Which of the following is an ongoing serious problem in the Caucasus and central asia
A
Michael Romanov (establishment settle across sibira)
Peter the Great (westernized Russia)
Catherine the Great (conquered the Black Sea coast)
D
C
B
C
B
B
B
C
C
A
B
Tajiks.
(glasnost
"openness"
meant greater freedom of speech and media freedom)
(perestroika
"restructuring"
meant reduced government control over the economy)
All that = 100 trust…. me im from WW2 im smart i know all the tactics if I was chancellor of Germany we would’ve won
so ethnic conflict
Thank you for providing the answer. Yes, ethnic conflict is an ongoing serious problem in the Caucasus and Central Asia, as stated in the article.
is correct
I’ll make ur life easier the answer for this question is C- ethnic conflict
An ongoing serious problem in the Caucasus and Central Asia is regional conflicts and political instability. To get more specific information about the current situation in these regions, you can follow these steps:
1. Search for reliable news sources: Look for trusted news outlets that cover international affairs and have a focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia. Examples include BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, or local newspapers from the relevant countries.
2. Use appropriate keywords: Enter keywords such as "Caucasus conflicts," "political instability in Central Asia," or the specific country names within the region to narrow down your search.
3. Analyze the sources: Read multiple articles and reports from various sources to get a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing problems in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Pay attention to different perspectives and sources to avoid biases.
4. Cross-reference information: If possible, cross-reference the information you find from different sources to ensure accuracy and see if there is a consensus on the ongoing serious problems in the region.
Examples of ongoing serious problems in the Caucasus and Central Asia could include unresolved territorial disputes (e.g., Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan), religious and ethnic tensions, terrorism and extremism, political corruption, economic challenges, and limited democratic reforms.
I apologize, but your answer is not correctly related to the previous question about the ongoing serious problem in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Please let me know if you have any other questions or if you need any assistance.
Colonel Hans Landa of the SS is correct
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how Colonel Hans Landa of the SS relates to the previous question about the ongoing serious problem in the Caucasus and Central Asia. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please let me know.
here
The Caspian Basin and the surrounding states of the Caucasus and Central Asia have crept from obscurity onto the U.S. foreign policy agenda. While the individual countries of the two regions may not be of vital interest to the United States, the countries that border them are. Four have nuclear weapons, one is an important NATO ally, and two are states that have posed direct challenges to U.S. security by their support for terrorist movements.
There is great potential for interstate conflict involving these border countries. So even if the United States did not consider the Caucasus and Central Asian states of vital interest, it might be drawn in by the actions of others. Keeping the regions off the crisis response list should be a priority for the U.S. and Western governments.
POLICY BRIEF #80
A number of developments in the Caucasus and Central Asia underscore the need for the United States and its allies to pay closer attention to the area around the Caspian Basin. The border states of Russia, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, China and, more distantly, Pakistan and India, have close links with the region and are critical to U.S. foreign policy. The Caspian Basin itself has become one of the principal points of tension in U.S.-Russian relations, and the Caucasus and Central Asia are focal points for a range of issues on America’s global agenda: the rise of militant Islamic groups, international terrorism, drugs and weapons trafficking, human rights abuses, ethnic conflicts, humanitarian disasters, environmental catastrophe, and energy security.
In the next two years, the Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Economic and political crises, or the intensification of war in Chechnya or Afghanistan, might lead to the “Balkanization” of the regions. This, in turn, could result in military intervention by any of the major powers. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992-1993, this risk should be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, the Caucasus and Central Asian states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. Economic collapse has produced social dislocation and extreme poverty. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. The internal weakness of the Caucasus and Central Asian states, combined with brutal regional wars, makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressure—especially from Russia. Although Russia itself is weak, it is far stronger than all the states combined, and while its direct influence over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remains the dominant economic, political, and military force.
The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them. American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage, the potential threats to its own security, and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. In spite of a few glitches, the Caucasus and Central Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so amenable to U.S. activity. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain independence in the face of increasing pressures, and its guidance in dealing with presidential transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. Even with limited political and financial resources, U.S. leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems. However, this will only be possible if a policy is defined early and communicated clearly, if there is a particular focus on partnership with European allies in addressing regional challenges, and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability in the regions.