Skip to main content

Transcending the Rift? Realism, Transatlantic Relations, and American Grand Strategy

  • 282 Accesses

Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

Realism has earned many friends and foes by being focused on international relations as they really are, and not as they ought to be. However, confronted with failures of the US in aspiring to steer international system of the post-Cold War era, it has become increasingly normative and, in spite of all the theoretical disputes among its main proponents, seems to speak almost with one voice in this regard: advocating the grand strategy of restraint, or offshore balancing, for America. Great powers tend to act in ways entirely conceivable from the theoretical point of view of realism, while at the same time being, paradoxically, at odds with realist policy prescriptions. American long-pursued grand strategy of primacy, or deep engagement, is a vivid example. Strongly embracing Layne’s proposition that structural and neoclassical versions of realism are not only far from incompatible, but necessarily employed together if one is to properly understand great powers’ grand strategies; and drawing from contemporary realist literature on strategy of restraint and offshore balancing (from Waltz and Posen, to Mearsheimer and Walt, to Ashford and Porter), the author explores possible developments of transatlantic relations in case the US adopts a more restrained strategic posture. It is argued that this might be an unexpected incentive to revitalize international institutions, most notably the UN and the OSCE, as well as defense component of the EU, in order to restore great power confidence, thus mitigating the consequences of the incoming struggle for spheres of influence.

Keywords

  • Europe (Central and Eastern)
  • European Union
  • Foreign policy
  • International relations
  • NATO
  • US
  • Realism
  • POTUS

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
EUR   29.95
Price includes VAT (Serbia)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-63038-6_6
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
EUR   96.29
Price includes VAT (Serbia)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-63038-6
  • Instant EPUB and PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
EUR   119.99
Price excludes VAT (Serbia)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-63040-9
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Free shipping worldwide
    See shipping information.
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
EUR   119.99
Price excludes VAT (Serbia)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-63037-9
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Free shipping worldwide
    See shipping information.
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Randall Schweller, the “hard core of the realist school of thought consists of the following propositions: (1) humans do not face one another primarily as individuals but as members of groups that command their loyalty; (2) international affairs take place in a state of anarchy; (3) power is the fundamental feature of international politics, it is the currency of international politics required to secure any national goal, whether world mastery or simply to be left alone; (4) the nature of international interaction is essentially conflictual; (5) humankind cannot transcend conflict through the progressive power of reason to discover a science of peace; (6) politics are not a function of ethics, morality is the product of power; (7) necessity and reason of state trump morality and ethics when these values conflict” (Schweller 2003: 74–75).

  2. 2.

    See Mearsheimer and Walt (2016) and Posen (2014). Grand strategy of offshore balancing is mostly similar to restraint, with a slight difference of being more proactive in its efforts to prevent the emergence of regional hegemons in regions of interest to the US. They are both, in a relatively derogatory manner, labeled as “isolationism” or “retrenchment” by the proponents of strategic primacy, cf. Brooks et al. (2012), Brands (2015), Mitchell and Grygiel (2016), or Schake (2018).

Bibliography

  • Agence France-Presse. (2019). EU defends military reforms against US criticism. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-defends-military-reforms-against-us-criticism-/4920447.html. Accessed 19 May 2019.

  • Allison, G. (2020). The new spheres of influence: Sharing the globe with other great powers. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, E. (2017). Hegemonic blackmail: Entrapment in civil war intervention. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 23(3), 218–231.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baldor, L. C. (2019). Officials: US to send about 1,000 more troops to Poland. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/06/12/officials-us-to-send-about-1000-more-troops-to-poland/. Accessed 15 June 2019.

  • BBC. (2017a). Trump worries NATO with “obsolete” comment. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38635181. Accessed 2 August 2019.

  • BBC. (2017b). Trump says Nato ‘no longer obsolete’. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39585029. Accessed 2 August 2019.

  • Berenskoetter, F., & Quinn, A. (2012). “Hegemony by invitation: Neoclassical realism, soft power and US-European relations. In A. Toje & B. Kunz (Eds.), Neoclassical realism in European politics: Bringing power back in (pp. 214–233). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, B. D., & Denison, B. (2019). Is America prepared for great- power competition? Survival, 61(5), 43–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brands, H. (2014). What good is grand strategy?: Power and purpose in American statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brands, H. (2015). The limits of offshore balancing. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brands, H. (2018). American grand strategy in the age of trump. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. G., Wohlforth, W. C., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2012). Don’t come home, America: The case against retrenchment. International Security, 37(3), 7–51.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brzozowski, A. (2020). Germany receives formal notice on US troop withdrawal plans. Euractiv. https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/germany-receives-formal-notice-on-us-troop-withdrawal-plans/. Accessed 11 June 2020.

  • Carroll, E., & Schroeder, P. (1994). It’s time to consign NATO to history, and look to future. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-09-02-9409020263-story.html. Accessed 6 June 2019.

  • Chatzky, A., & McBride, J. (2019). China’s massive belt and road initiative. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative. Accessed 1 August 2019.

  • Chazan, G., & Manson, K. (2018). US rattled by plans to forge closer European defence ties. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a1e82b7a-147c-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44. Accessed 13 March 2019.

  • Chollet, D., & Goldgeier, J. (2009). America between the wars: From 11/9 to 9/11; The misunderstood years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the start of the War on Terror. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csernatoni, R. (2020). EU security and defense challenges: Toward a European defense winter? Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2020/06/11/eu-security-and-defense-challenges-toward-european-defense-winter-pub-82032. Accessed 11 June 2020.

  • DW. (2019). EU mechanism for trade with Iran ‘now operational’. https://www.dw.com/en/eu-mechanism-for-trade-with-iran-now-operational/a-49407662. Accessed 1 August 2019.

  • Erlanger, S. (2019). Europe vows to spend more on defense, but U.S. still isn’t happy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/world/europe/us-defense-spending-nato.html. Accessed 6 June 2019.

  • European Commission. (2018). Speech by President Jean-Claude Juncker at the 54th Munich Security Conference. Speech 18/841. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-841_en.htm. Accessed 1 September 2019.

  • Flockhart, T. (2016). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(1), 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M. (2015). Cold War Europe: The politics of a contested continent. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaurdić, J. (2011). The hour of Europe: Western powers and the breakup of Yugoslavia. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hains, T. (2016). Trump: NATO is obsolete and expensive, ‘doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism’. Real Clear Politics. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/trump_europe_is_not_safe_lots_of_the_free_world_has_become_weak.html. Accessed 2 August 2019.

  • Helm, B., & Smeltz, D. (2020). OK, Boomer: Youth hesitant to use force, Shun US exceptionalism in foreign policy. Chicago: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, J., McCrisken, T., & Wroe, A. (2019). The ordinary presidency of Donald J. Trump. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, S., & Tsvetkova, M. (2019). U.S imposes new sanctions on Russia over Skripal poisoning. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-imposes-new-sanctions-on-russia-over-skripal-poisoning-idUSKCN1US1OC. Accessed 2 September 2019.

  • Jervis, R. (2020). Liberalism, the Blob, and American Foreign Policy: Evidence and methodology. Security Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1761440.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (2019). US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/us-threatens-to-withdraw-troops-from-germany/a-49959555. Accessed 9 August 2019.

  • Kavalski, E. (2019). China’s ‘16+1’ Is Dead? Long Live the ‘17+1’. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/chinas-161-is-dead-long-live-the-171/. Accessed 1 August 2019.

  • Kissinger, H. A. (1965). The troubled partnership: A reappraisal of the Atlantic alliance. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations—McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristol, I. (2011). The neoconservative persuasion: Selected essays 1942–2009. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (2006). Peace of illusions: American grand strategy from 1940 to the present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (2009). The influence of theory on grand strategy: The United States and a rising China. In A. Freyberg-Inan et al. (Eds.), Rethinking realism in international relations: Between tradition and innovation (pp. 103–13). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissner, R. F., & Rapp-Hooper, M. (2019). The day after Trump: American strategy for a new international order. The Washington Quarterly, 41(1), 7–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lišanin, M. (2017). Possibilities of assessing the changing nature of international politics in the coming multi-order world. Croatian Political Science Review, 54(4), 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lišanin, M. (2018). International sanctions as an ambiguous tool of economic statecraft: The case of Russia Post-2014. Serbian Political Thought, 18(2), 53–68.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCrisken, T., Wroe, A., & Herbert, J. (2019). The ordinary presidency of Donald Trump. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A. (2006). From out of adversity: Kosovo, Iraq and ESDP. In O. Croci & A. Verdun (Eds.), The transatlantic divide: Foreign and security policies in the Atlantic alliance from Kosovo to Iraq (pp. 49–63). Manchester and New York, NY: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010). Imperial by design. The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/article/imperial-by-design-4576. Accessed 14 May 2019.

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and Democratic realities. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: Rise and fall of the liberal order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2016). The case for offshore balancing: A superior US grand strategy. Foreign Affairs, 95(4), 70–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A. W., & Grygiel, J. J. (2016). The unquiet frontier: Rising rivals, vulnerable allies, and the crisis of American power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, E. B. (2019). Signals of strength: Capability demonstrations and perceptions of military power. Journal of Strategic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1626724.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, P. (2018a, June 5). A world imagined: Nostalgia and liberal order. Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, P. (2018b). Why America’s grand strategy has not changed: power, habit, and the U.S. foreign policy establishment. International Security, 42(4), 9–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, P. (2019). Advice for a dark age: Managing great power competition. The Washington Quarterly, 42(1), 7–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. (2014). Restraint: A new foundation of US grand strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosato, S., & Schuessler, J. (2011). A realist foreign policy for the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 9(4), 803–819.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, M. (Ed.). (2001). Chaillot Papers No. 47. From St-Malo to Nice. European defence: Core documents. Paris: Western European Union—Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schake, K. (2018). America vs. the West: Can the liberal world order be preserved? Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, T. A. (2019). ‘A Frankenstein Monster’: Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon and the year of Europe. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 17(1), 110–128.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R. L. (2003). New realist research on alliances: Refining, not refuting, Waltz’s balancing proposition. In J. A. Vasquez & C. Elman (Eds.), Realism and the balancing of power (pp. 74–80). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sestanovich, S. (2014). Maximalist: America in the world from Truman to Obama. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simón, L. (2016). Balancing priorities in America’s European strategy. Parameters, 46(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, S. (2018). Donald Trump and NATO: Historic alliance meets a—Historic president. In R. Jervis et al. (Eds.), Chaos in the liberal order: The Trump presidency and international politics in the twenty-first century (pp. 221–234). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeltz, D., Daalder, I., Friedhoff, K., Kafura, C., & Helm, B. (2019). Rejecting retreat: Americans support US engagement in global affairs. Chicago: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrall, A. T. (2018). Identifying the restraint constituency. In A. T. Thrall & B. H. Friedman (Eds.), US grand strategy in the 21st century: The case for restraint (pp. 243–268). Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrall, A. T., & Friedman, B. H. (2018). National interests, grand strategy, and the case for restraint. In A. T. Thrall & B. H. Friedman (Eds.), US grand strategy in the 21st century: The case for restraint (pp. 1–15). Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, D. C. (2012). The emergency state: America’s pursuit of absolute security at all cost. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (2017). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it? International Relations, 32(1), 3–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of good intentions: America’s foreign policy elite and the decline of U.S. primacy. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt-Walter, A. (1996). The United States and Western Europe: The theory of hegemonic stability. In N. Woods (Ed.), Explaining international relations since 1945 (pp. 126–154). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has been developed within research activities at the Institute for Political Studies, Belgrade, supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

The author is grateful to the participants of the CEEISA-ISA 2019 Joint International Conference held at the University of Belgrade, June 16, 2019, and European Consortium of Political Research General Conference, held at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, on September 4, 2019, for their valuable comments and feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mladen Lišanin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lišanin, M. (2021). Transcending the Rift? Realism, Transatlantic Relations, and American Grand Strategy. In: Attinà, F. (eds) World Order Transition and the Atlantic Area. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63038-6_6

Download citation