Grand Strategy Essay

To follow their goals in wartime, states tap their economic, political, and diplomatic resources and experiences, as well as their military ones. All of these are elements of grand strategy. Strategy means the larger use of military force. Some examples include implementing blockades, wear and tear, exhaustion, and applying immediate pressure at many points.

The key questions that motivate my paper are: In what ways did the great powers got involved and what were the consequences? In this paper, great powers mainly referring to the Unites States and the Soviet Union. Before we start, the definition of a great power that will be used in the rest of the paper. Per the definition, a great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. They characteristically possess military and economic strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause middle or small powers to consider the great powers’ opinions before

For this paper, I am going to define strategy using Joint Pub 3.0’s definition: A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multi-national objectives. Using this definition of strategy, I’ll argue that Nightingale makes a valid claim when he states that the US is weak in formulating strategy by highlighting several aspects of strategic development where the US needs improvement. Nonetheless, let the record show that America’s success rate in conflicts in the last century is mixed, laying claim that the US may not be great at strategy development, however, it has done well enough to defeat some pretty ruthless villains ie., Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, and Bin

“Today, most of the world is integrated into a single global economy, unlike during the cold war era” (Karon, and Hayoun 1). In today’s economy, neither the United States nor Russia is the largest player in the global economy, that position is leaning towards going to China in the near future. The end of the world-wide political rivalry between Russia and the United States has affected all other parts of the world as well.” Latin America today is largely independent of the once jealously enforced primacy of the United States; European influence over African politics has waned” (Karon and Hayoun 1). Global communication has greatly increased as well, since the end fall of the

As long as different populations have inhabited the Earth there have been continuous struggles for power and the desperate aims to dominate and to be the strongest, the biggest and the most influential. Before the advanced technological development, the authority of a country was determined, to a large extent, by the size of its territory and population. Therefore there was a large interest among the biggest European powers to extend their territories and unify as many ethic groups as possible, to reach population growth. Consequently, it was only a matter of time before one of them would take direct action, and as a result, would cause a conflict.

The authors of the essay, Zelleke and Talbot, are scholars at Harvard Business School in Boston (Massachusetts). The document presents a critic position on the way how the leaders of the United States’ (US) government are making decisions. The core argument of the document is rooted in the absence of prospective planning and strategic thinking at the supreme political level. According to the authors, it is required to designate a person responsible for foreseeing the future of the US and its strategic role in the world’s geopolitical arena. Therefore, the creation of a Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) position is proposed to overcome such failure. Even tough, some of the arguments presented in the essay may sound logical in the eyes of public opinion, most of them are not convincing and compelling if analyzed from a National Security perspective.

American presidents have spent decades attempting to explain how a particular grand strategy benefits US foreign policy. The Obama Doctrine departs from past doctrines, representing a hybrid approach, combining two approaches to foreign policy. Although it lacks consistency, the flexibility of the Obama Doctrine defies the constraints of grand strategies to discover solutions to problems in international relations.

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

World Politics has influenced and shaped the world to what it is today. Dominant nations such as Russia, United Kingdom, China, Germany, and the United States prove how a powerful ranking can impact politics. Precisely, the United States, invests a great amount of time to its military, making it superior compared to other nations. Financial stability plays an important role for nations wanting to develop and protect themselves, and the United States offers that to underdeveloped countries. Their focus on technological development and innovation contributes to the influence they have on the world.

power it is important to determine the extent and significance of their role in global politics. This paper

The existing geopolitical world environment continually tests current United States National Security Strategy and exposed several flaws. The current grand strategy, formulated piecemeal following U.S. victory in World War II, seeks to both retain American hegemony and act as global champion for the ideals of liberal democracy. Ultimately continued exercise of this strategy has exposed the ever increasing commitment to capability delta and challenges the existing ends, ways, and means methodology. Russia’s recent exercise of its expeditionary capacity in Syria as well as China’s expansion and annexation of islands in the South China Sea only serve as reminders to U.S. strategic limitations. Patrick Porter rightly posits that the U.S. is at

At the end of the cold war of 1945, America was regarded as a global holder of power. American domination of an advanced country encompasses various aspects such as economic, political, and military development. Along with the debate on strategic policies in the different fields mentioned above made by the United States, which can have a positive and adverse effect on a particular country. It is therefore essential for us to see the important position of America as a hegemony country that holds the control of world development and international order stability at the moment. This review article will illustrate the extent of the importance of American power in global development, and stability according to modern international order.

The idea of a regional hegemony goes together with two key elements. The first one is the assumption of inexistence of peer competitors, which means that the power aiming to become “great” will prevent the formation of other great powers in other geographical regions and will do whatever is required to impede other countries to duplicate its feat. The second key element that distinguishes regional hegemony is the incitement of competition; this type of conduct consists in keeping the other regions separated in several

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).

International Relations is a state centric discipline that contends with global concerns and foreign affairs amongst the states within the international arena. As the 21st century progressed rapidly, the relationship among states has changed considerably whereby small states in all continents have become a focal point in the international system. Since the days of the Cold War the impact between the small states and the great powers have been a precarious one whereby the great powers kept majority of the small states in the shadows; until now where they have begun to evolve and build their influence in the global world. The voice of the small states became onerous to achieve when the intergovernmental agreements and the economic paradigms were customarily based on the interest of authoritative states. Today, several of the small state actors in the global arena are considered to the most outstanding players in the world; nation states like Slovenia, Catalonia, Luxembourg and Bahrain. The fundamental dynamics of the development of small states in the international system is as a consequence of democracy growth provoked by the introduction of technological advancement due to globalization, communications, infrastructure and trade along with the social transformations shaped by enterprise operations globally. It is an expectation that small states can play a pivotal role in the expansion of a new era through which the international system is revolutionizing to the assistance of