America’s grand strategy is in turmoil. Over the past decade, power shifts, territorial disputes, and the faltering of international institutions have fueled an increasingly heated debate about what geopolitical position the United States finds itself in and the necessary trajectory of U.S. foreign policy. Some Washington analysts and policymakers (such as former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy Nadia Schadlow and Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby) believe that after several decades of U.S. hegemony, great-power competition has returned, and Washington must embrace a foreign policy designed to counter threats from Beijing and Moscow. Others, including former members of the Biden management such as Rebecca Lissner and mira Rapp-Hooper, counsel that although the liberal multilateralism that defined the post-World War II order is under threat, it will persist; U.S. leaders shoudl hold firm to a grand strategy that promotes strong institutions,democracy,and free trade. Still others-such as the former U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul and the writer anne Applebaum-believe that the current moment is defined by a new degree of contestation of norms, in which revisionist states in particular feel increasingly empowered to flout rules that once hemmed in conflict, promoted human rights, and even protected sovereignty. These analysts advise that the United States must defend critical norms explicitly by promoting them abroad.
as different as these arguments may seem, they have a common foundation. They are each built on one of three paradigms that has dominated international relations theory as World War II: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. realists see politics as rooted in anarchy, driving countries to compete for power and security.Liberals assume that individuals all strive for universally desired public goods, which are best delivered by democracy, open economies, and multilateral institutions.Constructivists believe that the adoption of political ideas and norms by large powers drives the trajectory of global affairs just as much as any state’s will to power.
Practitioners sometimes dismiss international relations theory as immaterial to real-world policymaking. In 2010, for instance, the longtime U.S. diplomat David Newsom complained that it was “either irrelevant or inaccessible to policymakers” and remained “locked in a circle of esoteric scholarly discussion.” The divide between theory and practice is problematic in normal times, and downright dangerous in turbulent ones. For many of the voices leading Washington’s foreign policy debate, international relations paradigms lurk in the background, generating an array of strategic recommendations that cannot easily be debated or reconciled because they are built on fundamentally different assumptions about how international politics works. If realist assumptions about power and security are right, then the United States needs to prepare for decades of great-power competition. But if liberal beliefs about the universality of individual desires are correct,U.S. policymakers should in fact be striving to rebuild and reinforce a liberal order. And if constructivist assumptions are correct, then any U.S. grand strategy must remain rooted in legitimate norms and values.
To cut through the chaos, Washington policymakers need to spend more time, not less, discussing the root philosophies that undergird their strategic recommendations. No single paradigm is likely to provide the right path forward. But unless policymakers and academics debate their preferred grand strategies while explicitly acknowledging their paradigmatic roots, they will continue to talk past each other.
Tragically, the trump administration has sought to dismantle existing forums, such as the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, that exposed policymakers to-in the words of former Defense Secretary robert Gates-“eggheads and ideas.” Restoring venues in which scholars and strategists can grapple with competing paradigms is vital to craft a coherent grand strategy in an era of uncertainty.
TOP MODELS
According to a 2007 survey by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project at William and Mary, almost 70 percent of U.S. introductory international relations syllabuses were oriented around the debate between realist, liberal, and constructivist paradigms. the word “paradigm,” as opposed to “theory,” is vital. Paradigms are used to generate theories, but they are bigger: they provide not specific propositions but broad frameworks about who matters in international politics, the kinds of factors one must pay attention to to understand how geopolitics works, and whether political interactions tend to be harmonious or hostile.
Realists claim that their worldview is ancient, found in Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli. And in the years following World War II,
Paradigms and Putin
International relations theories offer frameworks for understanding global events, but they can also constrain strategic thinking. Different schools of thought interpret Russia’s war in Ukraine through distinct lenses. Realists view the conflict as a predictable outcome of power politics. They believe Russia acted to protect it’s security interests in a region it considers vital. this outlook doesn’t necessarily justify Russia’s actions, but it explains them as a rational response to perceived threats.
Liberals, conversely, don’t see this as self-defense. They consider it outright aggression stemming from the dysfunction of Russia’s autocratic regime. The solution, from this viewpoint, is to strengthen NATO and consider Ukraine’s membership.
Constructivists emphasize the war’s impact on international norms. As Anne Applebaum argued in late 2024, Putin aims to demonstrate the futility of Ukraine’s democratic aspirations and to undermine international laws, including the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.Allowing Russia to redefine acceptable behaviour carries severe consequences, risking not only Ukraine and Europe but also emboldening other powers, like China, to pursue unchecked conflict.
PINHOLE CAMERAS
Paradigms help us interpret the past, present, and future.However, they can limit strategic imagination, especially when policymakers aren’t aware of the underlying worldviews shaping their thinking. Recognizing one’s own lens is crucial for knowing when to adjust it.
Most international relations paradigms treat sovereign states as the primary actors. Yet, individuals frequently enough drive global change. In an era of personalism, leaders’ idiosyncrasies and emotions matter significantly, causing substantial policy shifts with changes in leadership. Neither realists, liberals, nor constructivists anticipated the impact of Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1985 rise to power in the Soviet Union. Similarly, none of these paradigms foresaw the 9/11 attacks.
this blind spot affects analyses of strongman politics today. Attempts to categorize U.S. President Donald Trump within existing frameworks,particularly as a realist,fall short. His definition of U.S. national interest often seems incoherent and prioritizes personal gain. he escalates competition with China while neglecting the alliance building needed to succeed. He implements tariffs to boost American manufacturing but concurrently restricts immigration, shrinking the U.S.workforce. Putin’s opposition to liberal institutions and norms is also deeply connected to his unique worldview.