Another outstanding negative paradox is that the Russian government headed by Putin has been full of corruption and coercion and instead of building more infrastructures, it continued to collapse the infrastructure.
There are a number of paradoxes to discuss in this article. The first paradox that caught my eye the most is the terrorist attack at Beslan in North Ossetia in September 2004. This town was attacked by armed terrorists who shot several men and women. Several people were held hostage by the terrorists and they were to be released if only the Russian government complied with their demands. The terrorists wanted the Russian government to withdraw its troops from Chechnya who occupied that place since 1995 after the Chechen rebellion (Thompson 347). What astonished me is the Russian government and the local authorities were reluctant to take immediate action to rescue the hostages. This is something that is unexpected from the government. The government and the local authorities have the mandate to protect its citizens at all costs. An immediate action plan was expected to be developed and a rescue mission conducted instantly. Although the government made some efforts later to negotiate with the terrorist, the government did the most unexpected thing from them by shooting at the terrorists when one of them accidentally exploded a bomb (Thompson 347). The Russian military attacked the terrorist even after the terrorists appealed for the shooting to stop, the military continued to shoot at them. They ended up killing all terrorists including the innocent Russian citizens who were held, hostage. Who kills one of their own? It is sad that the government would kill its people instead of rescuing them.
Another outstanding negative paradox is that the Russian government headed by Putin has been full of corruption and coercion and instead of building more infrastructures, it continued to collapse the infrastructure. It is shocking that the government can watch its infrastructures collapsing rather than enhancing and building them (Thompson 348). However, there is also a positive paradox about Russia’s president, Putin. Though he played as an authoritarian leader, I am impressed that he was able to bring the much-needed peace and stability, an increased sense of nationality and rapid economic growth. It was least expected that Putin would improve Russia to this extent. The most impressing thing is that as an authoritative ruler, it took him a short time to develop Russia within a short time.
Russian Universities During The Cold War
According to the article, it discusses that tension is building up between universities as they prepare for a cold war. The root cause of the rise of this cold war is the courses offered in various universities as some Russian programs began to be added into United States universities and colleges courses which its main was to create an understanding of the Russian Federation’s geopolitical intentions as well as its heave of aggression (Fouriezos). The introduction of courses and programs that focused on Russia led to a lost generation as the faculty administrators struggle to add programs which had lecturers who know more about Russia. With regards to this academic shift, for instance, some of the University professors claimed that universities are faddish and to rebuild the field or courses is difficult and takes longer. This move aroused suspicion and many countries did not get on board with Russia’s intentions. Consequentially, various countries quit funding Title VIII, only a few students ventured to study and get degrees focused on Russia (Fouriezos). One significant thing that caught my eye is Russia is poor in global affairs and has low popularity globally but is still participates in global affairs by partnering with other countries such as the United States.