The US grand strategy focuses on preventing challengers, managing regional powers, and maintaining military dominance.
The grand strategy, its evolution and practice, easiest to understand is that of USA. In the 19th century and the period preceding World War I, a key element of US grand strategy was to not allow in the Western Hemisphere a significant presence of an outside great power. Notably, this strategy was formulated even before the US had the capabilities to enforce it. In the period between World War I and WW II, Britain and France were considered the pre-eminent powers. The US’s strategy as an off-shore balancer was limited to preventing unquestioned dominance by any power in Europe and East Asia. After World War II, the US grand strategy focused on preventing the Soviet Union from dominating Europe and Asia. NATO. directed at the former Soviet Union, is an example of this grand strategy in action. The Western Hemisphere remained secure from the entry of any other great power. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an example of a crisis arising from this grand strategy being put into practice.
The world order changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the USA emerging as the only global superpower. This status remained until China emerged as a challenger in certain areas. The Obama administration’s 2011 “pivot to Asia” was largely unimplemented until the Trump administration.
After World War I, US presidents unsuccessfully urged Britain and France to avoid punitive actions toward Germany. After World War II, the US helped rebuild Germany (through the Marshall Plan) and Japan with massive assistance, co-opting them as partners. In contrast, after the Soviet Union was defeated in the Cold War, the US maintained an adversarial stance toward Russia. This was partly due to Russia retaining the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) capability to destroy the US via nuclear weapons, and partly due to ideological hangovers within parts of the US system. State Department mandarins played a key role in pushing NATO eastward and promoting various “colour revolutions” in former Warsaw Pact countries.
GRAND STRATEGY OF USA
There are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations, only permanent interests, the system is anarchic since there is no formal hierarchy, like within a country. Before evaluating the unfolding Trumpian shift in the world order, we can summarise the major thrusts of US grand strategy below. It is important to note the synergistic aspects of the grand strategy that ensure global dominance.
1) Preventing the emergence of a global-level challenger: The Soviet Union was initially an ally in World War II, China was an ally against Japan and later to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Japan (in the QUAD) is now an ally to contain China. In the coming decades, China may even become an ally to contain Japan. These shifts may appear confusing or unprincipled, but they show the flexibility in pursuit of US interests. The main concern is that no axis should be able to balance the US globally, especially a combination of France, Germany, Russia, and China.
2) Managing regional powers: These powers can help to keep regions stable in their own interests. However, a regional power cannot be allowed to grow to global power status by acquiring unquestioned hegemony in its region. Such a regional power needs to be balanced so that it remains focused in its region (Balance of Power). Partial instability in their respective regions keeps regional powers countries unbalanced, and looking for allies outside the region. Regional powers must be balanced to prevent regional instability from spiraling out of control, which could lead to breakdowns and wars. The US remains an off-shore balancer, partnering with regional powers, and this grand strategy will likely continue to be successful as long as the US maintains this role.
3) Military dominance: The US seeks to dominate oceans and sea-lanes, which also requires air superiority. Overwhelming force projection by the Navy and Air Force is sufficient, and a very large standing land army may not be necessary. With evolving warfare, dominance is now extending into space. The “lost decade of technology” ended in 2015, and military needs are driving major technological developments.
4) Economic power: The US seeks to build relationships that lead to economic interdependence. Unlike the fates of many past empires, this synergistic relationship has helped maintain American global dominance. The Roman and British empires practiced this to some extent.
A TRUMPIAN SHIFT
Many of the discussions and dissonance surrounding Trump are focused on his personality. It is important to look beyond the emotional confusion and examine the Trump administration’s actions and results in alignment with grand strategy.
GREENLAND: As early as beginning of the last century, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that Greenland become a part of the USA. Access to the Arctic region is effectively through Russia, Nordic countries, Greenland, and Canada, with limited access for the US from Alaska. China has also declared itself a near-Arctic country. The melting Arctic is revealing enormous natural resources, including 160 billion barrels of oil (compared to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion barrels), natural gas, and at least $150 billion worth of gold and rare earths. Russia has about 40 icebreakers, while the US has only 3. The melting ice will also pave way for shipping routes, reducing the distance for ships from China to Rotterdam by 33%. These routes could potentially be used by Russian and Chinese warships and submarines, shortening the detection window. Some of these routes will open into the North Atlantic near Greenland. This will weaken more than one of the pillars of US grand strategy described earlier. Denmark is stepping up its annual defence outlay to 3.1% of GDP ($12 billion), but Greenland cannot be defended by Denmark, which is itself defended by the USA. Greenland anyway seeks independence from Denmark. US Navy has a base in Greenland but is constrained in the forces it can deploy. Greenland needs a bailout of about $500 mn per year from Denmark even though it has the world’s highest per capita reserves of natural resources. Increased control over Greenland to control sea lanes may well become an imperative for the USA. Whether this control will stretch to sovereignty depends on positions taken by the various parties.
CANADA: Approximately 40% of Canadian territories lie in or near the Arctic, and the country is also on the flight path of ICBMs targeting the US, which has desired military bases there. The huge Arctic coastlines and resources are defended by about 5,000 lightly equipped paramilitaries. About 75% of Canada’s exports are to USA, and 65% of its imports are from USA. In total, 70% of its population lives south of the 49th parallel, the imaginary line depicting the straight-line border between the USA and Canada. After the threat of tariffs, Canada has now accepted “special forces” on its soil, termed its Northern Territories as Northern Territories of North America, and declared that it will deploy warships on the Arctic under Operation “Nonook”. While full integration into the US may be unlikely, greater US involvement in Arctic security is a distinct possibility.
GAZA AND PALESTINIANS: Israel and Palestinians have been fighting at least since 1946. Palestinians have undoubtedly suffered immensely, but maximalist positions on eliminating Israel and the entire land belonging to Palestine will not be a solution. Gaza has a population of 2 million (West Bank 3 million) and has received very large amounts of international aid. Arab states in the 1950s and 60s had suggested relocating Gazans to other places. It is doubtful if other regional regimes want a Palestinian state in their midst, starting with Jordan. Sufferings of Palestinians are unlikely to end if conventional positions continue. Converting Gaza into a riviera is rhetoric, not to be taken at face value but for what it represents. The Trumpian reset here is not a riviera, but a solution which is free of past constrained thinking. In 2005, the Israeli army withdrew from Gaza, with administration and security left to the people of Gaza. It has access to the sea, something which many African countries lack. The now unlivable Gaza can be the seed of a solution if it can be reconstructed to provide its people with sustainable conditions without becoming a security threat to its neighbours. Gaza cannot accommodate all 5 million people, but the Negev has area which Israel has demonstrated can be made productive. Israel does not have the geographical depth, fresh water and agricultural land to cede all the West Bank without seriously jeopardising its own survival. It also faces a demographic time bomb, and an existential threat to Israel will draw in the USA. The implosion of the regional “powder keg” Syria has now provided opportunities for partially addressing issues of Israel. Russia, which is the patron of Syria, is bogged down with other problems. An extended Gaza stretching inwards from the Mediterranean can also be a buffer zone between Israel and Egypt, and milk both with smart statesmanship.
Any solution will require that regional players step out of the bounds of their conventional thinking, though public posturing can continue. Principal players in the middle east are Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Turkey and Iran are not Arab, and Iran is at loggerheads with the USA and Israel. Egypt does not have the resources, and with its population and geographical position is a country, that Israel will always be wary of. Saudi Arabia has the resources, rivalry with the others for regional leadership, is distant from the conflict, depends on the USA for security, and can lead the regional effort for fresh thinking and initiatives. The Trump-Putin meetings planned in Riyadh are unlikely to be a coincidence. The USA appears to have made its choice in the region, and the Trumpian reset seems to be moving towards possible resolution of Gaza and Ukraine in Riyadh.
RUSSIA: It is the most important part of the Trumpian reset. After the Cold War, the US failed to capitalize on the peace by maintaining adversarial policies toward Russia. NATO was first extended to include former Warsaw Pact countries, despite unambiguous warnings over years from experts and Russia itself. The Cold War warriors prevailed in trying to push NATO presence into Ukraine (and Belarus). Russia viewed this as an existential threat. With an economy smaller than that of Texas, a stagnant technology base, and a conventional military that can barely fight beyond its borders against professional armies, Russia is at best a regional power with nuclear weapons. Its ability to threaten NATO is the imagination of Cold War warriors to justify expansion of NATO against Russia. As noted previously, the Russia-Ukraine war has pushed Russia into the orbit of China, which got an ally with a resource base which China lacks, at a time when China is the principal opponent of the USA. Ukraine could have benefited immensely by being a bridge between the two sides. It has instead suffered tragically with its push to be a Cold War player and a NATO member threatening Russia.
Russia has always been paranoid due to its vulnerabilities. A Trumpian reset towards non-adversarial relations with Russia can change the world order very significantly. NATO will lose relevance, except as an insurance, and in any case the degraded Russian military cannot challenge combined European militaries. Poland and other frontline countries can have security assurances from USA. Russia has indicated that it is interested in Trump’s proposal for Russia, USA and China, to reduce nuclear stockpiles by 50%. China is a worthy rival of USA, and not Russia, which can be a very useful ally in containing China with whom it has had serious differences historically. With more effective efforts to contain China, Southeast Asia, Japan and India will be more assured. Pakistan will further lose importance for the USA. In the normal course, the USA would want a stronger India to stabilise the region and be a counterweight to China. The multipolar disorder that the Biden administration suffered from, particularly in its second half, is likely to be replaced with positions more aligned with grand strategy towards regional powers. Trump has said that it is up to India to deal with the serious instability in Bangladesh, caused with help from mandarins in the State Department, which compels India to look southwards, when interests of the USA and India require India to look northwards. End of efforts to push Russia out of its positions around the world will reduce proxy conflicts. Vast natural resources of Russia will be revealed through economic integration. NATO countries increasingly struggling with growth and delivery of services to citizens will not need to divert additional resources to defence. Ukraine using its natural resources to repay USA or for its own reconstruction is not unprecedented, and US business interests and civilians are by themselves a security guarantee. A neutral UN peacekeeping force can be stationed as a tripwire, provided Europe can accept their role in the region. The West has partnered with worse dictators, so imperfections in the Russian political set-up are not actual constraints for minimal non-adversarial positions.
ECONOMICS AND DOGE: The USA has a federal debt of almost $25 trillion, potentially $75 trillion of unfunded social security and other liabilities, and a deficit of $1.25 trillion. Federal budget and the Federal Reserve balance sheet are both bloated. A reset of the US debt will pose very serious problems for the world economy. Reducing federal activity is now becoming an imperative, even while ignoring the dramatics around DOGE. The USA oscillates between withdrawal from the world and over-active involvement. However, imposing tariffs to reduce trade interdependencies would not align with the grand strategy unless it opens bargaining positions to make progress in other areas.
Politicians can have distasteful and verbose personalities. It is important to focus on their actions and not their words. Geopolitics is centered on capabilities, not intentions. The resets outlined here will be difficult to achieve. Empirical great cycle theories in multiple area like geopolitics, economics, institutions and cliodynamics indicate that the world is heading towards very serious problems by the end of this decade. It is important to focus on solutions while there is still time.
* Vivek Joshi is an Advisor with A-Joshi Strategy Consultants Pvt Ltd. Views expressed are personal.