Bipolarity effect on formation and development US european policy

Dmytro Lakishyk

Ph. D. (History), senior transatlantic fellow of the Institute of World History NAS

UDС 327.5(4+73)


The article examines the formation and development of European policy in the era of bipolarity of the USA. It is proved, that at the beginning of the Cold War, during its phases, i.e. in the context of the developments and implementations doctrines and strategies of interventionist nature, in the US foreign policy there was a growing trend of constant participation in international processes. The transition from a policy of containment – Soviet Union, Germany and Japan – to the strategies of liberation and global responsibility has led to a few basic differences between Europeans and Americans. It was a new manifestation and the first formalization of the fundamental reasons for the growing wariness of Europeans regarding American interventionism and globalism. This is the apparent reluctance of the European Community to participate again in the Great Wars and interventionist adventures. Having taken the path of regional integration, the Europeans saw it as an opportunity to end all wars with European countries and their participation in armed conflicts. Unlike the United States, military intervention abroad considered in Europe a relic of the past, historical vestige. It is analyzed that during the Cold War different options of American interventionism taking into account the position of European allies of the USA were formed. That is, in the era of the Cold War dominated the practical implementation of the principle of political interdependence of the USA and European countries


The USA, Europe, the USSR, the Cold war, bipolarity, interventionism.

Download the аrticle


1. Hendrickson D.C. (2005) The Curious Case of American Hegemony: Imperial Aspiration and National Decline. World Policy Journal. No. 2, Vol. 22. pp. 1–4.
2. Gardiner N. (2004) The Myth of U.S. Isolation: Why America Is Not Alone in the War on Terror. WebMemo. No. 558.
3. Hershberg J.G. (1992) Explosion in the Offing’: German Rearmament and American Diplomacy, 1953-1955. Diplomatic History. No. 4, Vol. 1. pp. 511–549.
4. (1981) Foreign Relations of the United States. 1951. Vol. 3. Washington: GPO.
5. (1986) Foreign Relations of the United States. 1952-1954. Vol. 7. Washington: GPO.
6. Cromwell W.C. (1992) The United States and the European Pillar: The Strained Alliance. New York: Macmillan.
7. (1986) Foreign Relations of the United States. 1952-1954. Vol. 7. Washington: GPO.
8. Rabe S. (1989) Controlling Revolutions: Latin America, the Alliance for Progress, and Cold-War Anti-Communism. Kennedy’s Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961-63. Oxford University Press. pp. 105–122.
9. (1983) Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960. International Security. Vol. 7. pp. 3–71.
10. Dingman R. (1989) Atomic Diplomacy during the Korean War. International Security. Vol. 13. pp. 50–91.
11. Hogan M.J. (1987) The Marshal Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
12. (1992) Papers delivered at the 14th Annual Conference of the National Committee for the Study of International Affairs at the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin, 19–20 November 1992.
13. Carafano J.J. (2004) Missions, Responsibilities, and Geography: Rethinking How the Pentagon Commands the World. Backgrounder. No. 1792.
14. Dalby S. (2005) Geopolitics, Grand Strategies, and Bush Doctrine. Working Papers of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. Singapore.
15. Shariff I. (1998) Global Realignment In The New Millennium: Three Possible Scenarios. World Affairs. No. 4, Vol. 2. pp. 11–17.
16. Guzzini S. (2003) Self–Fulfilling Geopolitics? Or: the Social Production of Foreign Policy Expertise in Europe. DIIS Working Paper. Vol. 23.