Background for Grand Strategies
- Jia Han
- Mar 5
- 3 min read
This writeup is not a grand strategy, but provides background knowledge to grand strategies.
The Cold War was won in part due to a good grand strategy. After WWII, most Western nations planned for peace and disarmament. The US, for example, had disbanded many of its armed forces. In 1946, George F. Kennan, while serving as a diplomat in Moscow, sent the ‘Long Telegram’ to Washington. He warned Washington of the Soviet’s aggressive nature. He proposed a grand strategy to counter it. It became THE grand strategy for the Cold War. The best Cold War history book that I know was written by John Gaddis [1]. The book was dedicated to George Kennan. [2] gives slightly more explanation.
Several well-known scholars argued that we are in the second Cold War [3-5]. They think that it is essential to prevent the current Cold War from becoming WWIII. I explained why nuclear war is a possibility in Ukraine [6].
Int’l Relations is a difficult subject. Below I comment on some literature. In [7] I wrote (with editorial corrections) “… The easiest to comment on is John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs [8]. Intro-level IR textbooks will tell you that the two most important schools are liberalism and realism. John Mearsheimer belongs to the school of realism. Realism can be traced as early as ancient Greece and Rome. A more recent philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527 also belongs to this school. Most strategists integrate with some realism. The problem with John Mearsheimer is that his realism is a hard one. His strategy does not consider differences between democracy, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism. So his suggestions may be taken into consideration, but overall have little practical value. Jeffrey Sachs is an economist and does not understand IR. He lives in a different world.”
A Chinese version of John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs’ talk is in [9]. My problem is not the viewpoints and policies in them per se; it is John Mearsheimer. His presentation is an oversimplification of realism. (Niall Ferguson had a rebuttal of John Mearsheimer.) Recently I watched John Mearsheimer’s video on the Gaza conflict for a few minutes. He got several historical facts wrong. I cannot understand how anyone can apply realism theory without understanding the historic facts. You can get proper education on realism from other literature.
On the other hand, Graham Ellison is OK. He is from a school of liberalism, but he has integrated some realism. Many years ago he wrote a book entitled Destined for War. He used a classical Greek term “Thucydides’s Trap” for today’s China-US rivalry. Although it has some merits, it is not a good match for today’s situation. I have written one commentary [10]. Recently Graham Ellison wrote two ops in WaPo: Is Trump a China hawk? and Consider these 4 inconvenient questions as the Ukraine war moves forward. He made some valid points, especially that Trump might try to make amends with Xi or keep the door open. My problem is that his consideration seems too limited. (You will see why later.) However, one should know his viewpoint because all valid viewpoints must be carefully considered. A recent WSJ editorial [11] mentioned this possibility (incidentally, this editorial was excellent).
Hal Brands is a scholar to note. I have yet to read his book. His viewpoint was presented in [12,13]. They are good. I will read his book shortly. Robert Kaplan has a presentation [14]. I have not had time to watch yet.
References:
[1] John Lewis Gaddis, "The Cold War: A New History," Penguin, 2006. Dedicated to Kennan.
[4] Niall Ferguson in seminar at UATX: Cold War II (3-2024)
[5] David E. Sanger, New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West Hardcover – 1 January 2099【译丛】从一场冷战到多场冷战 - 议报
[7] The Russia- Ukraine War (jiahan1.wixsite.com) (10-2-2024)
[9] 胡平：俄乌之战与北约东扩
[10] 韩家亮：中美之间必有一仗吗
[11] WSJ 3-2 Editorial Trump’s Old World Order
[13] Donald Trump's Russian Revolution (Hal Brands WSJ 2-20-2025 fr 24min 1 War 3 Wars)
Comments