The United States is committed to spending whatever it takes to ensure that the former Soviet republics do not relinquish capitalism at this crucial turning point. If it means that the United States will have to subsidize former Soviet countries, President Clinton has already indicated a willingness to do so. The general consensus, at least among U.S. military strategists, is that subsidization of the former Soviet Union is a comparable (to Cold War spending)--or at least small--price to pay at this juncture in our history. One has only to look at the cost of the Cold War with its massive military build-up over decades to realize that subsidization of former Soviet economies may be the better bargain.
Now that the Soviet threat is gone, American response to a changed Russia is optimistic, yet tentative. Clearly one question facing the post-Cold War world is how to deal with erupting trouble spots, usually of ethnic origin. The NATO nations have agreed that this organization may have a role to play in this question. Many governments continue to turn to the United States and its United Nations for guidance with the countries of the former Soviet Union. By 1993, the UN had peace-keeping operations in twelve different countries. Some diplomats cautioned that constant demands on the UN for peace forces strain that organization's resources. The UN Security Council has asked member nations for greater help in planning future operations of this kind. The U.S. will continue to funnel unlimited funds into United Nations' peace-keeping functions. After all, the U.S. is now the world's only superpower. If not the U.S., then who?
As we enter a new era of U.S./Russia relations, the biggest problem for foreign policy centers around ethnic differences in the former Soviet republics. It is true that capitalism has been a terribly disruptive influence in countries where people w