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:
It was to outproduce capitalist nations.
Explanation:
The Kansas Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise (of 1820).
The answer to this would most definitely be number 2 (:
Answer:
History is hard to teach. It is not a bounded field of knowledge that can be conveyed in stages and steps. It does not operate by rules or predictable patterns. It cannot be segmented into separate elements without dying.
Explanation:
theres 36
