GRAND STRATEGY AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS IN THE TRUMP ERA.

Аннотация

Grand strategy has long been the framing blueprint for U.S. foreign policy, enabling Washington to mobilize national power, maintain alliances, and guide the international order. Though commonly regarded as continuity from one government to the next, the Trump era placed both durability and contestation for American grand strategy in relief. Trump’s “America First” policy rebranded the engagement-restraint balance, transiting America’s policy from institutionalized liberal internationalism to transactional realism and selective retrenchment. This essay examines grand strategy as a theoretical framework to understand the U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s administration, drawing reference to competing schools of “deep engagement” and “offshore balancing.” It argues that Trump’s regime was not doctrinal chaos or complete rupture but rather a rebalanced reaction to the extended strategic controversies. In his emphasis on sovereignty, military strength, and burden- sharing, Trump contravened the post-World War II liberal order while, simultaneously, reasserting traditional features of U.S. primacy such as deterring competition and regional leadership. Positioning Trump’s policies within deeper grand strategic legacies, this study illustrates that structural compulsion of international politics constrains even populist and unorthodox leaders. Last but not least, the Trump era underscores the strength of American grand strategy in a dynamic multipolar world, but raises concerns about the longevity of U.S. leadership of the liberal order. Key words: Grand Strategy, U.S. Foreign Policy, America Firs, Liberal International Order, Deep Engagement, Offshore Balancing, Trump Administration. Grand strategy relies on long-term tools of national power that survive temporary political systems. Central to this strategy is the cultivation of enduring alliances and bilateral defense commitments, which are multipliers of American power abroad. Central, too, is the maintenance of an effective nuclear deterrent, which enables the United States to discourage enemies from entertaining existential threats. A grand strategy also requires a well-diversified 196 ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE International scientific-online conference and adaptable military, one capable of projecting power across different domains and sustaining operations in distant places while remaining capable of winning in combat1. Systems for intelligence are also necessary because they enable strategic foresight and give early notice of emerging threats2. These security pillars are based on broader societal foundations: a strong economy, an advanced technological base, a human resource base with expertise developed to assist the country, and an industrial base that remains on alert at times of crisis. Most critically, the continuity of American grand strategy is embedded in its political order—founded upon liberal democratic principles—which allows it to formulate long-lasting policies and allocate resources in ways that secure long-term national interests. The grand strategy of the United States can be described as a long-term national resource’s mobilization framework with a focus on driving core interests3. What constitutes U.S. grand strategy is therefore subject to shifting national interest definitions. Among the available arguments among scholars, two dominant approaches are apparent: “deep engagement” and “offshore balancing.” Supporters of deep engagement, for instance, G. John Ikenberry, contend that America functions best and most securely as a dominant power in maintaining the liberal international order. Despite the expense and constraints of multilateralism, they oppose that this policy grows disproportionate benefits to Washington by keeping the world in an organized manner, which endorses U.S. leadership4. Offshore balancers like John Mearsheimer, however, propose a more usual vision. They see deep engagement as a Cold War relic that is no longer relevant to the challenges of our time. Offshore balancing prioritizes limiting American military involvement in abroad by concentrating on reviving the nation at home and rebuilding America’s status globally. Its two main goals are to reduce the likelihood of getting involved in a great power war and to maximize the relative power of the United States in a multipolar world5. 1 Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2016). America abroad: The United States’ global role in the 21st century. Oxford University Press. 2 Jentleson, B. W. (2014). American foreign policy: The dynamics of choice in the 21st century (5th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. 3 Brands, H. (2014). What good is grand strategy? Power and purpose in American statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush. Cornell University Press. 4 Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press. 5 Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2016). The case for offshore ba