In Age of Disorder, U.S. Must Put Pragmatism Above Grand Strategy

In Age of Disorder, U.S. Must Put Pragmatism Above Grand Strategy
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with members of the National Security Council in the Situation Room of the White House, Sept. 10, 2014 (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

Fifty years from now, when historians look back at 2014, they will likely be struck by how many seemingly contradictory trends co-exist in today’s world. The crisis in Ukraine suggests a fraying of the liberal international order and its consensus against territorial conquest, even as relatively robust international crisis-management mechanisms manage to deter or contain conflict elsewhere. A global rise of anti-pluralist populism has led to the resurgence of nationalism at the same time that national sovereignty is increasingly embedded in a globally integrated and largely supranational economic order. In Asia, historical grievances at times slow down but cannot derail the regional imperative for economic integration and thus political accommodation. And in Latin America, Asia and increasingly Africa, the aspirations of a growing middle class still struggle to escape national narratives of corruption, insecurity and inequality.

A world in which everything and its opposite are simultaneously true makes it exceedingly difficult to draw conclusions, let alone formulate policy prescriptions and engage in strategic planning. Take the Ukraine crisis. For many observers, Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have gained a tactical victory, annexing Crimea while demonstrating his ability to flout not only American and European ultimatums but also the international order. For others, this tactical victory has come at huge strategic cost, driving Kiev closer to the West, while revealing the weakness and vulnerability of the Russian economy to Western sanctions, and exposing the limits of Moscow’s alternatives to Western integration—namely, heightened energy trade with China under Beijing’s terms.

Determining which assessment turns out to be correct depends on another element that future historians will benefit from, but which we do not have: time. Nevertheless, if it is impossible, or inexact, to characterize the current geostrategic moment in monolithic terms, it is still possible and useful to examine the trends shaping today’s geopolitical landscape.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.