It may no longer operate under cold war rules to consciously exclude representations of the upstart Chinese, or feel pressured to depict us as Fu Manchu monstrosities (except for the hideously backward BBC Sherlock episode The Blind Banker, replete with oriental lowlifes and lotus blossoms).
By Mr. Asmus's account, here are the little war's bottom lines: Russia trashed the basic post-Cold War rule that borders in Europe would never again be changed by force; and, after taking aim "not only at Georgia, but at Washington, NATO and the West," it asserted it is prepared to use force again against its neighbors.
Putin is trespassing on the post-Cold War rules.
Exemplary, yes, in the sense that the United States, the Soviet Union, and dozens of other eventual signatories came to an agreement in the middle of the Cold War to rule out pushing and shoving over a potentially strategic area.
Instead of prosperity, Congo's mineral wealth has brought only an endless procession of unscrupulous rulers eager to exploit its riches, from King Leopold II of Belgium to Mobutu Sese Seko, who was allowed by the logic of the cold war to rule the same area as a private fief.
During the cold war, the rules of international behaviour were clear, guaranteed by the Mad-ness – mutually assured destruction – of the superpowers.
For many years after World War II, under the unifying pressure of the cold war, consensus ruled as presidents of both parties, starting with Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, governed in stable if not always perfect alliance with partners of the other party.
Decades later and after the Cold War ended, the rule of law was revitalized as an integral response to atrocities.
They protected Cold War-era rules that require buying surplus crops from American farmers and then shipping them overseas via mostly U.S.-flagged ships a system that costs taxpayers 21% more than if the same commodities were purchased overseas, estimates Christopher Barrett, who teaches agricultural economics at Cornell University.
In addition to regulations governing all military sales, the sale of armed drones would be subject to Cold War-era rules establishing a "strong presumption of denial," meaning that foreign governments would have to make a strong case for acquiring the aircraft.
