Conclusion

Will there be a second cold war?

Possible, but not probable. Although deterioration of ties are present between various countries, the interdependence of the different markets would prevent the second Cold War to happen.

Quiz time!

Q1) Which was the main country in US vs Russia?
Q2) What sparked off the conflict?
Q3) What caused the mistrust and distrust between US and USSR?
Q4) What are the ideological differences between US and USSR?
Q5) What is the dominant factor which caused the cold war?
Q6) Who is at fault for the tension between US and North Korea?

Read through all the articles and try your best to fill in this quiz. Good luck!

The power of advertisements

A 1950's propaganda ad from Radio Free Europe, printed at Better Homes and Gardens magazine.





"Communism and Christianity", a 1955 ad from Canadair.




A Republic Steel ad from 1951.




A 1949 ad for Douglas Aircraft Company. (Photo)





U.S. Savings Bonds ad from 1962.





This is one of the great print ads from Expo 1967 marketing blitz. Printed in American magazines, it played off the major theme of the cold war, USA vs Russia, taunting the American audience to get to the Expo and check in on the Russian building project. A little dark but extremely witty and smart.





A Western Electric ad from 1951.





Compare two boys working under the shadow of a) Lincoln and b) Lenin, says this Young & Rubicam 1959 ad.





A 1961 Radio Free Europe ad.







Another Radio Free Europe ad from the sixties.






This 1956 advert from Canada exhorts the young men of that nation to get off their behinds and go train to become better athletes than their communist counterparts. The fact that sporting excellence is good propaganda for any nation failed to encourage the Canadian government to sponsor its athletes as communist countries had done.






Another Canadair from 1955 about Communism and education.






"How to Survive an Atomic Bomb", a 1951 ad by the Mutual of Omaha, an insurance company.





A 1951 ad by the American Railway Car Institute.


Conclusion:
Even when advertisements were only in the form of pictures, people were already angered by them and empowered by the propaganda pictures to act. Thus, with the media being so accessible today, the government can make use of the internet, television etc, to spread political messages to the people. Hence, we can see that it is also easier for another cold war to errupt, as more ppl will be exposed to the propaganda and be inclines to react.

Dayna Yong

http://myamazingfact.blogspot.com/2009/11/15-interesting-cold-war-vintage-ads.html

Quiz yourself

Though this link has nothing to our topic, i feel that it is good practice for everyone.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/History/Cold-War-3963.html

There are various questions which can help us to refresh our facts before the exams. Have fun!

Dayna Yong

Do visit this site to hear an exclusive interview by Reporter Peter N. Spotts with csmonitor.com’s Pat Murphy about the US-Russian space relationship.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech/2008/0820/will-us-russia-tensions-extend-to-space


Sorry, tried many times but i could not paste the audio directly in the blog.

Dayna Yong

Will US-Russia tensions extend to space?

Astronaut Mike Fossum helps with the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station.

NASA/AP


The immediate concern: Will US astronauts be able to ride Russian rockets between 2010, when the last shuttle is retired, and 2015, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to launch a replacement?

Russian spacecraft are how NASA plans to send its astronauts to the International Space Station. But with tensions rising over Russia’s invasion of Georgia and a US-Polish missile deal, some lawmakers and space-policy analysts worry that the US Congress – or Russia itself – could scuttle the plan. If tensions fail to ease over the longer term, the space station could shift from an orbiting laboratory to a geopolitical bargaining chip.

The possibility that international tensions could limit US access to the space station for at least five years “is a real concern,” says Ray Williamson, an analyst with the Secure World Foundation, a space-policy think tank in Superior, Colo. But the notion that the US needs an alternative right away is a bit premature, he adds.

Proposals range from extending the shuttle program beyond 2010 to cutting a deal with China, which is ramping up its own human spaceflight effort. Each option faces big budgetary or political challenges.

Already, Bush administration officials reportedly have suggested that the full range of US-Russian ties need to be reviewed in light of Moscow’s actions in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Those tensions appeared to have risen another notch Wednesday when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski inked a deal under which the US would install antiballistic missiles in northeastern Poland.

For the US, the challenge lies in the way the Bush administration crafted its 2004 vision for space exploration. It called for an end to the shuttle program in 2010 and the launch of a replacement, the Ares I and its Orion capsule, by 2015. NASA is working on the Ares I system, along with other major components of its Constellation program, with that deadline firmly in mind. Constellation aims to return humans to the moon by 2020. But that schedule leaves at least a five-year gap with no homegrown way to send astronauts to the space station.

The US endured a nearly six-year gap in human spaceflight between the Apollo and shuttle programs. But this time around, the US has a destination in orbit that it has paid big money to build and maintain.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has called the gap and the need for Russia’s help “unseemly.” To try to narrow the gap, the agency initially set an internal target for launching Ares 1 with its Orion crew capsule in September 2013. But with more-refined cost estimates in hand, and based on an assumption of no new money likely from Congress to support a 2013 deadline, the agency has moved that internal date to September 2014.

“The space community has been trying to yell about this for years, but people didn’t pay a lot of attention,” says George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society, a space-exploration advocacy group in Washington. “The biggest lesson we should have learned” from the shift from Apollo to the shuttle “is the need to think through the transition between vehicles without gaps.”

The first signals about the future may well come from Congress, which is weighing whether to grant NASA a waiver this year from the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Non-Proliferation Act. It did so in 2005 so that NASA could buy astronaut launch services from Russia through 2011. NASA officials have said they need to place their order soon given the lead time the Russians say they to build the new Soyuz capsules NASA would need.

Short of holding its nose and granting the waiver, Congress appears to have few options.

The US could try to play a China card, notes Vincent Sabathier, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former official with the French space agency CNES. In an online commentary last week, he noted that China doesn’t represent an immediate solution. But Chinese space officials have expressed an interest in participating in the space-station program, he notes. And tighter links between the US and Chinese space programs could represent important confidence-building measures affecting other areas of US-Chinese ties.

But such a move would require a profound change in US policy that would be a tough sell, especially at this point in the US political cycle, according to Joan Johnson-Freese, a specialist in international space policy who heads the department of national-security studies at the US Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

Thus, if Congress turns its back on a waiver for NASA , “that leaves us in a situation of keeping the shuttle on line,” she says. “Then we’re eating our seed corn once again.” The reason: Unless a new president and Congress give NASA enough money to extend the shuttle program – which already is winding down and likely would require a costly recertification of the remaining shuttles – cash to keep the shuttles running probably would come from money NASA plans to spend on the Constellation program.

At the end of the day, “Congress will act pragmatically” and grant the waiver, predicts Peggy Finarelli, a senior fellow at the Center for Aerospace Policy Research at George Mason University in Fairfax., Va.

While US-Russian relations appear to be growing more rocky, she doesn’t anticipate the space station becoming a bargaining chip for either country. Hearkening back to the Carter administration’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and its cancellation of science and technology exchanges in protest, she says that the White House could make that move then because “there was nothing there where you had multibillion-dollar programs where you had invested a lot of your future.”

Moreover, over the past 10 to 15 years, the two countries’ space programs and even their space-launch industries have become tightly intertwined. “These relations are not so easy to damage,” says Mr. Whitesides. That, he says, gives some cause for hope that the space station will remain a symbol of international cooperation in space, despite sometimes rocky relations between partners on Earth.

Questions to ask yourself:

- What does this mean for US and Russia's economy?
- Is it probable that this tension will cause another cold war? Link it back to historical examples.


Dayna Yong

Will there be another cold war between US and Russia?

During the Beijing Olympics, the former US President George Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were seen exchanging a warm embrace and laughing together. However, only four days later, Bush gave a serious speech from the White House rose garden, in which he made it clear that a serious split has emerged between the US and Russia due to the recent conflict in Georgia.

Georgia had launched a military strike on the province of South Ossetia, aiming to reclaim it after 16 years of semi-independence. In response, Russia sent tanks in. Moscow says Georgian forces had killed Russian peacekeepers there and were committing acts of "ethnic cleansing" of native Russians living there. Georgia, which borders Russia, is a former Soviet republic. It declared its independence in 1991 after the collapse of communism. Many of the 70,000 people in South Ossetia speak Russian and carry Russian passports. Relations between the two have been tense, as Moscow tries to reassert influence over nations that border it. Georgia has aligned itself with the West and wants to join NATO — a desire the Bush administration supports. Georgia insists it had no choice but to act after what it says are increasing attacks from separatists. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili claims Moscow took advantage of situation to "invade" his country while the world's attention was focused on the Olympics in Beijing.
In the first crucial hours, the U.S. press reported the fact that it was John McCain's pal Mikheil Saakashvili who had set the ball rolling with Georgia's initial lethal bombardment in South Ossetia. Russia responded forcefully and the then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rushed to Warsaw for a photo-op with Polish leaders, signing a deal to install missile defense early-warning radar systems. Since then, the rhetoric has steadily got hotter, though John McCain carefully toned down the bluster in his convention speech in St. Paul.

Vladimir Putin duly denounced the scheduled deployment of these systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as unacceptable threats to Russian security. In 2007, the Russian leader declared in a press conference that "once the missile defense system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. ... It simply changes the whole configuration of international security. ... Of course, we have to respond to that."

Thus, with much bluster, both sides continue to shovel billions to their respective military-industrial sectors. Missile defense has been a Pentagon boondoggle for more than half a century. Since Ronald Reagan repackaged it in 1983 as the Strategic Defense Initiative, the United States has spent as much as $100 billion, with another $100 billion already pledged for research, operating expenses, and the like between now and 2015.


However, these anti-missile systems don't work because of the presence of uncertainty that is the essential ingredient of nuclear deterrence. Despite hundreds of faked tests, the anti-missile missiles can in no way be guaranteed to hit their targets.

Thus, from this passage, we can see that a cold war might be brewing, for both of the
countries have different views towards the Georgia invasion, and Russia invaded Georgia while the United States choose to support Georgia in the conflict.

In some sense, this can be seen as an arm’s race, for both sides continued to shovel billions to their respective military-industrial sector. And this is somewhat history repeating itself, the same as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a confrontation between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba in October 1962, during the Cold War, where both countries were threatening each other with missiles and nuclear weapons. Both powers built large radar arrays to detect incoming bombers and missiles. Fighters to use against bombers and anti-ballistic missiles to use against ICBMs were also developed. Large underground bunkers were constructed to save the leadership of the superpowers, and individuals were told to build fallout shelters and taught how to react to a nuclear attack (civil defense). These bombs could kill millions in the event of an attack by either side.

However, on the other hand, the article below has shown that the relations of US and Russia has improved greatly recently.

U.S.-Russia Relations Improved, but Not Perfect
Mark Knoller



Facing a significant "backlog of problems" on the U.S.-Russian agenda, Presidents Obama and Medvedev were determined that their summit produce some worthwhile agreements.

"We resolved to reset U.S.-Russian relations, so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest," said Mr. Obama as he and Medvedev formally announced the deals their talks were designed to finalize:

** A commitment to negotiate by year's end a further reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads in the U.S. and Russian arsenals to between 1,500 and 1,675. The same deal would also limit the number of delivery vehicles to between 500 and 1,100.

** A joint statement to pursue further cooperation in efforts to stem the proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can be used as strategic delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

** An agreement allowing the U.S. to transport military personnel, equipment and weapons through Russian airspace to Afghanistan. Deal permits 4,500 flights a year. White House says it will save the U.S. $133-million annually.

** A joint statement to expand cooperation to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and stop acts of nuclear terrorism.

** A new framework for the Joint Commission on POWs and MIAs. It's a stepped up effort to resolve the fates of unaccounted-for military personnel who served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War – including Soviet military forces in Afghanistan.

** A Memorandum of Understanding for expanded cooperation in the fields of public health and medical science, including research and treatment on HIV/AIDS.

** An agreement signed today by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and his Russian counterpart, resuming military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. The new framework includes exchange of military cadets and a joint exercise in response to a hijacked aircraft.

These deals reflect an effort by both sides to rebuild the U.S-Russian relationship which turned decisively sour in August of last year after Russia's attacks on neighboring Georgia. Then- President Bush condemned the Russian invasion as "bullying and intimidation." The situation remains a contentious issue.

And Russia is still adamantly opposed to American plans to install anti-missile missiles in Eastern Europe.

"This is a point of deep concern and sensitivity to the Russian government," acknowledged Mr. Obama. Like his predecessor, he says Russia has no reason to fear such a project as the missiles would target an attack by Iran or other rogue state, not Russia.

Medvedev calls it "a step forward" that the Obama Administration is reviewing the missile defense program and will share its findings and decisions with Russia.

"Our understanding is that these decisions do concern us and we will have to come to terms on these positions," said Medvedev.

It means the suspicions and rivalries of the past may be diminished, but are definitely not yet buried.

I agree with the author that suspicions and rivalries of the past, during the cold war where the Soviet Union and the US were weary of each other’s actions and intentions may have diminished, but that does not mean that they are wiped out completely.

On a side note, the nuclear accident on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic also showed us how fragile the relationship between Russia/Soviet Union and US is. During the disaster, the radiation was also received in some parts of the United States, hence, it was natural that the relationship between the Soviet Union and US more strain, adding on the cold war strained relationship. Thus, the Soviet Union’s leader at that time, Gorbachev had to make extra efforts to ease Soviet Union’s relationship with the US. Who is to say that such an incident might not happen again and strain their relationship? Their relationship is founded on very brittle trust towards each other, just a small catalyst would be able to spark off another cold war, though the Russia and US have appeared to have improved relations.

Therefore, there are two sides to the coin, but it is more inclined towards a high possibility of another cold war.

Dayna Yong

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0809a/copyright/ac-georgiacoldwar.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-08-08-question-answer_N.htm

US-Korea tensions Is there already a cold war?

Six-party talks

In early 2003 multilateral talks were proposed to be held among the six most relevant parties aimed at reaching a settlement through diplomatic means. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between themselves and the United States. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to preliminary three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003.

After this meeting, North Korea then agreed to six-party talks, between the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia. The first rounds of talks were held in August 2003, with subsequent rounds being held at regular intervals. After 13 months of freezing talks between the fifth round's first and second phases, North Korea returned to the talks. This behavior was in retaliation for the US's action of freezing offshore North Korean bank accounts in Macau. In early 2005, the US government told its East Asia allies that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. This backfired when Asian allies discovered that the US government had concealed the involvement of Pakistan; a key U.S. ally was the weapon's middle man. In March 2005, Condoleezza Rice had to travel to East Asia in an effort to repair the damage.

The third phase of the fifth round of talks held on 8 February 2007 concluded with a landmark action-for-action agreement. Goodwill by all sides has led to the US unfreezing all of the North Korean assets on March 19, 2007.

As of October 11, 2008, North Korea has agreed to all U.S. nuclear inspection demands and the Bush Administration responded by removing the communist country from a terrorism blacklist.

2006 Nuclear test

U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that a test has occurred, but are presently looking into the situation. Tony Snow, President George W. Bush’s White House Press Secretary, said that the United States would now go to the United Nations to determine “what our next steps should be in response to this very serious step. ”On Monday, October 9, 2006, President Bush stated in a televised speech that such a claim of a test is a "provocative act" and the U.S condemns such acts. President Bush stated that the United States is "committed to diplomacy" but will "continue to protect America and America's interests."

The Mogadishu encounter

On November 4, 2007, a North Korean merchant vessel was attacked by Somali pirates off the coast of Mogadishu who forced their way aboard, posing as guards. As U.S. Navy ships patrolling the waters moved to respond, the 22 North Korean seamen fought the eight Somali pirates in hand-to-hand combat. With aid from the crew of the U.S.S. James E. Williams and a helicopter, the ship was freed, and permission was given to the U.S. crew to treat the medically wounded crew and pirates. This resulted in favorable comments from U.S. envoy in Beijing, Christopher Hill, as well as an exceedingly rare pro-U.S. statement in the North Korean press. The favorable result of the incident occurred at an important moment, as the North Koreans moved to implement the February 13 agreement with the acquiescence of the Bush Administration, and the 2007 South Korean presidential election loomed, with the North Koreans taking pains to emphasize a more moderate policy.

This is a video summarising what happened during the cold war, for those who are still unsure. Thanks! :)

Dayna Yong

US-Russia tensions Will there be another cold war?

When they met at the Beijing Olympics, US President George Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were seen exchanging a warm embrace and laughing together.

Only four days later, Bush gave a serious speech from the White House rose garden, in which he made it clear that a serious split has emerged between the US and Russia due to the recent conflict in Georgia.
Bush warned Prime Minister Putin from "dangerous and dramatic escalation" of the Georgia war, branded the Russian military offensive as an "invasion" and claimed that "Russia's reputation in the world has been gravely damaged".

Is there now the threat of a new Cold War between Russia and the USA?
In the UN Security Council, the two countries argued with one another like they used to in the times of the Berlin Wall, barbed wire and nuclear missiles. US Ambassador Khalizad accused Moscow of conducting a "terror campaign" and added: "The days of forcing a government out of office via military means are over in Europe."

Russian ambassador Tschurkin responded: "That is absolutely unacceptable, especially from the ambassador of a country whose actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia are well known."

One high ranking US government official was reminded by the recent Caucasusconflict of the Russian invasion of Afghanistanand its march into Czechoslovakia.

Putin has paid no heed to Washington's warnings. He cited the protocol of the US which "hanged Saddam Hussein because he attacked a couple of Shiite villages". The Russian PM considered the US action of flying Georgian troops back from Iraq "deplorable" and added: "Instead of helping us, a partner of ours is getting in the way." President Medvedev explained yesterday that he had ordered an end to military action and presented a six-point peace plan yesterday afternoon, which he had outlined along with EU President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has agreed to the plan.
The problem is that even a brief ceasefire will not soon ease tensions between Russiaand the USA. A cooling of relations can expected – at the least.

•Moscow has demanded the resignation of Georgian President Saakashvili and refuses to negotiate otherwise. However, the USA has supported the Western-orientated President, and has already invested a great deal of money and military aid in the country.
•Georgia wants to leave the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Russian-led organisation of former SovietRepublics.
•NATO wants to admit Georgia although Russia has strongly resisted this.
•Poland wants to house US defence missiles despite strong protests from Moscow. Polish Prseident Lech Kaczynski said: "Russia has recently shown its true colours."
Ex-NATO general Klaus Naumann told BILD: "Hopefully it involves only a temporary worsening of US-Russian relations."

This is an article which is a part 1 of the article series. We have found numerous articles which show that Russia and US' relations are soured, even during the Bush time.
Some questions to ponder about:
-What are the consequences of their soured relationship?
- do note that this article is hinting on a second cold war between russa and us, but other than that, what are the other consequences?
-What can US or Russia do to cool relations between them?

Do look out for part 2 of the article series, where we will be featuring President Obama!

Dayna Yong

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2008/08/13/new-cold-war/between-russia-and-us.html

M&D

Now, about two decades on from the end of the Cold War, we look at the current state of world affairs and ask ourselves, is there a possibility of another Cold War? In this post, we will be looking at Mistrust and Distrust (M&D) in the Cold War era and look for comparable symptoms of M&D in present times.

Firstly, there had already been mistrust and distrust between the USSR and the Western World, including countries such as USA, Britain and France, before World War 2 that arose during the Russian Civil War. This was due to them going against the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. The Bolsheviks then went on to winning the war, causing their bad blood with the Western World to be carried into politics.

Secondly, during World War 2, the USSR collaborated with the Western Powers to launch a joint attack on Germany. However, this proved to be a mistrust on USSR's side, as the Western Powers took their time to fight on the Western Front of World War 2, presumably to use Germany to weaken the foothold of the USSR. Thus, USSR suffered great losses during World War 2 and this further weakened the trust between USSR and USA.

Thirdly, the USSR had been invaded time and again over the course of 27 years. This had the effect of building up their sense of wariness toward various parties. Thus, naturally, they saw any other country as a potential enemy and this hampered relationship building between USSR and many other countries. This coupled with the 2 reasons above, caused the relationship between USSR and USA to fall into very bad shape.

However, the fault did not only lie on the part of the Western Powers. The defensive actions of USSR trying to build up a wall around itself caused USA to be suspicious of USSR's plans to influence surrounding nations into Communism. This cause USA to be hostile toward USSR, further damaging US-USSR ties. However, this will be discussed in Jun Kiat's post on the Ideological Differences between the two superpowers and therefore, I shall no go in depth into this topic.

These few situations that happened during and after World War 2 had set the stage for the Cold War to erupt, thus these are the few 'symptoms' that we can look out for between any two countries. In the continuation of this post, we will be looking at which of these symptoms can be found between any two countries in present time.

In the meantime, I shall leave you with a few questions to ponder on that would help in understanding the next post:

1) What are some of the symptoms we can look out for in international relationships?

2) To what extent can we see mistrust and distrust in present times?

Do post short answers or any other comments by clicking on the comment button below this post. Thanks for reading and have a nice Cold Day!

Ideological differences

As we all know, the USA and the USSR have quite a lot of ideological differences. This ideological difference between the two major states is one of the many factors which caused the cold war.

The main ideological difference between the USA and the USSR is that they are being ruled by a different kind of governing system. The USA having a democratic system of government had free democratic elections of their leaders such as the President. However, the USSR had a communist system of government under Stalin's dictatorship. The people could only vote in elections for the supreme council which actually had no power. The USSR is mainly being governed by Stalin and other members of the Communist Party.

Other than the differences in governing systems, there are also differences in their economic systems. The USA had a capitalist economy in which businesses and properties were privately owned. This allows the people to earn profits through businesses and change their jobs as and when they like. However, this also meant that it is possible for anyone to go bankrupt or remain unemployed. The USSR, on the other hand, has a command economy. All businesses and properties were government owned. The government would plan what to build and what to produce. However, this provides stable jobs for almost everyone and nobody could lose any money through businesses.

The USA was the riches country at that time. However, the people were split into the rich and the poor where the rich are very rich while the poor are very poor. Although the standard of living in the USSR is much lower than in the USA, the gap between the rich and the poor was not as significant and the unemployment rate was low.

During the start of WWII, the USA was following a policy of isolationism. This meant that they would stay out of any world affairs. However, due to the rise of communism in Eastern Europe, the government would be helping and supporting any states which had similar ideologies as them. Most people think of this as a form of defending people’s freedom against a system which they do not want to be leaving under.

Unlike the USA, the USSR had been involved in wars many years back. Germany had been constantly attacking them since before WWI until the end of WWII, with the attack by Hitler being one of the strongest armies they faced. As such, in order to prevent something like that from repeating itself, Stalin wanted to make sure that the countries borders were controlled by communist governments. This made feel secure as any countries along their borders which is non-communists would be easily used by the USA.

Project oultine

For this history project, we will be doing on the possibilities of there being a second cold war. By using events that happened in the past, we will compare them with the present and determine if it is possible for another cold war to happen in our era or is it already going on. In this blog, we will be adding in many other interesting stuff such as videos or quizzes to make this learning experience both fun and interesting.

Basic project timeline-->
T1W7-8 Adding in necessary write ups on this topic
T1W9-10 Comments to be accepted and improvements will be made based on the comments.
T2W1 Completed blog to be ready to be submitted for grading
T2W2 Presentation of blog

Couple Fight

The Cold War is like a couple in the midst of an argument...