Dmytro Lakishyk

Ph. D. (History), Senior Research Fellow

State Institution «Institute of World History of NAS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine

ORCID logo

Abstract. The role of the United States in the security system of the global international space is difficult to overestimate. At the same time, the question of the degree to which America’s national security strategies are consistent with the requirements of international security is increasingly being questioned. On the one hand, the shift in emphasis to humanitarian values has made it more logical to use modern force to address issues such as the spread of WMD or genocide. On the other hand, the practice of American action in the Middle East and Central Asia has demonstrated the limits of power policy through the use of high technology in the use of traditional structures and strategies. The aim of the article is to analyze the transformational aspect of US security and defense policy, the impact of which becomes more significant than technological innovation.

The study, based on the methods of political analysis, identified the main characteristics of American world leadership, which includes military power, economic competitiveness, moral authority, active participation in international political processes on a global scale and efforts to streamline the international system.

Conclusions. Responding to change must begin with an analysis of the social foundations of threats and, above all, the role of the social factor in modern wars. In case of unsuccessful application, technological power not only does not solve the problem, but also strengthens its social roots. Such a scenario creates a very dangerous situation for the United States, where counteraction can be crystallized or cover conflict sectors that are unusual for Americans. It is important to keep in mind that today’s security threats extend to specific citizens and communities more than to the state as a whole. That is why the world community’s acceptance of the American vision of international development in areas such as human rights and development is so important to America. While security is based on military capabilities in today’s world, its new forms and configurations require the embodiment of types of forceful intervention that are not always consistent with classical doctrines and strategic approaches.

Key words: USA, foreign policy, morality, law, military force.

Submitted: 30.04.2021



  1. Ambrose, S. & Brinkley, D. (1998). Rise to globalism: America Foreign Policy since 1938. N.Y.: Longman. [In English].
  2. Andreani, G. (2003). Henry Kissinger. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. Politique etrangere, 1, 195-197. [In French].
  3. Bloom, A. (1988). The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. [In English].
  4. Boot, M. (2002, October 14). Doctrine of the «Big Enchilada». The Washington Post, 29. [In English].
  5. Cohen, E. (2003). Supreme Command: Soldiers, States and Leadership in Wartime. N.Y.: Anchor. [In English].
  6. Colonomos, A. (2005). La morale dans les relations internationales. P.: Odile Jacob. [In French].
  7. The Declaration of Independence. Massachusetts Historical Society. – Mode to Access: [In English].
  8. Eberwein, W.-D. (2005). Le Paradox Humanitaire? Normes et Pratiques. Culture & Conflits, 60, 15-37. [In French].
  9. Hoop Scheffer, de A. (2005). L’après-guerre en Irak: le rôle des militaires au cœur du paradoxe de la stratégie américaine du «shaping». Les Champs de Mars, 17, 9-35. [In French].
  10. Huntington, S. (1981). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relation. Cambridge: Belknap Press / Harvard University Press. [In English].
  11. Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. March 2021. The White House Washington. [In English].
  12. John Quincy Adams’ July 4 Speech. Economic Thinking. [In English].
  13. Kagan, R. & Kristol, W. (2000). National Interest and Global Responsibility. In: R. Kagan & W. Kristol (Eds.). Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, 3-24. [In English].
  14. Lacorne, D. (2000). George W. Bush, un «conservateur à visage humain». Critique Internationale, 6, 6-11. [In French].
  15. Litwak, R.S. (2002). The Imperial Republic after 9/11. The Wilson Quarterly, 26 (3), 76-82. [In English].
  16. Madison, J. The Federalist Papers: No. 44. Lillian Goldman Law Library. [In English].
  17. Makki, S. (2004). Militarisation de l’humanitaire? Le modèle américain de l’intégration civilo-militaire, ses enjeux et ses limites. Colloque GRIP-ECHO «Les humanitaires dans la guerre: héros ou victimes?». Centre international de Presse, Résidence Palace, Bruxelles, 17 novembre. [In French].
  18. Krauthammer, Ch. (2004, February 4). Democratic Realism. American Enterprise Institute. [In English].
  19. Walt, S. (2006). Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. N.Y.: W.W. Norton Company. [In English].
  20. Vaïsse, J. (1999). Les États-Unis sans Wilson L’internationalisme américain après la guerre froide. Critique international, 3, 99-120. [In French].