Rethinking strategy in a time of global upheaval

In a world marked by war in Europe, intensifying great power competition, and deepening global uncertainty, clear and effective grand strategy is becoming a cornerstone in modern international relations. 

In her latest policy paper, “Best Practices in Grand Strategy Design”, published in the Texas National Security Review, Marina Henke presents a framework for how governments can elevate their strategic thinking and better serve their citizens.

Henke, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Centre for International Security, calls on policymakers to treat grand strategy not as an academic indulgence but as an essential instrument of governance, one that links long-term national goals to the practical policies and resources needed to achieve them.

From theory to practice: A structured approach

Grand strategy describes a state’s intentions to fulfil its long-term national interests. Whilst the United States has been publishing its National Security Strategy since 2002, Germany published its first in 2023. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has since prompted countries across the world to engage in grand strategy to adapt to the new geopolitical landscape.

Henke proposes a practical and actionable approach to designing grand strategy. It begins with clearly defining a state’s most important goals, those that reflect the highest purpose of government action, such as national security and sovereignty. These should not be diluted with vague aspirations or overloaded with secondary ambitions.

“Avoiding the hard work of grand strategy risks incoherence and inefficiency.”

Once strategic goals are established, governments must carefully identify and analyse the challenges standing in the way. This requires thoughtful diagnosis of their root causes and underlying drivers. Effective analysis draws on multiple perspectives, from international relations theory to historical analogies and levels-of-analysis frameworks.

Next, Henke emphasises the need for a coherent logic of action, a guiding policy that connects challenges to goals. This logic provides a structured path forward, allowing policymakers to coordinate actions rather than pursue scattered initiatives. She cites US President Eisenhower’s 1953 “Project Solarium” as a model for rigorously testing and comparing different strategic approaches.

A further vital step is to translate strategic ideas into concrete, coordinated policy actions. Strategic coherence only matters if it leads to real-world decisions, such as how and where to invest resources, which alliances to prioritise, and how to leverage strengths relative to adversaries.

Finally, grand strategies must remain adaptable. Henke urges governments to treat their strategies as hypotheses: open to testing, learning and revision. In times of uncertainty, the ability to pivot and refine strategic assumptions is just as important as initial clarity.

Learning from strategic missteps

Henke’s paper evaluates recent grand strategy documents from countries like the US, Germany, France and the EU, and finds common flaws. These include vague or overly broad goals, poorly prioritised threats, and a lack of coherent policy direction.

Germany’s first national security strategy, for instance, outlines nine major goals without addressing trade-offs. The EU’s Strategic Compass includes a long list of actions, such as a rapid deployment force, without specifying their purpose or strategic logic. The lack of prioritisation and analytical depth, Henke warns, undermines both the effectiveness of policy and the legitimacy of democratic governance.

In contrast, the 2022 US National Security Strategy, though not without its gaps, succeeds in aligning goals with key policy priorities: building domestic strength, forging international coalitions, and modernising military capabilities. This kind of clarity, Henke argues, is essential.

A call to strategic discipline

Henke concludes with a call to action. In an era of rising geopolitical tensions and internal pressures, governments must make tough choices. Avoiding the hard work of grand strategy, whether out of political caution or institutional inertia, risks incoherence and inefficiency.

“Writing ‘good’ grand strategy is particularly important in times of great geopolitical uncertainty and crisis as we face today,” Henke says. “It’s well worth it for policymakers to strive to hone their instincts and draw lessons from the best practices of grand strategy design.”

Read the full report in the Texas National Security Review: https://tnsr.org/2025/04/best-practices-in-grand-strategy-design/#_ftnref1