Thisessay will examine Russia as the most significant security threat/securitychallenge confronting the U.S. The grand strategy to address that threat is retaking the offensive. Additionally,the international theory of realismthat aligns with the grand strategy will be examined. Next, the essay willexplore the historical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine in order to support the grand strategy as an example of thatevidence.  Last, the essay will discuss therisks, as well as the international relations theory of liberalism, to illustrate this grand strategy. The most significant security threat/security challenge that faces the U.S. today is Russia.[i] “Russia’s nuclear weapon stockpile and aggressive, unpredictable actions are reasons that country presents the most serious near-term threat to world wide stability.”[ii] One rationale for this security challenge of the threat is that Russia partners with other weaker states, such as Syria, to instigate and supply these states in order to accomplish its own strategic objectives, by “looking to leverage its military support to the Asad regime…and use its military intervention in Syria, in conjunction with efforts to capitalize on fears of a growing ISIS and extremist threat to expand its role in the Middle East.”[iii] With Russia’s weapons capability, and action to create alliances with other weaker states, it offers these partnered states a stronger opportunity to use nuclear proliferation,[iv] or chemical weapons as a strategic rationale against the U.S. to prevent the U.S. from acting against them, as well as an offensive strategy to use to attack the U.S.[v]  These weaker states, like Syria, can present as great a danger as strong states to the U.S.’ national interests.[vi]  For example, weapons of mass destruction could be nuclear or biological.  Biological weapons can be easily accessible; nuclear weapons are more difficult to obtain on its own, but a transnational terrorist organization can secure weapons from a state.[vii]    Anotherexample of Russia’s threat against the U.S., is its defiance of non-stateorganizations, that Russia–in its post-Soviet role–is “re-surging withauthoritarianism and is aggressively contesting liberal norms, by seeking toweaken and divide non-state organizations, such as, NATO and the EU.”[viii]To illustrate this point, Russia created a ground-launched cruise missile(GLCM) that the U.S. claimed Russia violated the Intermediate-Range NuclearForces (INF) Treaty. That breach enables Russia to continue to produce GLCMs,[ix]thereby perpetuating the nuclear proliferation threat to the U.S. Yetanother example is Russia’s cyber threat. Russia is consistently seeking to use cyberspace to bolster its ownstatus, while attempting to threaten the U.S.’s interests in the areas of:government, military commercial, social and infrastructure.  Recently, Russia used its aggression of cyberto influence the U.S.’s 2016 elections. Further, Russia’s actors conducteddisruptive cyber attacks outside the U.S., and has “leveraged cyber space toseek to influence public opinion across Europe and Eurasia.”[x]  This is another security challenge for the U.S.,as Russia continues to seek out weaknesses in the U.S.’s systems as well aspartner with other states to build aggression against the U.S. Theabove discussed Russia security challenges raises the intensity of interest toa level of vital, because of the seriousnessof its threats against the U.S. “Protecting its physical existence when in jeopardy,due to attack or threat of attack is the most important.”[xi]Further, a vital interest is one in which interest is so crucial to a state, itwill not compromise. An example of this is to “prevent the regionalproliferation of WMD…prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in regions,promote the well-being of allies and friends and protect them from externalaggression.”[xii] Thevital level corresponds to the basicinterest of defense of the homeland dueto those threats and therefore causes the U.S. to employ a strategy that alignswith its national interest of survival.[xiii]The example for this is to“prevent,deter and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponattacks…prevent the emergence of hostile major powers or failed states…”[xiv]The evidence discussed above illustrates that Russia rises to the intensitylevel of vital for the greatestsignificant security challenge the U.S. faces.  Inlight of the security threat posed by Russia, the U.S. should pursue the grandstrategy of re-taking the offensive. Usingthis approach for the advancement of the liberal order, serves the U.S.’sglobal interests. That the “spread of democracy and market economics,prominence of liberal ideas as the guiding norms of international affairs,preservation of global stability and balance of power”[xv]is the accurate and appropriate direction for the U.S. to take regarding thegrand strategy. The re-taking theoffensive is important because it must continue sustain the liberal order—topursue efforts to sustain and invigorate the momentum. To accomplish this, theimplications are to provide the U.S. with safety, security and prosperity (U.S.citizens), retain and improve its diplomatic and economic ties with its allies (Germany,France, UK, Japan, India and Australia), reinvest in liberal democratic programswith non-governmental agencies (NATO, UN, EU), but most importantly, toaggressively combat nuclear proliferation (Russia, Syria), as well as otherthreats (chemical attack, terrorism) to the international order.[xvi]An example of this re-take the offensiveapproach is the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, through coalitionwith each other, cooperate together in order to thwart regional hegemonyexpansion by Russia. It shows evidence that illustrates how the grand strategy ofretaking the offensive addresses thesecurity threat to the U.S. by Russia.  TheIR theory that aligns with the grand strategy is realism. Realists view world politics as a power struggle that isconducted with conditions characterized by anarchy, and define a state’sinterest in terms of levels of power over other states as a self-help mechanism.[xvii]For example, using hard power as a means by which states advance their nationalinterests to force an enemy or reluctant ally to adhere to a state’s nationalobjectives is the main objective in order to maintain domination over the otherstates, thereby allowing the stronger state an opportunity to act upon its own agenda.Further, peace is defined as the absence of war, occurs when states adhere totheir own singularly defined national interests. Once in place, it becomes anintensive driving force, that states can no longer control its momentum, butbecomes engulfed in its movement, and then controlled by it.[xviii]Therefore, as an example, by the US pushing back on China’s significantlygrowing political, military and economic power, this demonstrates how the U.S.seeks to dominate another state. China’s strategy of its own position of increasingimprovement, will motivate China into expanding its regional and globalinfluence, thereby propelling China into the competitive sphere of other majorsuperpowers—the U.S. This endangers the U.S.’s national interests, which mustthen exert its own power in order to retain its superior position.[xix]Furtherillustrating domination by using hard power to dominate others, by incorporatingsoft power thereafter, a state can replace domination by cooperation wherediplomatic, military and economic relationships of coalitions can flourish inorder to assert against other nations states from becoming importantinternational actors.[xx]The IR theory of realism supports theU.S. grand strategy of retaking the offensiveby using levels of power in a self-help method in which to control otherstates in order to achieve its objectives.     Thehistorical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine is an important document for U.S. foreign policy that isconsidered the start of the Cold War. The doctrinearticulated that the United States would provide military, political, andeconomic aid to threatened states that were under subjugation from outsideauthoritarian forces.”[xxi] Additionally, the Truman Doctrine created a policyfor containment and deterrence to thwart further expansion of Russia and itssphere of influence[xxii].To further illustrate the historical significance ofthe threat from Russia, the doctrine was created in response to assist Greece andTurkey–democratic nations which were in danger of becoming overthrown by theRussian regime. This doctrine supports the grand strategy of retaking the offensive, as the U.S. mustintervene and maintain its strategic interests in order to safeguard the worldagainst authoritarian/communist attempts to threaten and politically overturnU.S. democratic spheres of influence throughout the world.   Therisks, as viewed through the lens of the IR theory of liberalism, and the reliance on intelligence organizations and otheractors that play an increasingly important role regarding global affairs. Specifically,the U.S.’s reliance upon its alliances with these states and non-governmentalorganizations to thwart Russia, illustrates that risk–NATO, UN, and WTO–inorder to follow their liberal mandate for Russia to be thwarted. The questionis whether or not these partners “possess the vigor need to sustain or advancethat order.”[xxiii]The risk is the reliance on the influence to shape the environment for the successof the U.S.; it is placing its fate in other organizations’ hands, andtherefore relying upon its unknown ability to assist in exercising the U.S.’sstrategic objectives. This risk demonstrates the justification of retaking the offensive as the grandstrategy regarding Russia’s threat to the U.S. Thisessay analyzed Russia as the most significant threat to the U.S. today. Inlight of this threat, the grand strategy of retakingthe offensive is appropriate for the U.S. The IR theory of realism is the foundation for retaking the offensive, as illustratedby the historical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine, whereas liberalism increasesthe risk to this grand strategy of retakingthe offensive.ENDNOTES[i] Missy Ryan,“Pentagon unveils budget priority for next year: Countering Russia and China,” New York Times, February 2, 2016.[ii] Leon Shane,III, “Incoming Joint Chiefs chairman calls Russia, China top threats, Military Times, July 9, 2015. [iii] Daniel R.Coats, “World-wide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, SenateSelect Committee on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017: 1.[iv] Glenn P.Hastedt, “Military Instruments:  BigWars,” in American Foreign Policy: Past,Present and Future”, (Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), 334.[v] Ibid. [vi] Liana SunWyler, “Weak and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U.S. Policy”,(Washington, D.C.: Congressional research Service, April 18, 2008): 1-8. [vii] Stephen D.Krasner, “Failed States and American National Security”, Hoover InstitutionJournal, Hoover Institute, April 16, 2015. [viii] Hal Brands,“American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order: Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future”, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND Project toFurther Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a Timely Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016: 11.[ix] Daniel R.Coats, “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, SenateSelect Committee on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017: 6.[x] Daniel R.Coats, “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, SenateSelect Committee on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017: 1.[xi] Dennis M.Drew and Donald M. Snow, “Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy: An Introductionto Modern National Security Processes and Problems”, Air University Press, (November 2006): 33[xii] Alan G.Stolberg, “Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century in U.S.Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th ed. Vol. II,ed. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr; 13-21. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, June 2012.   [xiii] Dennis M.Drew and Donald M. Snow, “Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy: An Introductionto Modern National Security Processes and Problems”, Air University Press, (November 2006): 33[xiv] Alan G.Stolberg, “Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century in U.S.Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th ed. Vol. II,ed. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr; 13-21. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, June 2012.   [xv] Hal Brands,“American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order: Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future”, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND Project toFurther Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a Timely Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016: 13.[xvi] Ibid.[xvii] Dr. ChrisBolan, “Realism”, lecture, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, citedwith permission of Dr. Bolan. [xviii] Glenn. PHastedt, “Defining American Foreign Policy Problems,” in American Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future, (Rowman and Littlefield,2015), 33. [xix] HalBrands, “American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order: Continuity, Change, andOptions for the Future”, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RANDProject to Further Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, PerspectiveExpert Insights on a Timely Policy Issue, TheRand Corporation, 2016: 11.[xx] Ibid.[xxi] Ibid. [xxii] Ibid.[xxiii] Hal Brands,“American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order: Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future”, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND Project toFurther Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a Timely Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016: 11.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more