Answer:
No
Explanation:
Firstly, heavier NATO involvement in Crimea would escalate the current crisis. Shifting the focus of the confrontation from Ukraine-Russia to US-Russia would tie Putin’s hands, and virtually disable him from backing down. The strong support he received from Russia’s Parliament, along with the approval for use of the armed forces, should be seen not only as a proof of his personal strength in Russia, but also a limitation on his room for maneuver. If confronted by a NATO intervention, he would have no choice but to respond by escalating. A further hardening of Russia’s position would generate the potential for spillover in other states that Russia considers within its sphere of interest. Thus, overly aggressive NATO moves in reaction to Moscow’s moves could have a negative impact on developments relating to Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
source:https://www.boulevard-exterieur.com/Why-NATO-should-not-move-on-Crimea.html
Answer:
<h3>desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so.</h3>
Explanation:
hope it help
Answer: Document B is a Speech(B) and was directed towards Congress(A)
Explanation: Both of these questions were on a History Interim test(which I assume that is what you are taking) and I got both of these questions correct.
What gave them an advantage is economic prosperity due to rich soil and development of plantations based on slave labor. Many profit was accumulated from crops (tobacco) and also cotton. Later on in the 1800s when Eli Whitney created the cotton gin it created a boom in the slave industry and increased largely by 71%. After that the tool allowed mass production in textile industries.
