The international academic journal Ukrainian Policymaker* (https://www.ukrpolitic.com/17-1/) has published a scholarly article entitled “Global Strategic Loneliness as a New Factor in International Politics: Lessons from Ukraine and Challenges for Europe to U.S. Foreign Policy”, authored by Ruslan Bortnik, Director of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics, and Oksana Krasovskaya, Expert-Analyst of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics.
This article introduces the concept of global strategic loneliness as a defining feature of contemporary international politics. It argues that the erosion of collective security mechanisms, the weakening of allied commitments, and the rise of transactional foreign policy have created a new stage in world order where states increasingly rely on autonomous survival. Using Ukraine as a case study, the authors demonstrate how the failure of international guarantees and the conditionality of Western support highlight the fragility of alliance systems. The analysis further explores the implications for Europe–United States relations, showing how shifts in American policy have accelerated debates on European strategic autonomy. By synthesizing theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, the study positions strategic loneliness as a systemic phenomenon shaping the balance of power and the architecture of global security in the 21st century.
***
Today, the world’s major powers, even while formally part of military alliances, in practice act as independent, “neutral” players – not committing themselves to strict obligations to their partners and prioritizing their own interests. The world has effectively entered an era of strategic solitude for all countries: previous guarantees and alliance promise cease to be effective if they conflict with the priorities of leading global players. Specifically, any commitments to partners that conflict with the interests of the major powers are simply postponed or ignored – whether in matters of security, economics, tariff policy, or other areas of international relations. We already live in a state of strategic loneliness, where strong states enjoy unlimited opportunities – due to their nuclear potential, economic might, and military resources, while weak and medium-sized states face significant risks, though not yet fully understood. Weak and medium-sized countries still harbor illusions that they will be protected by international law or alliance commitments within military or economic blocs, be it the EU or NATO. But in practice, these commitments often prove insufficiently robust and fail to materialize, as the situation in Ukraine has demonstrated. Ukraine, which for many years was actively invited to become part of the Western world – through an association agreement with the EU, through deepening cooperation with NATO, through campaigns to cultivate Western elites and forge a new identity – has ultimately found itself in a state of strategic loneliness. The volume of aid, the level of support, and actual cooperation with Ukraine are always determined solely by the selfish interests of its partners, rather than by any universal principles, rules of the game, or alliance commitments. In general, the model of strategic loneliness can be described as follows: the domestic situation of a given large country shapes its national interests in foreign policy. At the same time, internal dynamics remain unstable and are influenced by various factors – from cycles of economic growth and crisis, social and demographic changes, to ideological shifts in public consciousness. The development of civilization accelerates these processes: technological advances, globalization, new forms of communication, and much more often exacerbate internal and external contradictions. As a result, national interests are constantly changing, leading to economic and political rebalancing not only at the level of individual states but also of entire regions – for example, in the shifting balance of power between Western countries and the Global South. As soon as the domestic situation in a country changes – for example, in the United States, amid the migration crisis or economic problems (which helped US President D. Trump win the election again) – the public’s demand for foreign policy, and foreign policy itself, also changes, especially in the context of competitive political systems. Expecting any country to adhere to a unified foreign policy strategy for 10–20 years is becoming virtually impossible: a change in government, amidst intensifying foreign policy competition and new economic and military crises, always leads to a change in course. Structures like NATO or the EU have existed for decades, but the level of involvement of member countries and the depth of their actual cooperation are constantly changing. Internal turbulence within countries and alliances is likely to only increase due to deterioration of global economic market conditions and increasing security risks. This is precisely why all states today f ind themselves in a situation of strategic loneliness. For the largest powers, this situation is more certain and reinforced by their own potential, whereas for medium-sized and small states, especially those already embroiled in military-economic conflicts, strategic loneliness is only intensifying and is associated with a high degree of uncertainty and the inability to significantly influence the course of events. The world of global strategic solitude is the new reality of international relations. In the 21st century, the international system is increasingly moving away from the traditional logic of collective security, alliances, and allied commitments. Today, even the largest states – members of military or economic blocs – behave as decidedly non-bloc actors, guided primarily by the pragmatics of their own interests. Mechanisms that promised to ensure predictability and security through guarantees and long-term commitments have proven ineffective if these commitments conflict with the current interests of key powers. Regardless of formal agreements, if the situation within a major power change (be it a crisis, an electoral cycle, or economic turbulence), national interests will always prevail, and previous promises can be quickly revised or forgotten. This evolution of the international environment is particularly evident in what we might call the era of global strategic loneliness. Promises of collective defense and alliances, whether NATO, the EU, or other formats – no longer provide countries with a solid foundation. Actual decisions about support, assistance, or intervention are now based on ad hoc calculations and national egoism, rather than shared responsibility or solidarity. This has been most dramatically demonstrated by the example of Ukraine: despite years of promises of integration into the Western community, despite years of cultivating the Western elite and a massive information campaign, the extent of support for Kyiv is always determined by the interests of Western countries, not by universal principles or moral obligations. Ukraine is only the most obvious example: its situation has become a marker of the crisis of all alliance systems and the credibility of international guarantees. In the new model of international relations, the domestic situation and dynamics of key states directly shape not only their foreign policy but also the fate of smaller and medium sized countries embroiled in conflicts or crises. Changes in power, electoral preferences, and economic upheavals all immediately impact the behavior of powers on the global stage, making any long-term strategy of allies extremely fragile. Even structures such as NATO or the EU, while maintaining formal unity, essentially become arenas for competition and fragmentation of interests. Paradoxically, in conditions of strategic loneliness, strong states gain new opportunities to act independently: possessing nuclear weapons and economic and military potential, they can impose their agenda without regard for previous alliances. For medium and small states – especially those embroiled in conflict (like Ukraine) – this era promises uncertainty, increased vulnerability, and the need to rely primarily on their own resources, autonomy, and the search for flexible, ad hoc alliances. The illusion of the reliability of international law, universal guarantees, and block based protection is increasingly shattered by the reality of egoism and volatility of great powers. As a result, global strategic loneliness is becoming more than just a political term, but a key factor in the modern world order, in which every state – even one formally part of an alliance – must be prepared for a scenario in which, at a critical moment, it finds itself alone in the face of security, economic, or political challenges. It is this new reality that demands a revision of both national strategies and the entire architecture of international security.
____________________________________
*Ukrainian Policymaker — is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed, open-access academic journal published semiannually by the International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC). The journal publishes contemporary research in the fields of public administration, public policy, and security studies, with a particular focus on the strategic vision of Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policy, national and global security issues, and international cooperation. Since 2017, the journal has been published in an academic format, continuing the development of the analytical magazine Ukrainian Politician (2014–2017).