of the United States of America in the years of the existence of the Ukrainian National Republic, and also provides a historiographical analysis of works devoted to this problem (in particular, the works of I. Matyash, I. Datskiv, A. Pavlyuk, etc.). The author notes that with the proclamation by the Central Rada of the Third universal, which created the Ukrainian National Republic, the Ukrainian Central Rada was faced with the task of establishing external relations with various countries, including the United States of America. However, before the outbreak of World War I, the concept of “Ukrainian question” and “Ukraine” was “terra incognita” for Washington, which was primarily explained by the isolationist policies of the American government.\u0000\u0000In its foreign policy, the United States has traditionally been guided by the idea of ​​federalism in questions about the approaches of the state system. The United States did not pursue a separate course towards Ukraine. Washington viewed it as a component of its policy towards Russia. In the US attitude toward the Ukrainian National Republic, the reluctance to complicate the political choice for America was outweighed. There was fear that an inaccurately chosen priority would lead to an unwelcome conflict with Russia. It is stated that as the United States did not carry out a separate course towards Ukraine, so the leaders of the Central Rada did not develop a clear position towards the United States. However, the situation that developed at the end of 1917 made the American diplomatic community “look” at the situation in Ukraine. That is why the American consul Douglas Jenkins was sent to “assess” the capabilities of the young state. Douglas Jenkins had clear instructions from the ambassador to do nothing, in the absence of a further word from Washington that could be interpreted as recognition of the Ukrainian Council.\u0000\u0000Particular attention is paid to the analysis of his seven reports, which the consul sent to the US State Department through the Consulate General in Moscow, and which is an important source in understanding the Ukrainian situation in late 1917 – early 1918.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116074191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"U.S. European foreign policy vector (50-60s of the XX century)","authors":"D. Lakishyk","doi":"10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.16-27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2019.07.16-27","url":null,"abstract":"The article argues that the United States entered the post-war world in a completely new role for the state, surpassed all other countries in the main indicators of strength – military, economic, technological and cultural. World wars turned them into the center of Western civilization, which opposed Soviet power, which secured significant spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and the Far East as a result of World War II.\u0000\u0000It is argued that the main areas of geopolitical rivalry between the two centers of power are the regions that are on the periphery of Eurasia: the clash line in Europe, the Middle and the Far East. Throughout the entire period of rivalry, the United States has transformed from an episodic into a constant factor in European politics, institutionalizing its presence in the Old World and building relations with Western European allies on the basis of “Atlantism”, “interdependence” and “burden sharing”.\u0000\u0000It was proved that the main task of the US administrations in the post-war period was the creation of a “power perimeter” around the zone of Soviet control, maintaining its functioning and further strengthening. First, its line ran in Europe, then in East Asia, and later was expanded to the Middle East, having adequate support with American military bases and military-political blocs.\u0000\u0000It is noted that the confrontation between the two superpowers took place including the alternation of conflict and cooperation, reflected the desire of the victors to consolidate the subordinate position of the defeated – mainly Germany and Japan – in the new system of international relations. Carrying out “containment” of the USSR, the USA actually implemented a policy of “double containment”, directed both against the potential strengthening of Germany and in order to maintain control over Western Europe as a whole. In this regard, the consolidation of “spheres of influence” of each of the parties preserved the results of the war, providing “silent cooperation” on issues of principle.","PeriodicalId":295458,"journal":{"name":"American History & Politics Scientific edition","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129897656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}