The second installment in DEFP's series on topics in grand strategy is on the concept of the "balance of power"—both the distribution of power among states or an approximate equilibrium of power between states. When a state or bloc become powerful enough to threaten to dominate its region, other states tend to pool resources and form alliances in order to “balance” against the threat. Restrainers believe that Washington can and should encourage its allies to directly counter threats in their own regions, rather than maintain their status as dependents that outsource their security to an increasingly overstretched United States. This would not only be a more resilient and stable condition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, it would also help preserve the United States' power position.

Grand strategy is a state’s theory about how to provide for its own security. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States’ grand strategy shifted from one of maintenance of the balance of power in Eurasia to a militaristic and primacist idea of "liberal hegemony." This has proven to be a costly and bloody failure, and has left the United States strategically overextended. The United States should shift to a grand strategy of restraint, which will better preserve its power, minimize the risk of war, and turn over to its allies the responsibility for their own defense.

Missing from foreign policy discussions at large are inquiries about how foreign intervention may change the scope or types of government activities conducted domestically. People involved in foreign interventions develop skills abroad which they afterward bring home to domestic organizations, such as local police departments. A full accounting of the costs of foreign interventions must recognize that government activism abroad runs the risk of undermining domestic freedoms.

The war between Israel and Hamas has increased the threat to U.S. troops in the Middle East, particularly to the 3,400 personnel in Iraq and Syria. But there is no good reason for U.S. forces to be there. The U.S. presence needlessly risks war by allowing Iran and militias it funds to threaten U.S. troops. ISIS’s capabilities have been degraded, capable local actors eagerly hunt the groups’ remnants, and the United States can still strike from a long distance if necessary. U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Iraq and Syria as part of a broader effort to deprioritize the Middle East and avoid an ill-advised conflict with Iran.

Washington’s current Syria policy is failing and misguided, and it should be abandoned for one consistent with U.S. interests. The approximately 900 U.S. military forces in northeastern Syria lack a justifying rationale given the last ISIS-held territory was liberated in March 2019, more than four years ago—continued occupation with so few forces, and without a vital U.S. security goal, runs needless risks with imperceptible potential gains. U.S. forces are vulnerable to local militias with local aims that could otherwise not reach them. Existing sanctions punish regular Syrians in service of unrealistic, unnecessary regime-change goals. Syria is a strategically unimportant country that poses no direct threat to the United States nor its limited and diminishing interests in the Middle East. With higher priorities at home and in Asia, the U.S. should recalibrate sanctions and end its open-ended presence in Syria.

The recent coup in Niger—home to over 1,000 U.S. forces—shed light on one of the many counterterrorism missions the United States is waging across Africa with little scrutiny or oversight.

In a new explainer, Visiting Fellow C. William Walldorf Jr. explains why and how U.S. counterterrorism policy in Africa needs to change. U.S. policy there has been not just disappointing but counterproductive, exacerbating the problem of Islamic terrorism. As terrorists continue to operate in Africa and local U.S. partners become less popular the dangers of mission creep have risen. U.S. forces across the continent are applying too much force against too little of a threat, and U.S. security assistance has failed to address the issues that breed terrorism in the first place. Indeed, in many cases, local partners have used U.S. training and aid to launch coups, commit human rights abuses against their own people, and shore up corrupt governments.

U.S. interests would be better served if U.S. forces were withdrawn from Africa and security assistance to local partners was curbed. Rather than perpetuate a failed policy, Washington needs to end these decades-long missions and revise its assessment of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism.

Even as the war with Russia continues, Ukraine is demanding NATO membership, or at least a path to it, and some lesser security guarantees in the interim. The United States should say no, closing the door to committing to fight a future war for Ukraine. The benefits of fighting for Ukraine are lacking—Ukraine is neither a prize that Russia can use to rebuild its Soviet empire nor an example that will destabilize global politics. The risks of fighting for Ukraine meanwhile are severe—entailing a real prospect of nuclear war and mass destruction. Because of these risks, the United States has not and will not directly fight Russia on behalf of Ukraine. That means U.S. commitments to militarily defend Ukraine, even through NATO, will not be credible; they will be an obvious bluff. Such false promises will not only leave Ukraine exposed to Russia, they will increase its peril, by preserving a cause of war and encouraging Ukraine to make poor choices based on the false hope of western protection. Armed neutrality, where the United States and its allies continue to arm Ukraine to deter future Russia aggression is a safer and more credible alternative.

Is nuclear deterrence eroding? Recent developments in international affairs and military technology lead some analysts to conclude the nuclear revolution, which purportedly prevents war between nuclear powers, no longer has much effect. They say the world is getting safer for nuclear war or conventional war beneath the nuclear umbrella, which makes it likely that states, starting with China, will test U.S. commitments to fight for their allies. This paper argues these conclusions are wrong. Using recent cases that some claim are evidence of deterrence failure—Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the 2017 “fire and fury” crisis between the United States and North Korea—it demonstrates that nuclear deterrence remains robust.

Understanding the underlying causes and conditions that led to the Russo-Ukrainian war may help resolve the conflict and avoid future crises. Dominant narratives, which blame the pathologies of the Russian government and its opposition to Ukraine’s democratic efforts, fail to adequately account for what led to the invasion. Instead, realist theories of international relations consider Russia’s security concerns and warnings, highlight the problems posed by post-Cold War NATO expansion, and accurately predicted a conflict between the neighboring countries. This paper compares the realist and liberal explanations for the war’s outbreak and argues U.S. policy should give greater consideration to realist views going forward.

It needs to be acknowledged that U.S. contributions to NATO could be scaled back in the face of contending domestic priorities or competing demands for military resources in Asia. In either event, Europe would need to take up the primary burden for its defense. Realistic discussions of what that could look like in practice are therefore prudent. A serious effort to enhance European defensive autonomy would open the door to a range of issues—including the need for increased European defense spending, difficult questions of command arrangements, and complex issues related to nuclear-sharing and deterrence. None of these matters present easy answers, but what follows is an exploration of issues that would need to be addressed to make greater European defensive autonomy a reality.

U.S. leaders often express the fear that leaving the Middle East or removing U.S. forces from warzones there and in other parts of the world will leave “vacuums,” which adversaries will fill. This fear misunderstands international politics. Vacuum fears imagine a precarious global balance of power where minor gains by U.S. adversaries create grave dangers, but in reality, the U.S. is quite secure and does not need to worry about its adversaries potentially making minor gains by rushing into U.S.-made vacuums.

NATO was founded to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe. However, U.S. military presence in Europe today lacks a clear mission beyond sustaining U.S. dominance in Europe. Washington has frequently talked about the need for burden sharing with its European allies, but a more far-reaching approach of burden shifting is needed. The explainer presents recommendations for how to implement burden shifting and explains how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made burden shifting even more prudent.

The United States is obligated by treaty to defend 51 countries with military force. Beyond its formal allies, the United States also has several quasi-allies, or states the U.S. is not explicitly committed to defend but to which it provides substantial amounts of military and political support. While many experts assume more allies means the United States is more secure, quasi-allies present clear dangers for U.S. interests. The United States should be wary of the risks quasi-allies pose and avoid loose talk and policy that may commit it to a quasi-ally’s defense.

Great powers routinely stake out geographic zones within which they limit the autonomy of weaker states. The prominence of these spheres of influence depends largely on the distribution of power in the international system. During the post-Cold War moment of unipolarity, the U.S. alone was able to assert a sphere of influence. However, with the increase in great power competition, the relevant question now is not if the transition to a world of multiple spheres of influence will take place (given the structural changes at the level of international order, it most certainly will), but how the U.S. should manage this development in ways that are conducive to U.S. interests.

Policymakers have poorly defined U.S. strategic interests in the Russia-Ukraine War, and those interests that have been defined do not stand up to scrutiny. Actual U.S. interests in Ukraine are essentially negative: preventing further escalation or spillover of the conflict and limiting a wholesale collapse in U.S.-Russian relations. The limited, core interests the U.S. does have in Ukraine suggest that Washington should try to convince Ukraine and Russia to accept a negotiated settlement.

A careful reading of the Greek Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War suggests that a U.S.-China war is hardly inevitable. Such a war is a choice, not a trap—and selecting the appropriate U.S. grand strategy is the way to avoid it. Despite China’s rise, the United States and its regional allies are in a strong position to maintain a regional balance of power that keeps a peace and serve U.S. interests in Asia.

Melting ice is poised to make the Arctic more accessible for commercial and military activity. But neither that shift nor competition with Russia and China elsewhere translate into a threat to the United States in the Arctic. Washington should base U.S.-Arctic policy on the reality that the United States enjoys a strong conventional and nuclear deterrent, a robust network of Arctic allies, and favorable geography. With this in mind, the United States should avoid mistaking the Arctic for a new arena for military competition.

A continued military-centric approach to cyber issues risks underservicing the other core competencies of U.S. statecraft—intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and other tools—necessary to address illicit cyber activity like ransomware and state-backed hacking. The most persistent and enduring threats from the cyber domain are best addressed through investments in civil infrastructure, public-private resiliency, and international coalitions and less through military superiority.

Over the past several decades, U.S. foreign policy has increasingly become devoted to democratizing the world, by force if necessary. Recent rhetoric about a global struggle between autocracy and democracy is a reflection of this. The United States should return to its founding ethos where its foreign policy tries to make the world safe for self-determination, and hence democracy, rather than trying to democratize the world. This will again make the U.S. an advocate of peace and stability, rather than a revolutionary power that promotes instability. It will also improve U.S. security.

The Ukraine war will provide a fillip to U.S. activism, as the Europeans seek inexpensive security insurance from the United States and U.S. policymakers succumb to the temptations of invitational hegemony, if only confined to certain regions. At the same time, the notion of a U.S.-led, rules-based, liberal world order is looking pretty threadbare. That intellectual construct was founded on a unipolar structure of power that no longer exists. Instead, we see the reemergence of the U.S.-led Cold War coalition.

The ability to respond rapidly to global trouble sounds good, but it can tempt policymakers to intervene militarily even for non-vital interests. U.S. military bases and logistics hubs in and near the Middle East are the primary examples of this—they make foolish wars too easy to start. Closing bases will therefore make wars more difficult to start, spur public debate about potential interventions, and give diplomacy an opportunity to return as the primary policy option.

A solution to the current crisis centered on the agreed neutrality of Ukraine will serve the United States’ main goals, and Ukraine's and Russia's as well. Neutrality deals have worked well in the past, and solutions that omit Ukrainian neutralization will fail. The stakes at issue in Ukraine are too small to justify a costly conflict. Hence, finding a compromise to resolve things should take priority for the United States.

Changes in the global balance of power and in Europe’s security environment demand prevailing U.S.-Europe strategy change fundamentally. What is needed is a reduction in U.S. security commitments on the continent. A drawdown of U.S. obligations will help the U.S. preserve resources and refocus on the Indo-Pacific. It will also benefit Europeans by encouraging them to pursue strategic autonomy. However, while European strategic autonomy is important, a reduction in U.S. commitments in Europe should not be predicated on Europeans’ readiness to defend themselves.

Making democracy promotion abroad a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is a mistake that counterintuitively harms the ability to spread democracy and advance U.S. interests. China, Russia, and other non-democracies—informed by years of U.S. military and non-military actions—view democracy promotion and regime change as linked threats to regime security. Promoting democracy, outside of serving as an exemplar, is counterproductive since regimes often respond to this outside pressure by suppressing democracy at home and aggressing against U.S. interests.

U.S. bases and troops abroad no longer translate into influence, making America’s far-flung garrison a “Phantom Empire.” The refusal of U.S. leaders to countenance drawdowns in most cases removes what leverage U.S. troops might provide over host nations. U.S. commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia yield example after example of countries whose close defense relationship with the United States does not prevent them from going their own way geopolitically.

While much has changed since the Cold War, it remains in the U.S. interest to avoid Russia and China—the only two near-peer, nuclear-armed U.S. competitors—combining their economic and military power. The current U.S. approach of dual containment encourages their cooperation. Mounting a global campaign pitting democracies against autocracies adds to that pressure. The U.S. should focus on reducing tension with Moscow to improve the chances of productive diplomacy and limit incentive for Russia to cooperate with China against the U.S.

The Biden Administration’s forthcoming Global Posture Review—a top-to-bottom examination of all overseas U.S. military bases and deployments—should jumpstart a needed shift in U.S. strategic thinking away from the leftover assumptions of the Cold War and the War on Terror. Through balancing and burden sharing in Asia, major troop reductions in Europe and the Middle East, and limiting presence deployments to preserve military readiness, the United States can realign its military posture to sustainably confront the challenges ahead.

Washington has increasingly turned to sanctions in recent years, even as they fail to achieve desired policy outcomes and dilute U.S. power overtime. Overreliance on financial sanctions, for example, risks the U.S. dollar’s status as the dominant reserve currency. Correcting the errors of U.S. sanctions policy demands a serious reevaluation of all sanctions, a higher bar for imposing new sanctions, and a coordinated effort to curtail financial and secondary sanctions in particular.

Today, “great power competition” is too often invoked by advocates of a more militarily assertive foreign policy. The phrase represents a view of the world that is to a great extent zero-sum, in which the U.S. must constantly confront China and Russia abroad. This view is dangerously outdated; changes in the international system such as nuclear weapons and the end of territorial expansion mean that the great powers should move toward more cooperative relations.

The next four years are an opportunity for the U.S. to pursue a new, more realistic foreign policy. In addition to the urgent task of ending endless wars, the U.S. should focus on narrow missions in the Middle East to thwart anti-U.S. terror threats. In Europe, the U.S. should shift burdens to NATO members. And in East Asia, it should encourage allies to invest in defensive capabilities to strengthen deterrence. In all, abandoning the failed status quo in favor of a foreign policy based on restraint will mean a stronger America with more security at less cost and risk.