Kissinger’s Ghost: How the New US National Security Strategy Echoes Realpolitik

A new U.S. National Security Strategy has been released, and it’s causing quite a stir. Many are calling it a significant shift, but is it really that new? Dr. Gilbert Doctorow suggests that the core ideas have been around for a while, particularly those influenced by the late Henry Kissinger.

• The new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) shows a strong influence of Kissinger’s realpolitik.
• This strategy prioritizes national interests and pragmatism over values-based foreign policy.
• The document avoids ideological language, focusing on a realistic approach to international relations.
• Europe’s current political and economic structure is seen as a major impediment to its own stability and a shift in policy.
• The strategy suggests a potential move away from constant expansion and towards a more balanced approach to global power.

Doctorow points out that the current NSS isn’t entirely novel. He draws a parallel to Donald Trump’s first NSS in 2017, suggesting that the underlying principles are similar. The key difference, he argues, lies in the authorship and consistency of the document. While the 2017 version had conflicting influences, the latest one appears to have a more unified vision.

This vision, according to Doctorow, is deeply rooted in realism and pragmatism. The strategy emphasizes national interests and tangible outcomes rather than ideological crusades. This is a departure from what some might call a more idealistic or values-driven foreign policy that has been prevalent in recent decades. The document itself is careful to avoid identifying with any particular ideology, opting instead for a language of practical application and consequence.

Doctorow strongly links these principles to the thinking of Henry Kissinger. He notes that Kissinger was consulted by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and in the early days of his presidency. Kissinger, a proponent of balance of power and restrained foreign policy, had long advocated for an interest-driven approach. While his ideas were sometimes seen as outdated or challenged by more idealistic viewpoints, they seem to have found a renewed footing in this latest U.S. strategy.

Kissinger’s own writings, particularly his 1994 book "Diplomacy," laid out a vision for a post-Cold War world that emphasized balance of power and a move away from hegemonic ambitions. Although he later adapted his views to acknowledge the role of values, his core belief in national interest as the primary driver of foreign policy appears to be a significant influence on the current NSS. This focus on interest-based foreign policy is seen as a direct contrast to values-driven approaches, which Doctorow argues leave little room for diplomacy and compromise.

The strategy also takes a critical look at Europe. Doctorow highlights that the document dedicates a significant portion to discussing Europe’s challenges, including its economic situation and its relationship with Russia. The analysis suggests that Europe’s current structure, particularly the European Union, is a major obstacle to its own stability and ability to adapt. The concentration of power in the European Commission, often seen as dominated by Germany, and the electoral system that favors coalition governments with small parties, are cited as reasons why Europe struggles to change course.

This internal dynamic, Doctorow argues, makes Europe vulnerable to ideological narratives and hinders its capacity for pragmatic decision-making. The strategy implies that Europe needs to find a more stable relationship with Russia, potentially by reconsidering its energy policies. The critique extends to the EU’s pursuit of a geopolitical role, which is seen as having disastrous results and potentially leading to a German-dominated military power, a scenario that echoes historical concerns.

The shift towards realism and national interest has implications for diplomacy and alliances like NATO. Doctorow suggests that a values-driven foreign policy, by its nature, struggles with compromise, which is the bedrock of diplomacy. Conversely, an interest-based approach, like realpolitik, inherently involves negotiation and finding common ground.

The strategy also signals a potential re-evaluation of NATO’s role, with less emphasis on expansion. This could mean a recalibration of the transatlantic partnership, with the U.S. potentially showing less interest in European security matters if Europe cannot effectively manage its own affairs. The document’s critical view of Europe’s trajectory, including demographic decline and perceived authoritarian tendencies, further underscores this potential shift.

Despite the critical analysis, Doctorow expresses a peculiar optimism. He believes that a "moment of truth" is approaching, particularly concerning the conflict in Ukraine. He points to the financial unsustainability of the war for Ukraine and suggests that a crisis point is imminent. The actions of smaller nations, like Belgium, in resisting certain EU policies, are seen as potentially shaking the foundations of the European Union.

The strategy’s focus on national interest and pragmatism, while potentially confrontational, might also be seen as a necessary adjustment to a changing world order. The absence of explicitly named adversaries and the focus on rivals and competitors suggest a move away from the more ideological framing of past strategies. Whether this approach leads to greater stability or new conflicts remains to be seen, but it certainly marks a significant moment in U.S. foreign policy thinking.