Session 2 Flashcards
(12 cards)
What are the steps of designing a grand strategy?
Step 1: Define core strategic goals
Step 2: Identify and analyze core strategic challenges
Step 3: Designing a logic of action
Step 4: Translating strategic ideas into concrete actions
Step 5: Testing and updating
In Step 2: Identify and analyze core strategic challenges. What is to identify and what to analyze?
a) Identify: to which degree does the challenge/threat either
threatens a state’s core values or its very existence?
b) Analyze: Why does the challenge exist? What are its underlying
causes, triggers, or drivers? Why have certain challenges
emerged as particularly significant? What forces are influencing
them?
After George Kennans “Long Telegram” of 1946:
Three drivers for the Soviet Union’s hostile attitude toward
the West
(1) Russian inferiority complexes
(2) a Marxist-Leninist ideology
(3) the political compulsion for Stalin to justify ruthless suppression at home
What are the two steps of Designing a logic of action?
- Designing different logics of action.
- Testing these logics in a competitive setting
What was the roll-back strategy?
To limit or dismantle the power of an opposing force (e.g., communism during the Cold War)
- Roll-back
- Appeasement (Besänftigung)
- Containment
- What was chosen and why?
Containment. Rollback was unnecessary, SU would not
directly attack, weakened by WW2
- Appeasement not an option, domestic pressure in SU would make alliance impossible
- US could best achieve its goals by setting clear limits on Soviet sphere of influence
Why designing a logic of action?
- Outlines an overall approach for overcoming the diagnosed strategic challenges
- Channels action in a certain direction, without defining exactly what should be
done (can build upon each other) - Decreases risk that policies will be inconsistent/incoherent
What does “Translating strategic ideas into concrete actions” mean?
Using all means a state has at its disposal
- Military tools
- Political/diplomatic tools
- Economic/technological tools
- Soft power tools
- Analysis of state strengths and weaknesses
- Exploiting potential asymmetries
What are common mistakes with designing a grand strategy?
- Defining vague, unattainable or too many core strategic goals
- Strategic trade-offs are overlooked
- Conflation (Zusammenführung) of means and ends: Resources get invested in processes but not the actual goal itself
- Strategic challenges get ignored, not analyzed
- Recommended actions are illogical/incoherent
- No testing/updating of strategic document
Net Assessment (NA)
A tool to develop grand strategy in one particular strategic
dimension and in a (most often) bilateral competitive setting e.g. Europe-Russia, Baltic Sea
- NATO-Russia, drone technology
What are advantages of NA compared to other strategic assessments?
Strategic planning in Europe tends to be abstract (“create good fighting force”)
- When reality of specific opponent makes itself clear, EU govts often respond frantically
- Goal → get competitors to play our game, channel competition into more stable and less threatening areas (where they function
poorly)
What’s the structure of a NA?
- Introduction → defines field/area
- Analysis of competitors → capabilities and trends (10y before + after)
- Ascertain intrinsic strengths and weaknesses
- Implications and policy recommendation
