Answer:
Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. The distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.
The United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism. Although the United States embarked on a famine relief program in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s and American businessmen established commercial ties there during the period of the New Economic Policy (1921–29), the two countries did not establish diplomatic relations until 1933. By that time, the totalitarian nature of Joseph Stalin's regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the West. Although World War II brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union's aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward Eastern Europe had created tensions even before the war ended.
The Soviet Union and the United States stayed far apart during the next three decades of superpower conflict and the nuclear and missile arms race. Beginning in the early 1970s, the Soviet regime proclaimed a policy of détente and sought increased economic cooperation and disarmament negotiations with the West. However, the Soviet stance on human rights and its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created new tensions between the two countries. These tensions continued to exist until the dramatic democratic changes of 1989–91 led to the collapse during this past year of the Communist system and opened the way for an unprecedented new friendship between the United States and Russia, as well as the other new nations of the former Soviet Union.
Explanation:
Answer: Certain changes are possible, but the essence remains the same.
Explanation:
The new president may bring some military changes, but the essence of the United States military remains the same. Thus, the president can appoint to certain high positions in the army if he wants new people. All the changes brought about by the new president do not significantly change the essence of the military forces in the country. Following that, we can cite one example that is currently current. Namely, many military analysts and media in the United States state that the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, will withdraw the still incumbent President Donald Trump's decision on how transgender people cannot be part of the armed forces.
Answer:
Provide adequate means of escape.
Outline clear pathways to exit doors.
Install smoke detection systems.
Maintain smoke suppression systems.
Conduct regular fire drills.
Keep the building plans handy.
Explanation:
:)
Answer:
It is nobler to die with integrity than to live with compromised principles
Explanation:
it is nobler to die with integrity then to live with principles that harm other strongly support the statement that men with integrity does not compromise with his principles he is self made person and he believes in his abilities and work on his own principles on the other side a man who compromises on his principles usually lacks confidence and is not capable enough to believe on his own abilities and is not able to make decisions on his own on the other side a man with integrity confidence is capable enough to even handle difficult of situation and can manage every problem very well as this phrase is mostly quoted in most of the texts
REBECCA NURSE a famous religious author also quoted as same that "It is nobler to die with integrity than to live with compromised principles that harm others" being a religious and follower of GOD she came on to the conclusion that in living with integrity is that what matters
I believe the answer is: Aristotle
Modern empiricism is a theory that state knowledge could only be obtained through our sensory experience, not our genetic. Aristotle would be enthusiastic with this theory because he's one of the most prominent supporter of the 'nurture' side of the nature vs nurture argument regarding how human obtain knowledge.
