There are some essential distinctions that make the diplomatic nature of both the Soviet Union

and the United States different in their own supervisions. First are the derivations of the political
systems of each unit wherein the political model used by the United States is Democracy while
the Soviet Union uses the model of Totalitarianism.

The former, Democracy, pertains to the predominant—if not, is one of the many political
ideologies that guide, shape, mold and serve as the backbone of the governmental policy and
decision making not just on political aspect but also on the economic standing of the states. The
main tenet of this model emphasizes on its closeness and availability to the public, wherein the
people or the nation are informed or accessible of the whatnots of the governments regarding
one’s status, educational attainment, understanding of the context specifics and the varying roles
of these people in the state.

Another thing is that, although the existence of the confidentiality, the government, under this
model, still has or finds its way of informing its citizens without spilling the content of the
discourse. The public plays a huge role in the administration and development of this ideology
and does not just mainly contribute in the integration of the internal political and economic
sphere of one nation-state but is also an avenue to attract and close deals with neighboring states
across the globe since its neoliberal approach plays a fundamental function in the country’s
progress and development not just on matters concerning the political stance of diplomacy but
also on the economics stance in the external realm.

In contrast, the latter, Totalitarianism, which was decisively used by the Soviets pertains to a
political system that controls all aspect of the state’s scope. The query of control is, however
limited to the internal sphere since dictatorship is a trend in this political system and dictatorship
is known to be a factor that affects the legitimacy of one nation. Yet, in the context of the cold
war, this did not deter the influence of Soviet’s backbone. All means of communication and
information are controlled by the governing body, specifically the politburo whom had the
influence and power to have the final say in matters concerning both politics and economics.
Influence was extended even in the external realm. The approach of progress through the focus
on security serves as the integral foundation of the regime’s existence. In further explaining this
form of governance, the governing body also holds the monopoly of force and justice, and thus
the expectation of cooperation among most of population. The nature of diplomacy in this nature
is shaped by the decisions of the ruler no matter what or how complex these decisions may be.

For the diplomatic means used by the USSR in achieving their end, it is essential to distinguish
two out of the several means that was used generally during the cold war. First, is the traditional
diplomacy. This means is a legitimate diplomatic intercourse practiced between institutions and
sovereign states through representation (Staar, 1986). The representation may be through the
chosen people of the institution or the elected government (Staar, 1986). This diplomatic mean is
the leaning process used by the Soviets with other legal or legitimate agencies in the
International arena to help them achieve their end. Given the context of the cold war, traditional
diplomacy is used as an avenue to help the standing of the Soviets—may that be political or
economic—on bilateral agreements without the other negotiator firmly grasping or delving on
the Soviet advocacy which is Communism and in a more specific lens, the Marxist-Leninist
ideology. Second, is the parallel diplomacy wherein the leaning ideas and advocacies of the
Soviets are shared in and cooperated by associations. These association may vary and at its
extent level may use the science of agreement with movements that originally promotes
radicalism. Given that the question of security comes in, the parallel diplomacy, using the
Machiavellian approach, “the end justifies the means” can rationalize the issue of security since
this means of diplomacy can be acquired or be fixed with the existence of common interest. In a
more specific instance, this line of diplomacy was utilized by the Soviets within the Communist
bloc.

Given the many approach and se of diplomacy on both super powers of the cold war (stressing
more on the Soviet Union) paved way for the Cold war to be figuratively “cold” and not to result
in another World War. This statement is just one of the many reasons why the cold war didn’t
conclude as the third world war. Another reason that may explain why the war stayed as cold is
because both entity are conscious of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) principle that
when confronted can end to its manifestation since both worlds are not just considered super
powers by influence but are labeled super powers for both have the capacity to uphold their
power and may actualize the war as the Third World War. This is the most prominent
explanation and probably the most taken out of context explanation since the MAD principle
centers on the polarity identification and may not explain the line of the interest of the
contending worlds. Next is the advocacy of the United States can also justify the reason as to
why Cold war didn’t end up as World War III. The values of the nature of democracy includes
equality and peace that hinders the United States to act impulsively in the International relations.
Their stand to prove that their ideology promotes what majority of the world wants probed
whatever actions they were about to make or decide. Lastly, the technological advancements of
both worlds in proving oneself of who leads the “game” was more focused, specifically the arms
and space race. Both these races were unique highlights of the cold war that in its latent form
strengthen the security, power and influence of the U.S. and USSR in the world Politics.