Last Name 1
How far can ‘strategic culture’ enhance our understanding of states ‘security strategies?
Name
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Last Name 2
How far can ‘strategic culture’ enhance our understanding of states ‘security strategies?
Introduction
Despite the various political and economic changes over the past few years, it is still
hard to dispute that countries maintain long-term visions about their geopolitical and security
role.1. Strategic culture is also important to acknowledge even though most strategic decisions
are based on immediate interests. The rise of globalization has made it clear that states are
becoming more interconnected and interdependent, resulting in new notions of national power
and interests. As the world becomes more interconnected and globalized, states must also
consider the factors influencing their security and economic interests. Strategic culture seems to
be the major driving factor in national interests. In the case of the US and the UK, comparing
their strategic culture and security policies helps us understand the complexity of national
interests. The UK is looking to expand its influence in cultivating a functional democracy in the
Middle East and hopefully contribute to bringing political stability to the region. Strategic culture
is a framework that teaches us how to interpret and understand military and state actions. It can
also help us identify areas of potential conflict and develop strategies to improve our
understanding of the state's behaviour. This discipline is not a restricted lens that focuses on the
past or the future. It allows us to understand the conditions under which a state decides how
and what it means to achieve its goals.
How do strategic cultures affect a state's security policy?
The US and British states have very different strategic cultures as they have their
historical interests regarding security strategy. The British states had to face many enemies
while dealing with colonialism, and they also faced their European allies due to their
involvement in World War II. On the other hand, the US could avoid most conflicts that the
British had to face and remained an isolated power. This has led the British states to have a
cautious strategic culture while the Americans hold a more optimistic view of security.2. Political
scientists have identified several dimensions of strategic cultures, including beliefs, values and
preferences, rationality, decision-making styles and processes, national role conceptions, and
1
Lantis, J. S. Strategic culture and national security policy. International studies review, 4(3),
(2002). 87-113.
2
Boyle, M. J., & Lang Jr, A. F. (2021). Remaking the World in America's Image: Surprise,
Strategic Culture, and the American Ways of Intervention. Foreign policy analysis, 17(2),
oraa020.
Last Name 3
foreign policy traditions. These dimensions interact with each other to form a state's unique
security strategy.3. For example, the US has a more optimistic view of security because it has
not experienced wars with each of its neighbouring states.
The British and American States and Their Strategic Culture
The British state has a more cautious approach to security because it was forced to deal
with internal and external threats at various times. Due to its imperial past, it also has to manage
relations with other states.4. The British state's strategic culture is based on the belief that no
single power could dominate all others. At different times, the British state tried to restructure
this world order through the balance of power theory or attempted alliances that would protect
their interests. The British also believe in a world order made up of independent states, and they
have collaborated with other powers to achieve this goal. The British state maintains a strong
defensive stance to protect the state's vulnerable interests. Because the UK has not faced wars
with other major powers, it has been more willing to deal with threats that could emerge from its
periphery. The UK has a limited military capability due to its membership agreements with
NATO and wishes to remain neutral when possible.
The American state also has to deal with terrorism, which can come from other countries
or within their borders; therefore, it is very involved in many international crises. However, their
approach to security is much more optimistic than the British state because their history does
not influence them. Although they share some of the same strategic goals with the UK, such as
keeping a balance of power, they have more confidence in themselves to achieve these goals.
The American state sees its role in global security as providing security for itself and its allies.
This is because of how isolationist it has been since World War II and because it has
successfully maintained security through alliances with other states. The US believes that other
countries can protect themselves without US military action if needed. The US thus tries to
provide security for its allies and has great power to do so.
Both states are important in maintaining global balance and security through various
levels of military defence. However, the American state is more reliant on alliances than the
British. The American state has been much more willing to work with powerful states like Russia
3
Beeson, M., & Bloomfield, A. The Trump effect downunder: US allies, Australian strategic culture,
and the politics of path dependence. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(3), (2019). 335-361.
4
Johnson, J. L. Strategic culture in the service of strategy: The founding paradigm of Colin S.
Gray. Comparative Strategy, 40(2), (2021). 179-184.
Last Name 4
or China to achieve its foreign policy goals when needed.5. This power can keep these high-
level powers from going against US interests to maintain their security. The British and
American states have very different strategic cultures. This is key because these states will
follow their strategic cultures throughout different foreign relations with other countries. The
British state has a cautious approach to security, while the US has an optimistic one. These two
approaches have affected how the UK and US have dealt with other countries worldwide. The
UK and US are very similar regarding their foreign relations but are very different regarding how
they deal with their domestic and external security.
The UK and US will continue to play an important role in global security for many years
because it is unlikely that either will cease to exist any time soon. They will likely play an
important role in protecting global order by keeping other states from threatening each other
through diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions, or military force if needed. The US is
considered to be the most powerful state in the world. This gives it an advantage over other
states regarding its foreign policy decisions. The US can use its power over other states
because of its isolationist history. Because of this, the American state can work independently
without forming alliances with others. Even though the UK does not have much military power
compared to the US, it has a deeper and more experienced international institution that helps
them maintain its power structure in a globalized world. The UK has also had a more cautious
strategic culture when dealing with other states, allowing them to extend cooperation or force if
needed.
The UK is still important in maintaining global order because of the differences between
its and the US' strategic cultures. The US has a strong international institution, but it still needs
to use military force every once in a while. This can also cause tension in relationships between
the US and UK. However, the UK is less militarily powerful than the US, limiting its ability to do
so. Both states can maintain their power structure through their willingness to be able to use
force against other countries when needed. The difference between their approaches leads
them to approach international relations differently. The US will work with other countries when
necessary and is willing to use force against other states that threaten its interests. The UK is
more cautious about being able to use force against other countries, which limits its ability to do
so.
5
Zarobny, Stanisław. "Changes in Polish Strategic Culture in the Context of Challenges and
Threats of the 21st Century." Security Dimensions 34 (2020): 122-144.
Last Name 5
The UK and US see the balance of power as a way to maintain security in a globalized
world. However, their approaches to dealing with countries worldwide are different because of
their different strategic cultures.6. The USA is much more optimistic about its ability to achieve
this goal, so it will use force when necessary. On the other hand, the UK is much more cautious
about using force to maintain global order and will only do this if needed, even though it could
be beneficial for international relations.7. The British approach to security can be traced back to
their historical experiences with other countries. Since the UK has historically been threatened
by other European countries such as France, Germany, and Spain, it has always focused on its
security to protect its territory. The UK does not have the same confidence level as the US and
therefore is much more cautious about using force against others.
The US sees itself as a global leader in maintaining security for itself and other states. It
is willing to use force when necessary but will only do so when it can benefit cooperation
between states and will only act alone if necessary. The UK also sees itself as important in
maintaining international relations but is much more cautious about using force even though it
could benefit them. However, the UK does have a more powerful state than the US, so it can
have full confidence in its ability to use force against other states if needed.
The difference between the UK and US is not nearly as large as it would appear when
only looking at their strategic cultures. Both states have benefited from their strategic cultures
and will continue to do so in their foreign relations with other countries.8. This will allow them to
maintain control of global order and prevent any country from threatening each other or
breaking away from international relations. Both states are still important in maintaining global
security because they are two of the most powerful states in the world. The UK has relied on
other states, like France, to help it maintain order in the globalized world. The US has also relied
on other countries to help it maintain order in the globalized world because it doesn't have the
6
Fredriksen, Aleksander. "Comparing Norway and Sweden-strategic culture affecting the military
industry." (2022).
7
Ahmadi Daghdar, Annahita. "THE FRENCH SECURITY AND DEFENCE ISSUE How does
strategic culture help explain French views on common security and defence cooperation?"
(2021).
8
Adamy, Muhammad Ilham Ramandha. "AUKUS and Australia’s Nuclear-Powered Submarine: A
Reinforced Strategic Culture."
Last Name 6
same power as many of its international counterparts. Both states will continue to contribute
much more than others to keep international relations safe and peaceful.
Analysis
The British approach differs from that of the American state because the UK is more
cautious regarding its security than other states. The British state does have a powerful military,
so when required, it can use force without any problems.9. However, the stronger state does not
always mean that one should be more willing to use force against other states than another
state. The UK can maintain its security and international relations by ensuring it doesn't have to
use force against other states. Although isolationism has allowed the UK not to be involved in
conflicts in Europe or Asia, it has limited them from being able to directly protect themselves
before they are attacked. This makes the British state less willing to use force if necessary
because they don't think they will be able to use enough power against other countries.
The US is seen as more confident in its ability to protect itself and others than the UK.
The US can use military force to maintain its power over other states, which has helped it keep
stability in the globalized world.10. The US will be willing to use force when dealing with states
that threaten its interests, but it's also open to working with other states on cooperative projects.
The more powerful state will be much more willing than the UK to use force when required.
The UK relies on other states and has long been affected by them. Since Britain became a
nation and sought international security, it has often seen itself as being threatened by larger
European powers like France and Germany. The UK's state of mind and strategic culture have
been affected by its historical experiences with other states.
This is important because it shows that the UK doesn't have full confidence in using
force against other states even though it could help maintain international relations. The UK has
avoided conflicts in Europe or Asia because it relies on other states to help with global security.
This isolationist attitude has made it difficult for the British state to directly protect itself when a
threat does appear. Still, it does allow the state to remain separate from many global issues.
Since the UK doesn't have confidence in its ability to achieve stability on its own, it relies on
other states to help maintain international relations.11. Some of these states, like France and
Germany, have been important partners for the UK. Other significant partners for Britain were
9
Cohen, Scott Allen. "Strategic Culture and a State's Decision to Use Military Force: A
Comparative Analysis of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran." Ph.D. diss., 2022.
10
Staun, J., 2020. The Slow Path Towards ‘Normality’: German Strategic Culture and the
Holocaust. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 3(1).
Last Name 7
Russia and the USA, which helped protect Britain from invasion during World War II. In these
cases, the UK could not rely on itself alone to protect its actors because it already had foreign
states working with them. The UK has also used other countries to stabilise its own state of
mind.
The UK has a more defensive state of mind because of its historical involvement with
other states and because it's been involved in conflicts like World War I and II. These
experiences have caused the UK to rely on cooperation instead of focusing on its security in the
globalized world. This is important because it shows that the UK will not put itself at risk if it
doesn't have to. The British state is a powerful nation in terms of the military because it has one
of the most advanced militaries in the world. However, this comes from both America and Britain
working together to bring down stronger opponents than themselves, like Nazi Germany during
World War II. The UK also lacks confidence in becoming a great military power.
Because Britain relies on cooperation, it has difficulty becoming a great international
security force that helps other states maintain order. The UK is vulnerable in the globalized
world because of its less powerful state of mind and strategic culture. However, this cannot be
avoided because all states rely on the rest for security. No state wants to depend completely on
itself either, so all states have mutual defence agreements with other states to provide them
with protection from stronger countries.
The difference between the UK and US is not nearly as large as it appears when only
looking at their strategic cultures. The American state is much more willing to use force because
of its confidence, but it has still had times when it has been affected by other states. The US is
much more willing to use force than the UK because of the different ways they were formed.
The US was created because many states wanted to separate and protect themselves from
European interference. This allowed the American state to be born with a stronger sense of self-
confidence and a stronger sense of wanting to protect itself from others like Britain and
France.12. The UK shares similar views with France regarding being threatened by other states
and feeling it must defend itself from them. This is because they were both once part of the
11
Mitręga, Adrian, and Marian Kozub. "The influence of strategic culture on shaping security
policy." Security and Defence Quarterly 27, no. 5 (2019): 44-56.
12
Lowsen, Ben. "Baseball and American Strategic Culture." In US-China Strategic Relations and
Competitive Sports, pp. 175-206. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022.
Last Name 8
British Empire, which gave them a sense of a shared identity and strong relationships that
Britain still has with its former colonies.
The US's different historical experiences have made it more willing to use force, but this
does not mean it has no limitations. The US recently became involved in various conflicts after
George W. Bush took office in 2000. Many people questioned Bush's methods because of his
tougher stance on other states and terrorism. Even though he could lead the US into using more
force than before, Bush could still not defeat America's enemies and end their threats.
This shows that there are limits to the American state and that the US can protect itself and
others. The British state doesn't have as many limitations in getting into conflicts, but it's still
unable to protect itself completely from various threats.
The UK has historical limits on its ability to use force against other states, even though it
can use military force against smaller threats to maintain power over them. If Britain turned into
a great military power on its own, it would be able to take on groups that posed a threat, like
Germany and France, without any foreign help. However, Britain relies on cooperation from
other states to make up for this danger. In the globalized world, it is difficult for any state to
protect itself without help from other actors. This means that states must exist in a cooperation
system because they are vulnerable and cannot achieve security independently. States do not
like to rely on others, but they do to survive, and the UK is no different. The UK's history, way of
thinking, and culture have made it more willing to use military force than most states, but it's still
unable to protect itself completely.
The Future of the UK's Strategic Culture
The international system will also continue to expand because new and stronger actors
are always interested in having a greater role in preventing and dealing with conflicts. While
some states may get involved to protect themselves, new countries and groups may come into
play for different reasons. There is also the chance that states will work together to prevent and
solve conflicts in the future as they have in the past. Even though these efforts are sometimes
ineffective when a state has other limitations, it may still be better than dealing with a conflict
alone. This means that cooperation continues to be important for states when dealing with
security issues. The EU is an example of how states work together instead of trying to solve
things independently or letting the UN lead efforts because they know it can bring different
countries together.13. Cooperation is important because states have limited power and cannot
13
Herd, Graeme P. Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior: Imperial Strategic Culture and
Putin's Operational Code. Routledge, 2022.
Last Name 9
control everything independently. The UK will continue to face new challenges in future
conflicts, which will change its strategic culture again. Leaders will see new threats and expand
their limits to prepare for future conflicts. Britain's strategic culture will most likely continue to
change because it will face different challenges than those it has faced in the past.
The data used for this research was taken from the British National Archives, Global
Security, and Threat Matrix. Future recommendations can be made to help the UK become
more effective with its military force. For example, Britain could try to create a better relationship
with other countries based on trust and mutual understanding so that it does not mix up its
military force during planning. It is also important for Britain to ensure it is not at odds with the
United States and other states it often works with. To maintain its power in future conflicts, the
UK must work on its ability to protect itself from different threats. If Britain could gain more
power on its own, it would be able to expand its current limits and deal with challenges that
arise. This could be done by implementing nuclear weapons to protect against attacks from
other states or increasing military spending to fight terrorists and other threats. It's also possible
that the UK could combine its efforts with others, such as the EU, against various threats like
terrorism to prevent them from becoming more powerful in the future. The UK will continue to
change as it grows in power and becomes more determined to protect itself from threats.
The rise of other states and the expansion of their strategic culture have made the UK's
limits more prominent. Even though states like America cannot completely protect themselves
from conflicts, they are still increasing their limits by changing their state of mind and taking on
different kinds of conflicts. These steps will allow the UK to maintain its power for future conflicts
so that it can be prepared for any attacks that arise at any time. Some many groups and
countries will come into play, even though they may not attempt to do so in the future. This will
change the scale of future conflicts and make it harder for state leaders to properly prepare for
them.
The expansion of states' strategic culture has made the UK's limits more prominent. The
UK is a great power, but it is still not completely able to protect itself from different threats
because expanding its limits to deal with all kinds of conflicts is much more difficult than just
trying to improve its military force. The UK must continue to expand its strategic culture to deal
with new conflicts in the future, but other countries will also do this, which may cause new
problems for Britain's ability to maintain power.
This research shows that the UK has limited power and must expand its limits to protect
itself from threats. Other states have also expanded their limits, so the UK will have to expand
Last Name 10
its limits to maintain its current strength. The growing number of other states, along with
conflicts that appear more frequently, means the current state of mind of British leaders will
have to expand as well. This means that future conflicts will be harder to handle, and they may
not be able to prepare properly before they occur. As the US increases military spending and
expands its state of mind against terrorism, it will affect Britain in the future. There will be two
ways the US can affect Britain, directly or indirectly. This depends on what the US does during
future conflicts. If the United States tries to fight off other countries consistently threatening it, it
may cause Britain to trade more with America and expand its limits.14. On the other hand, if the
US were to try to protect itself against threats by fighting only with other states that make up a
small part of its strategic culture, then this may create issues with Britain and make it more likely
that it will expand its limits.
There are several groups in today's international system, including states, international
organizations, and non-state groups. As this research shows, the growing number of states and
threats that arise more frequently have made the UK's limits more prominent. These issues will
continue to be seen in the future, and the UK may continue to face new challenges that it has
not yet faced. The UK's strategic culture is expanding as it becomes a stronger power in
international conflicts. Leaders will see new threats and expand their limits to prepare for future
conflicts. Britain's strategic culture will most likely continue to change because it will face
different challenges than those it has faced in the past.
This research shows that the UK has limited power and must expand its limits to protect
itself from threats. Other states have also expanded their limits, so the UK will have to expand
its limits to maintain its current strength. The growing number of other states, along with
conflicts that appear more frequently, means the current state of mind of British leaders will
have to expand as well. This means that future conflicts will be harder to handle, and they may
not be able to prepare properly before they occur. The expansion of states' strategic culture has
made the UK's limits more prominent. The UK is a great power, but it is still not completely able
to protect itself from different threats because expanding its limits to deal with all kinds of
conflicts is much more difficult than just trying to improve its military force. The UK must
14
Hicks, Gareth. "Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Culture: to what extent can strategic culture help us
understand the KSA’s strategic decision-making and behavior concerning its security policy?"
(2021).
Last Name 11
continue to expand its strategic culture to deal with new conflicts in the future, but other
countries will also do this, which may cause new problems for Britain's ability to maintain power.
Reconciling Strategic Cultures
The rapid emergence and evolution of new transcultural and global connectivity issues
require political leaders to step up their efforts to find more inclusive solutions. This can be done
by developing new sources of creativity and greater transparency. However, it is also important
not to assume that state action can be predicated on a deterministic understanding of relations
between people.15. One of the most important factors that political leaders must consider when
addressing global connectivity issues is the nature of strategic culture. It is not always possible
to predict what will happen next, and multiple national debates can run parallel. This means that
strategic cultures can be dynamic and constantly updated. They are also often re-assessed and
negotiated across generations.
There is a paradigm shift toward a multi-sum security framework in today's world. This
concept includes the protection of transnational, national, environmental, transcultural, and
human security. Pursuing win-win solutions and justice becomes more important as states
become more realistic. Despite the various factors that have caused states to become more
realistic, competition remains a major issue that needs to be balanced. This can be done
through the development of a strategy that is geared toward addressing the multiple actors that
are involved in global connectivity.
15
Schönteich, Martin. "Global Pretrial Detention Use: A Cross-National Analysis." (2018).
Last Name 12
Bibliography
Adamy, Muhammad Ilham Ramandha. "AUKUS and Australia’s Nuclear-Powered Submarine: A
Reinforced Strategic Culture."
Ahmadi Daghdar, Annahita. "THE FRENCH SECURITY AND DEFENCE ISSUE How does strategic
culture help explain French views on common security and defence cooperation?." (2021).
Beeson, M., & Bloomfield, A. (2019). The Trump effect downunder: US allies, Australian strategic culture,
and the politics of path dependence. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(3), 335-361.
Boyle, M. J., & Lang Jr, A. F. Remaking the World in America's Image: Surprise, Strategic Culture, and
the American Ways of Intervention. Foreign policy analysis, 17(2), (2021). oraa020.
Cohen, Scott Allen. "Strategic Culture and a State's Decision to Use Military Force: A Comparative
Analysis of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran." Ph.D. diss., 2022.
Fredriksen, Aleksander. "Comparing Norway and Sweden-strategic culture affecting the military industry."
(2022).
Herd, Graeme P. Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior: Imperial Strategic Culture and Putin's
Operational Code. Routledge, 2022.
Hicks, Gareth. "Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Culture: to what extent can strategic culture help us understand
the KSA’s strategic decision-making and behavior concerning its security policy?." (2021).
Johnson, J. L. (2021). Strategic culture in the service of strategy: The founding paradigm of Colin S.
Gray. Comparative Strategy, 40(2), 179-184.
Lantis, J. S. Strategic culture and national security policy. International studies review, 4(3), (2002). 87-
113.
Lowsen, Ben. "Baseball and American Strategic Culture." In US-China Strategic Relations and
Competitive Sports, pp. 175-206. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022.
Mitręga, Adrian, and Marian Kozub. "The influence of strategic culture on shaping security
policy." Security and Defence Quarterly 27, no. 5 (2019): 44-56.
Schönteich, Martin. "Global Pretrial Detention Use: A Cross-National Analysis." (2018).
Staun, J., 2020. The Slow Path Towards ‘Normality’: German Strategic Culture and the
Holocaust. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 3(1).
Zarobny, Stanisław. "Changes in Polish Strategic Culture in the Context of Challenges and Threats of the
21st Century." Security Dimensions 34 (2020): 122-144.
