“The USA and the Soviet Union: the clash between these two states during the Cold War period”

Before I start, I would like to draw the outline of my essay.

Beginning: Why did I choose this title and how does it help to reveal the idea?

I am really interested in foreign politics. I am really concerned in what is now happening around the world. And I am really glad that in our university we have a chance to study foreign languages and to communicate with native speakers. To me it has always been important to find a bridge of communication between my own culture and the foreign one. Because I really do enjoy the process. And I would even say that my interest in foreign politics is more about cultural interest and language practice.

So far we have begun to study foreign politics here in MEPHI. And I immediately understood that I love it. And not only because of the above mentioned things, but also because I am patriotic. And to me it is important to express my views on current events regarding the interests of my country.

I can’t say I love my country. I would rather say I would like it to improve. And taking a closer look at reality, I understood that probably it can be done through negotiations, and first and foremost, with its (I don’t think we should hide this popular idea) most powerful adversary – the United States of America.

So, if you ask me, before we can be ready to establish contact, we should study our history and our common past. And that is why I have chosen this title.

Now there are some key points of my essay.

1) Why was this war waged?

2) What did our allies need and what did the winning states intend to do?

3) Why did the USA took the aggressive position?

4) What will be the USA’s further policy?

I hope that these key points will help the reader to understand the main idea of the essay.

First: Why was this war waged?

My personal opinion is that the USA and our country have both made a mistake. And this mistake is lack of trust and understanding. It is really hard now to find the truth about who was to blame and who was innocent. And I even think that there is no such thing. My idea is that instead of trying to find common ground, the USA and USSR decided to play political games based upon ideology.

And probably, if we really try hard to find the guilty, it is the key people, the main political figures of that time, the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union. To me, the main political mistake of our country was the establishment of the iron curtain system, when any access to foreign culture was cut and prohibited. If we speak about the United States, I guess they should have been more lenient. And from my point of view, these two mistakes – lack of political wisdom and lack of leniency – provoked the beginning of the Cold War and the start of the arms race.

Second: What did our allies need and what did the winning states intend to do?

This is a really tough question. Firstly, because it requires a good supply of facts, and I do not have one, and secondly because it is too sharp. But since I decided to make it a key point, I will nevertheless try to answer it.

First and foremost, my opinion is that our allies were left without any compensation or, I dare to say, award for the efforts that had been taken to assure Victory. And in my view, this idea was brilliantly expressed by Winston Churchill in his Fulton speech, at which he said that the Soviet Union separated itself from the West with the "iron curtain”. Secondly, our policy was really unwise concerning our closest neighbors – the countries of the Eastern Europe. It was recognized and commonly considered as protection and patronage, but this policy above all was condescending and really disrespectful.

"What the winning states intended to do” – by this I mean, what the winning states’ policy would be like if the days of the new world, the world without fascists, were different.

I don’t really like to think in such a direction. But I will still try. And my only idea is that if the United States had halted the nuclear weapon tests and had not tempted themselves by testing them on real people, the global consequences not only for the winning states, but for the whole world would have been better.

Third: Why did the USA took the aggressive position?

I think the only reason for this is that the people, who leaded this country at that moment, were greedy and wanted more money. And to me this general idea of greed and selfishness explains all the political mistakes of the major powers and huge wastes of human and material resources that we trace in the history of the second half of the XX century.

Fourth: What will be the USA’s further policy?

I would like to think about this point in a more abstract, scientific way. Firstly, the United States of America possess huge material resources that can provide for their future growth and bigger development. Secondly, they possess immense cultural depth (we all know the popular image of the USA – "the melting pot”), that helps them to protect their cultural identity and cope with hardships.

The third point is that the United States to me are the masters of science. And this is not just a compliment. To me they know how to live in compliance with laws of logic and common sense. And this is the base of their actions and has always been and, I hope, will be.

Fourth and finally, I want to say that in my view, the United States do really have problems (like all countries have). And in my opinion their further policy should be directed to the solution of these problems, and this solution probably lies in negotiations and contact with their neighbors.

Now that I have revealed the key points, I think it is time for me to draw your attention to the conclusion of my essay and its essential idea.

And I would like to trace back to the beginning – the reason for me selecting this topic and choosing this title.

I have chosen this title, because I consider it really urgent in the course of current events. I think that the United States and Russia are both responsible for the future of our planet as the two leading powers who not only possess nuclear weapon, but also ready to use it. In my view, the leaders of the two countries should think not about the use of nuclear weapon against each other or some other states, but rather how to direct the application of nuclear energy to some peaceful goals. And by this I mean that nuclear weapon should be eliminated, first by some legal institutions, and then in real practice.

I don’t know how this is going to be achieved. I only know that scientists should say their word. My opinion is that it is the scientists who can really take action for common progress, because scientists possess knowledge.

I don’t know in what way scientists gain knowledge (it is a philosophical question) – in a broad sense – meaning the instruments they use remain vague and unknown to me. But I’m sure that their knowledge can help politicians. Politicians to me are the people who have the right to rule and possess instruments of control. Scientists as they are usually do not pretend they know something, but try to reveal secrets.

In my view, this idea can help my country (I say "my country” and this is a mistake, because in the English language we can only say "this country” meaning the country where we live. But I want to use it in this way here to help to enhance the sense) to improve their relationships with the United States.

In the end I would like to add the two quotes. The first one is:

"There’s no evil in the atom; only in men’s soul.”

And also the second one, which belongs to Adlai Edwing Stevenson:

"The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts.”

Probably, I’m a little bit too pretentious, but I cling to what I say.

And with this I want to end my essay.