what is foreign policy essay

United States Foreign Policy Analytical Essay

Introduction, united states foreign policy, usa foreign policy during (1815-1941), usa foreign policy during (1941-1989), usa foreign policy during (1989-present), works cited.

Several countries today have established legal frameworks that determine how they relate with other nations. The United States of America has a comprehensive foreign policy which governs its relationship with other countries. “Since independence, the economy of U.S. has been flourishing and it is today one of the most developed countries in the world” (Hastedt 65).

This has given it a dominant position in the world political arena and it has also influenced how it deals with other nations. “The diplomatic affairs of this country are always under the guidance of the secretary of the State” (Carter 82). However, final decisions on diplomatic affairs are only made by the president.

America’s foreign policy has always been shaped in such away that it favors its interests. It protects its corporations and other commercial organizations from any unfair treatment and competition (Kaufman 15). This has always been done to ensure that no country challenge its economic position.

U.S. has been using its power to suppress other nations that may be thinking of emerging as its competitor. For example it checked the influence of U.S.S.R. In order to continue dominating many countries, the U.S. government keeps on extending its authority and power over many nations.

“It has achieved this by simply influencing the social-economic and political institutions of some countries which are vulnerable to political influences” (Carter 130). Such practices are prevalent in countries which are poor and can not sustain themselves economically.

”Peace, prosperity, power, and principle,” have always acted as the guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy, and its interests revolve around them (Hastedt 29). The U.S. government has been striving to maintain these values, but the only thing that has been changing is the prevailing conditions which influence the manner they are achieved (Hastedt 30). We can therefore examine the foreign policies of U.S in the following phases.

America came up with the policy of “isolation” after the end of its revolutionary war. According to this policy, US did not engage in conflict resolution programs and it always remained impartial whenever some European countries had a conflict with each other (Carter 101). For example, this was demonstrated during the First World War and it continued until the beginning of the Second World War. The main interest of US during the 19 th century was to develop its economy and this influenced how it conducted its diplomatic activities with other nations.

It forged trade ties with other countries which were ready to do business with it. In addition to these, it also engaged in building its territory through bringing more territories under its control. For example in 1819 it managed to conquer Florida; in 1845 it brought Texas under its control and the Russian Empire agreed to sell Alaska to US in 1867.

Imperialism was also partially practiced by U.S. “Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington’s farewell address; these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all countries” (Carter 74). The US government in many cases declined to engage in signing treaties. For example it refused to be part of the “League of Nations” (Kaufman 67).

There was a remarkable increase in U.S. engagement in peace initiatives during the post World War One, and this formed its key agenda in foreign relations. President Wilson came up with guidelines that were used in ending the First World War. The European powers had a meeting in Paris in 1919 in which they discussed the ways of solving the disputes which had previously led to war among them. “The Versailles Treaty was signed by the countries that attended the conference but U.S. government did not” (Hastedt 120).

This is because the US government felt that some of the members had contradicted some of steps which governed the treaty. U.S. also managed to carry out the disarmament program successfully in 1920s and it also helped Germany to reconstruct its economy which had been ruined by over engagement in war. U.S. tried to continue pursuing the policy of “isolation” during 1930s.

However, President Roosevelt joined the Allied powers during the Second World War and they managed to win it. Japan was forcefully removed from China by U.S. and they also stopped its possible invasion of the Soviet Union. “Japan was greatly humiliated and it reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy” (Carter 190).

The economy of U.S greatly improved after the second war, while the other European countries grappled with economic challenges. It was now one of the greatest countries and its power and influence was felt in many countries.

The emergence of the cold war in the post war period led to the split of the world into two spheres. These two spheres were dominated by Soviet Union and U.S. Non Aligned Movement was developed as a result of this process. The Cold War period only came to an end towards the end of the 20 th century. “A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results” (Kaufman 117).

The Soviet Union completely collapsed after the U.S. war against Iraq (Gulf War). America joined this war in order to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait so that peace and stability could be restored in that country. After the war, U.S. shifted its policy from Iraq because it was trying to be a threat to its interests in the region of Middle East (Carter 195).

America is still having an important role in world politics. Nonetheless, it is facing much opposition and competition from other countries like China. Its dominant role and influence has gone down and many countries from Africa are currently shifting their diplomatic relationships to the East. “U.S. foreign policy is characterized still by a commitment to free trade, protection of its national interests, and a concern for human rights”. A group of political scientists contend that the super powers seem to be having similar socio economic and political interests, and if they can find a good opportunity to pursue them together then we shall have a prosperous future.

Carter, Ralph. Contemporary cases in U.S. foreign policy: from terrorism to trade. Washington D.C: Press College, 2010.

Hastedt, Glenn. American foreign policy. New York: Longman, 2010.

Kaufman, Joyce. A concise history of U.S. foreign policy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield , 2009.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 16). United States Foreign Policy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/

"United States Foreign Policy." IvyPanda , 16 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'United States Foreign Policy'. 16 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

1. IvyPanda . "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "United States Foreign Policy." January 16, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/united-states-foreign-policy/.

• Environmental Issues: The US Aiding for Other Countries
• Diplomatic Protocols and Privileges
• Vienna Convention: Diplomatic & Consular Relations
• US Military Spending
• Nuclear Diplomatic Relations
• Diplomatic History of Australia
• Cuba, Iraq, and Sunni Islam: Challenges to the US
• Diplomatic Immunity
• The War in Iraq and the U.S. Invasion
• US Progress in Freedom, Equality and Power Since Civil War
• Current Conflicts in Sudan
• Do the Benefits of Globalization Outweigh the Costs?
• Global Conflict Likelihood
• Afghanistan: The Way to Go
• International Search and Rescue Efforts

What Is Foreign Policy? Definition and Examples

• U.S. Foreign Policy
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.A., International Relations, Brown University

A state’s foreign policy consists of the strategies it uses to protect its international and domestic interests and determines the way it interacts with other state and non-state actors. The primary purpose of foreign policy is to defend a nation’s national interests, which can be in nonviolent or violent ways.

Key Takeaways: Foreign Policy

• Foreign policy encompasses the tactics and process by which a nation interacts with other nations in order to further its own interests
• Foreign policy may make use of diplomacy or other more direct means such as aggression rooted in military power
• International bodies such as the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations, help smooth relations between countries via diplomatic means
• Major foreign policy theories are Realism, Liberalism, Economic Structuralism, Psychological Theory, and Constructivism

Examples of Foreign Policy

In 2013 China developed a foreign policy known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the nation’s strategy to develop stronger economic ties in Africa, Europe, and North America. In the United States, many presidents are known for their landmark foreign policy decisions such as the Monroe Doctrine which opposed the imperialist takeover of an independent state. A foreign policy can also be the decision to not participate in international organizations and conversations, such as the more isolationist policies of North Korea .

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

When foreign policy relies on diplomacy, heads of state negotiate and collaborate with other world leaders to prevent conflict. Usually, diplomats are sent to represent a nation’s foreign policy interests at international events. While an emphasis on diplomacy is a cornerstone of many states' foreign policy, there are others that rely on military pressure or other less diplomatic means.

Diplomacy has played a crucial role in the de-escalation of international crises, and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is a prime example of this. During the Cold War , intelligence informed President John F. Kennedy that the Soviet Union was sending weapons to Cuba, possibly preparing for a strike against the United States. President Kennedy was forced to choose between a foreign policy solution that was purely diplomatic, speaking to the Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev or one that was more militaristic. The former president decided to enact a blockade around Cuba and threaten further military action if Soviet ships carrying missiles attempted to break through.

In order to prevent further escalation, Khrushchev agreed to remove all missiles from Cuba, and in return, Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey (which was within striking distance of the Soviet Union). This moment in time is significant because the two governments negotiated a solution that ended the current conflict, the blockade, as well as de-escalated the larger tension, the missiles near each other’s borders.

The History of Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Organizations

Foreign policy has existed as long as people have organized themselves into varying factions. However, the study of foreign policy and the creation of international organizations to promote diplomacy is fairly recent.

One of the first established international bodies for discussing foreign policy was the Concert of Europe in 1814 after the Napoleonic wars . This gave the major European powers (Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia) a forum to solve issues diplomatically instead of resorting to military threats or wars.

In the 20th Century, World War I and II once again exposed the need for an international forum to de-escalate conflict and keep the peace. The League of Nations (which was formed by former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson but ultimately did not include the U.S.) was created in 1920 with the primary purpose of maintaining world peace. After the League of Nations dissolved, it was replaced by the United Nations in 1954 after World War II, an organization to promote international cooperation and now includes 193 countries as members.

It is important to note that many of these organizations are concentrated around Europe and the Western Hemisphere as a whole. Because of European countries’ history of imperialism and colonization, they often wielded the greatest international political and economic powers and subsequently created these global systems. However, there are continental diplomatic bodies such as the African Union, Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and Union of South American Countries which facilitate multilateral cooperation in their respective regions as well.

Foreign Policy Theories: Why States Act as They Do

The study of foreign policy reveals several theories as to why states act the way they do. The prevailing theories are Realism, Liberalism, Economic Structuralism, Psychological Theory, and Constructivism.

Realism states that interests are always determined in terms of power and states will always act according to their best interest. Classical Realism follows 16th-century political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli ’s famous quote from his foreign policy book "The Prince":

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.”

It follows that the world is full of chaos because humans are egoistic and will do anything to have power. The structural reading of realism, however, focuses more on the state than the individual: All governments will react to pressures in the same way because they are more concerned about national security than power.

The theory of liberalism emphasizes liberty and equality in all aspects and believes that the rights of the individual are superior to the needs of the state. It also follows that the chaos of the world can be pacified with international cooperation and global citizenship. Economically, liberalism values free trade above all and believes the state should rarely intervene in economic issues, as this is where problems arise. The market has a long-term trajectory towards stability, and nothing should interfere with that.

Economic Structuralism

Economic structuralism, or Marxism, was pioneered by Karl Marx, who believed that capitalism was immoral because it is the immoral exploitation of the many by the few. However, theorist Vladimir Lenin brought the analysis to an international level by explaining that imperialist capitalist nations succeed by dumping their excess products in economically weaker nations, which drives down the prices and further weakens the economy in those areas. Essentially, issues arise in international relations because of this concentration of capital, and change can only occur through the action of the proletariat.

Psychological Theories

Psychological theories explain international politics on a more individual level and seek to understand how an individual’s psychology can affect their foreign policy decisions. This follows that diplomacy is deeply affected by the individual ability to judge, which is often colored by how solutions are presented, the time available for the decision, and level of risk. This explains why political decision making is often inconsistent or may not follow a specific ideology.

Constructivism

Constructivism believes that ideas influence identities and drive interests. The current structures only exist because years of social practice have made it so. If a situation needs to be resolved or a system must be changed, social and ideological movements have the power to bring about reforms. A core example of constructivism is human rights, which are observed by some nations, but not others. Over the past few centuries, as social ideas and norms around human rights, gender, age, and racial equality have evolved, laws have changed to reflect these new societal norms.

• Elrod, Richard B. “The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System.”  World Politics , vol. 28, no. 2, 1976, pp. 159–174.  JSTOR , JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2009888.
• “The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962.”  U.S. Department of State , U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis.
• Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi.  International Relations Theory . 5th ed., Pearson, 2011.

Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi.  International Relations Theory . Pearson Education, 2010.

• The Art of Atomic Diplomacy
• U.S. Foreign Policy 101
• What Is Multilateralism?
• History and Principles of the United Nations
• The Relationship Between U.S. and Great Britain After World War II
• Top 6 Key U.S. Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines
• The Sino-Soviet Split
• Containment: America's Plan for Communism
• The Truman Doctrine
• Understanding Soft Power in US Foreign Policy
• US and Cuba Have History of Complex Relations
• Immigration Rules for Cuban Nationals
• A Guide to Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points Speech
• Biography of Fidel Castro, President of Cuba for 50 Years
• Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
• The Cold War in Europe

What is foreign policy?

Foreign policy is the mechanism national governments use to guide their diplomatic interactions and relationships with other countries. A state’s foreign policy reflects its values and goals, and helps drive its political and economic aims in the global arena. Many foreign policies also have a strong focus on national and international security, and will help determine how a country interacts with international organisations, such as the United Nations, and citizens of other countries.

Foreign policies are developed and influenced by a number of factors. These include:

• the country’s circumstances in a number of areas, including geographically, financially, politically, and so on
• the behaviour and foreign policies of other countries
• the state of international order and affairs more widely (for example, is there war or unrest? Are there trade alliances to take into consideration?) 
• plans for advancement, such as economic advancement or technological advancement

Guided by foreign policy, diplomats and diplomatic bodies can work across borders to tackle shared challenges, promote stability, and protect shared interests.

A nation’s foreign policy typically works in tandem with its domestic policy, which is another form of public policy that focuses on matters at home. Together, the two policies complement one another and work to strengthen the country’s position both within and outside its borders.

Examples of foreign policy

The united kingdom.

Foreign policy in the United Kingdom is overseen by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office , which is led by the Foreign Secretary.

Recent priorities for the UK’s foreign office have included imposing sanctions on Russia due to its ongoing conflict with Ukraine, and introducing a new Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The UK has also continued its ongoing action against the regime in Syria. 

Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) – made official in 2020 – UK policymakers have been focused on negotiating new trade agreements with international partners.

The United States

American foreign policy is overseen by the U.S. Department of State , which says its mission is to “protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values, and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive.”

Domestic bills and legislation connected to foreign policy are managed by the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs , a standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that has jurisdiction over matters such as foreign assistance, HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, and the promotion of democracy. It also has six standing subcommittees that oversee issues connected to human rights practices, disaster assistance, international development, and so on in different regions of the world, such as Asia or the Middle East.

Recent events in American international affairs have included ending its war in Afghanistan, and affirming its support for a two-state solution to the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel. 

Chinese foreign policy consists of the following elements:

• Maintaining independence and state sovereignty.
• Maintaining world peace.
• Friendly relations.
• Enhanced unity and cooperation between developing countries.
• Increasing its opening and modernisation efforts.

China’s foreign policy also stipulates that China not engage in diplomatic relationships with any country that formally recognises Taiwan, which China does not recognise as a separate nation.

Nigeria’s foreign policy is lauded for strengthening its position and power regionally and internationally. Its objectives are enshrined in its constitution, and include:

• the promotion and protection of the national interest
• the promotion of African integration and support for African unity
• the promotion of international co-operation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual respect among all nations, and the elimination of discrimination in all manifestations
• respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as seeking settlement to international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication
• the promotion of a just world economic order

What is the difference between foreign policy and international relations?

International relations is a discipline of political science and can be considered one of the social sciences – it’s an area of academic study that examines the interactions between countries. Foreign policy, on the other hand, is a working template that guides how one country interacts with others.

Foreign policy in practice: impacts and consequences

How does foreign policy influence international politics.

Because foreign policies are developed to protect a nation’s interests and influence its dealings with other nations on the world stage, they have a direct impact on world politics. But it’s also fair to say that international affairs help shape foreign policies, too. 

There are also a number of international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that directly impact international relations and foreign policies, such as:

• The United Nations
• NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
• The European Union 

How does foreign policy affect the global economy?

Foreign policies can have a huge impact on the economy, both at home and abroad. While this is partially because policies often focus on the economic advancement of their nations, it’s also because almost all aspects of any foreign policy will have a knock-on effect on the wider global financial system.

For example, Foreign Policy magazine reported earlier this year that the war in Ukraine that was triggered by Russian President Vladimir Putin has already changed the world’s economy. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU has had an ongoing financial impact and consequences for trade relationships throughout Europe (and even farther afield), while the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown measures taken in various countries has had a lasting effect on global supply chains and finances.

Help set public policy agendas

Explore public policy – including foreign policy and international studies – in greater depth with the 100% online Master of Public Administration (MPA) at the University of York.

One of the core modules on this flexible, part-time master’s degree is in policy analysis, so you will explore and analyse the complexity inherent in contemporary social and public policy development and reform. You will critically examine the role of ideas, interests, institutions, and actors in the policy process, and explore the wider social, economic, and political processes that shape contemporary policy-making. You will also gain conceptual and analytical tools to undertake advanced applied policy analysis in a range of local, national, and international policy settings.

Additionally, this postgraduate degree includes a module in policy research, enabling you to critically reflect on the strengths, limitations, and appropriateness of different research approaches and techniques, and helping you to acquire the skills needed to evaluate and commission research for public policy and administration contexts.

For further information about entry requirements, tuition fees, application deadlines, and independent research, please visit the programme page .

Start application

Admission requirements

Start dates

Tuition and course fees

Accessibility Statement

Online programmes

Other programmes at York

University of York

York YO10 5DD United Kingdom

Freephone: 0808 189 2125 Local: +44 (0) 1904 211 030 Email:  [email protected]

© University of York Legal statements | Privacy and cookies

You are required to provide the contact details for one academic referee. We do not usually require a reference but, on occasion, further assessment of your application might be needed in which case we will contact your referee to ask for a reference. You do not need to source the reference or submit it yourself as part of your application.

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Pre-Submission Exchange
• About Foreign Policy Analysis
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Lisbeth Aggestam

COVID-19 Update

The editorial team of Foreign Policy Analysis  has an update for authors and reviewers about journal processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Latest articles

Latest posts on x.

Why publish with FPA ?

Learn about the benefits  of publishing in Foreign Policy Analysis, with its unique actor-specific focus that allows you to reach a wide audience of international studies scholars and students.

Economic Sanctions Virtual Issue

Explore a timely virtual issue, curated by the Editors, featuring research on economic sanctions in light of the recent sanctions imposed by the United States and its European allies on Russia.

Browse the issue

Video Abstracts

Watch authors describe their latest research in Foreign Policy Analysis. 

International Studies Association

Online access to Foreign Policy Analysis is free for International Studies Association members. Learn more about the benefits of being an ISA member. 

Email Alerts

Register to receive email alerts as soon as new content is published in the ISA journals. 

Sign up  

Pre-Submission Exchange 

Read about the exchange and how it can provide support for authors based or trained in institutions typically underrepresented in mainstream international relations journals. 

Special Issues 

Explore the latest special issues from Foreign Policy Analysis .

• Political Parties and Foreign Policy
• Gender and Foreign Policy Analysis

Related Titles

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1743-8594
• Print ISSN 1743-8586
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

What Is Foreign Policy And Why Is It Important?

The foreign policy of a particular country is as important as its domestic policy. It is both a strategy and guideline for dealing with other countries or states, supranational organizations, other political actors and political entities, and even non-state actors. Furthermore, its general purpose revolves around promoting national interest, influencing other international actors, and shaping geopolitics and international relations .

Understanding the Definition of Foreign Policy Further

Some analysts trace the origin of foreign policy to 17th-century Europe where states began separating and categorizing policies either under their internal affairs or external affairs. Others have argued that it is as old as the oldest organized state or political communities.

Political scientist Halvard Leira explained that the discipline of international relations provides two takes on the definition of foreign policy. The first one describes it as an “abstract expression of relations between political entities” that serves as an analytical tool for examining fundamental issues emerging from the interrelation of organized groups.

The second definition is a critique of the first one. It defines foreign policy not as a bridge between two political entities or organized groups but as one of the manners in which a particular political entity differentiates itself from the rest. This definition makes foreign policy both a producer and a product of the modern state and state system.

Note that the first definition is attuned to the notion the origin of foreign policy is as old as the first organized political community. On the other hand, the second definition is aligned with the view that it is a product of modern international affairs.

18th-century Europe also saw the emergence of the need to separate the affairs of a state into two broad categories. Note that this period was characterized by extreme turbulence in the relationship among European nations or countries due to ongoing conflicts, as well as internal issues and problems affecting a particular country.

Nevertheless, the situation resulted in categorizing issues into two: civil affairs and foreign affairs. Civil affairs pertain to domestic management of internal issues while foreign affairs represent the management of issues outside the sovereign realm.

The modern definition of foreign policy now centers on it being the general goals and objectives that direct the activities and relationships or interactions of a particular state with other states and non-state actors . This policy is influenced by national interest or domestic considerations and the situations in the international community.

A Look Into the Purpose and Importance of Foreign Policy

In order to understand further the modern definition, it is also necessary to understand the purpose and importance of foreign policy. Remember that this policy is shaped both by domestic considerations and the issues in the greater international community.

The foreign policy of a particular state or country is fundamentally a product of different needs that must be met and issues that must be addressed. Of course, there is a template for designing one, and it revolves around defense and security purposes, advancing economic interest or promoting economic gains, and an internationalist adherence.

1. Defense and Security

Numerous scholars and thinkers have written and published topics on policymaking that seem to suggest the inseparability of defense strategy from foreign policy. One example is the book by Derek S. Reveron, Nikolas K. Gvosdev, and Mackubin Thomas Owens.

In “U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy,” Reveron, Gvosdev, and Owens explored the relationship between foreign policy and defense strategy. They mentioned that after the Second World War, the United States became a superpower that embraced the responsibility of promoting peace and security through policies directed toward foreign countries.

The Cold War became an avenue for the American government to influence the international community while also battling the domestic threats from the Soviet Union . The U.S. managed these threats by empowering countries at risk of transitioning to communism .

British politics lecturer Thibaud Harrois also wrote an exploratory article on the impact of the post-Cold War Era on the foreign policy and defense policy of the United Kingdom. He noted that the end of the Cold War marked a shift from a realist view of international relations to a more neoliberal adherence that upholds interstate cooperation.

Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are the product of this adherence to interstate cooperation. Memberships to these nonstate entities require a suitable foreign policy.

Most modern countries have specific agenda within their respective foreign policies aimed toward the promotion of military alliances to deter threats from aggressors. Some also have specific non-military or soft power agenda to promote defense and security. Notable examples include foreign aid and the rollout of different types of economic sanctions .

2. Economic Interest

Another purpose of foreign policy is to promote the economic interest of a particular country or achieve economic gains. Globalization is an inescapable reality. Countries that want to maximize their advantages must have policies aimed at guiding their participation in global affairs.

The specific process of economic globalization has compelled countries to create policies that would define their role in the global economy and international trade. Some of these policies also have specific guidelines or open opportunities for the creation of more specific policies aimed at directing the participation of a particular country in international trade.

Several countries have also formed intergovernmental organizations and multi-state entities to promote their respective economic interest. Examples include the European Union , the World Trade Organization, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries .

Maximizing the benefits of global participation for economic gains spells out the modern importance of foreign policy. A country with a specific policy aimed at promoting its economic interest generally involves creating and enforcing particular guidelines centered on directing its behavior in the global economy and international trade.

3. Internationalist Pursuit

The foreign policy doctrine called liberal internationalism and the idealist school of thought prescribes and argue that stronger and more well-off countries have the responsibility of assisting and guiding weaker and less well-off or less-fortunate countries.

Liberal internationalism has two specific main points. The first one requires international actors to attain multilateral agreements that promote and protect rules-based norms and liberal democracy. The second one requires actors adhering to liberal internationalism to intervene in other countries to pursue liberal objectives.

The foreign policy of the U.S. is partly inspired by the aforesaid doctrine. Remember that Reveron, Gvosdev, and Owens mentioned that the government embraced the responsibility of promoting democracy and maintaining global security after the Second World War.

It is also important to note that several countries also embrace the Responsibility to Protect commitment. All members of the United States endorsed this at the 2005 World Summit to address pressing global human rights issues and mass atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

Outside the promotion of rules-based international order, countries have specific policies for guiding their international humanitarian programs. These programs center on saving lives, alleviating suffering, and maintaining human dignity in other parts of the world.

The modern importance of foreign policy can also be understood through the emergence of international environmental cooperation. Political scientist John Barkdull explained that the international agreements on environmental issues such as the ongoing climate emergency are a product of the coordination of the foreign policies of different countries.

Acknowledging the Modern Role of Foreign Policy

In answering what foreign policy is and why is it important, it is imperative to acknowledge it based on its modern definition: a set of goals and objectives that direct the activities and relationships or interactions of a particular state with other states and non-state actors.

The foreign policy of a particular country is fundamentally both a strategy and guideline for dealing with other countries or states, supranational organizations, other political actors and political entities, and even non-state actors. The increasing interconnectedness of the world makes dealing with international actors as important as dealing with domestic affairs.

Based on the discussions above, the three general purposes of foreign policy are to promote national security, as well as peace and order elsewhere, advance economic interest through participation in the global economy, and promote the interest of other nations.

The three purposes contradict one another at times. There are situations in which national security and economic interest do not go with the security and economic needs of others. Hence, it is important to look at foreign policy not as a tool for promoting international cooperation but as a way of defining the role of a country as an international actor.

FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

• Barkdull, J. 2017. “Environmental Policy and Foreign Policy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics . Oxford University Press. DOI: 1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.365
• Harrois, T. 2014. “British Foreign and Defense Policy Since the End of the Cold War: The State and Security Governance.” Observatoire De La Société Britannique . 16. DOI: 4000/osb.1728
• Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. n.d. “What is R2P?” Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Available online
• Leira, H. 2019. “The Emergence of Foreign Policy.” International Studies Quarterly . 63(1): 187-198. DOI: 1093/isq/sqy049
• Reveron, D. S., Gvosdev, N. K., and Owens, M. T. 2014. US Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy: The Evolution of an Incidental Superpower . Georgetown University Press. ISBN: 9781626161580

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Two-State Solution Is an Unjust, Impossible Fantasy

By Tareq Baconi

Mr. Baconi is the author of “Hamas Contained” and the president of the board of al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network.

After 176 days, Israel’s assault on Gaza has not stopped and has expanded into what Human Rights Watch has declared to be a policy of starvation as a weapon of war. More than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed, and the international community has reverted to a deeply familiar call for a two-state solution, under which Palestinians and Israelis can coexist in peace and security. President Biden even declared “the only real solution is a two-state solution” in his State of the Union address last month.

But the call rings hollow. The language that surrounds a two-state solution has lost all meaning. Over the years, I’ve encountered many Western diplomats who privately roll their eyes at the prospect of two states — given Israel’s staunch opposition to it, the lack of interest in the West in exerting enough pressure on Israel to change its behavior and Palestinian political ossification — even as their politicians repeat the phrase ad nauseam. Yet in the shadow of what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be genocide, everyone has returned to the chorus line, stressing that the gravity of the situation means that this time will be different.

It will not be. Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947. And fundamentally, the concept of the two-state solution has evolved to become a central pillar of sustaining Palestinian subjugation and Israeli impunity. The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.

The circumstances facing Palestinians before Oct. 7, 2023, exemplified how deadly the status quo had become. In 2022, Israeli violence killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank, the most in 15 years, and by mid-2023, that rate was on track to exceed those levels. Yet the Biden administration still saw fit to further legitimize Israel, expanding its diplomatic relations in the region and rewarding it with a U.S. visa waiver . Palestine was largely absent from the international agenda until Israeli Jews were killed on Oct. 7. The fact that Israel and its allies were ill prepared for any kind of challenge to Israeli rule underscores just how invisible the Palestinians were and how sustainable their oppression was deemed to be on the global stage.

This moment of historical rupture offers blood-soaked proof that policies to date have failed, yet countries seek to resurrect them all the same. Instead of taking measures showing a genuine commitment to peace — like meaningfully pressuring Israel to end settlement building and lift the blockade on Gaza or discontinuing America’s expansive military support — Washington is doing the opposite. The United States has aggressively wielded its use of its veto at the United Nations Security Council, and even when it abstains, as it did in the recent vote leading to the first resolution for a cease-fire since Oct. 7, it claims such resolutions are nonbinding. The United States is funding Israel’s military while defunding the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, a critical institution for Palestinians, bolstering the deeply unpopular and illegitimate Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians now consider to be a subcontractor to the occupation, and subverting international law by limiting avenues of accountability for Israel. In effect, these actions safeguard Israeli impunity.

The vacuity of the two-state solution mantra is most obvious in how often policymakers speak of recognizing a Palestinian state without discussing an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Quite the contrary: With the United States reportedly exploring initiatives to recognize Palestinian statehood, it is simultaneously defending Israel’s prolonged occupation at the International Court of Justice, arguing that Israel faces “very real security needs” that justify its continued control over Palestinian territories.

What might explain this seeming contradiction?

The concept of partition has long been used as a blunt policy tool by colonial powers to manage the affairs of their colonies, and Palestine was no exception. The Zionist movement emerged within the era of European colonialism and was given its most important imprimatur by the British Empire. The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British in 1917, called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine without adequately accounting for the Palestinians who constituted a vast majority in the region and whom Balfour referred to simply as “non-Jewish communities.” This declaration was then imposed on the Palestinians, who by 1922 had become Britain’s colonized subjects and were not asked to give consent to the partitioning of their homeland. Three decades later, the United Nations institutionalized partition with the passage of the 1947 plan, which called for partitioning Palestine into two independent states, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish.

All of Palestine’s neighboring countries in the Middle East and North Africa that had achieved independence from their colonial rulers and joined the United Nations voted against the 1947 plan. The Palestinians were not formally considered in a vote that many saw as illegitimate; it partitioned their homeland to accommodate Zionist immigration, which they had resisted from the onset. The Palestine Liberation Organization, established more than a decade later, formalized this opposition, insisting that Palestine as defined within the boundaries that existed during the British Mandate was “an indivisible territorial unit”; it forcefully refused two states and by the late 1970s was fighting for a secular, democratic state. By the 1980s, however, the P.L.O. chairman, Yasir Arafat, along with most of the organization’s leadership, had come to accept that partition was the pragmatic choice, and many Palestinians who had by then been ground down by the machinery of the occupation accepted it as a way of achieving separateness from Israeli settlers and the creation of their own state.

It took more than three decades for Palestinians to understand that separateness would never come, that the goal of this policy was to maintain the illusion of partition in some distant future indefinitely. In that twilight zone, Israel’s expansionist violence increased and became more forthright, as Israeli leaders became more brazen in their commitment to full control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Israel also relied on discredited Palestinian leaders to sustain their control — primarily those who lead the Palestinian Authority and who collaborate with Israel’s machinations and make do with nonsovereign, noncontiguous Bantustans that never challenge Israel’s overarching domination. This kind of demographic engineering, which entails geographic isolation of unwanted populations behind walls, is central to apartheid regimes. Repeating the aspiration for two states and arguing that partition remains viable presents Israel as a Jewish and democratic state — separate from its occupation — giving it a veneer of palatability and obfuscating the reality that it rules over more non-Jews than Jews .

Seen in this light, the failed attempts at a two-state solution are not a failure for Israel at all but a resounding success, as they have fortified Israel’s grip over this territory while peace negotiations ebbed and flowed but never concluded. In recent years, international and Israeli human rights organizations have acknowledged what many Palestinians have long argued: that Israel is a perpetrator of apartheid. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, concluded that Israel is a singular regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.

Now, with international attention once again focused on the region, many Palestinians understand the dangers of discussing partition, even as a pragmatic option. Many refuse to resuscitate this hollowed-out policy-speak. In a message recently published anonymously, a group of Palestinians on the ground and in the diaspora state wrote: “The partition of Palestine is nothing but a legitimation of Zionism, a betrayal of our people and the final completion of the nakba,” or catastrophe, which refers to the expulsion and flight of about 750,000 Palestinians with Israel’s founding. “Our liberation can only be achieved through a unity of struggle, built upon a unity of people and a unity of land.”

For them, the Palestinian state that their inept leaders continue to peddle, even if achievable, would fail to undo the fact that Palestinian refugees are unable to return to their homes, now in Israel, and that Palestinian citizens of Israel would continue to reside as second-class citizens within a so-called Jewish state.

Global powers might choose to ignore this sentiment as unrealistic, if they even take note of it. They might also choose to ignore Israeli rejection of a two-state solution, as Israeli leaders drop any pretenses and explicitly oppose any pathway to Palestinian statehood. As recently as January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River.” He added, “That collides with the idea of sovereignty. What can we do?”

And yet the two-state solution continues to be at the forefront for policymakers who have returned to contorting the reality of an expansionist regime into a policy prescription they can hold on to. They cycle through provisions that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized, that Israel will maintain security oversight, that not every state in the world has the same level of sovereignty. It is like watching a century of failure, culminating in the train wreck of the peace process, replay itself in the span of the past five months.

This will not be the first time that Palestinian demands are not taken into account as far as their own future is concerned. But all policymakers should heed the lesson of Oct. 7: There will be neither peace nor justice while Palestinians are subjugated behind walls and under Israeli domination.

A single state from the river to the sea might appear unrealistic or fantastical or a recipe for further bloodshed. But it is the only state that exists in the real world — not in the fantasies of policymakers. The question, then, is: How can it be transformed into one that is just?

Source photographs by Jose A. Bernat Bacete, Daily Herald Archive and Lior Mizrahi, via Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

• Support Our Work
• Carr Center Advisory Board
• Technology & Human Rights
• Racial Justice
• Transitional Justice
• Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities
• Human Rights Defenders
• In Conversation
• Justice Matters Podcast
• News and Announcements
• Student Opportunities
• Fellowship Opportunities

Making a Movement: Joseph S. Nye, Jr. on the Importance of Soft Power

In this section.

In his essay for the Carr Center's latest publication,  Making a Movement: The History and Future of Human Rights , Joseph S. Nye, Jr., discusses the importance of soft power in foreign policy and how it can be enhanced by reinforcing our human rights. 

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean Emeritus, Harvard Kennedy School; Author, A Life in the American Century (Polity Press, January 2024)

"Realists sometimes complain that human rights interfere with American power in the harsh world of international relations. However, a sophisticated realist understands that, in addition to hard military and economic power, the soft power of attraction is also important. And human rights not only define us as a people, but they can also enhance our soft power.

"Survival and security are not the only important aspects of world politics. Polls show a majority of Americans also want the United States to pursue altruistic, humanitarian aims internationally. Many Americans have a general sense of a human community and support a foreign policy based, not just on international legal obligations, but upon moral considerations. While foreign aid in general is not popular, public support for international economic and public health assistance was strong enough for presidents to consistently maintain such policies. For example, George W. Bush’s initiatives related to AIDS and malaria in Africa stand out as moral policies which enjoyed such support. The extent of Good Samaritanism may be limited, but contrary to the skeptics’ views, helping others is one of the foreign policy objectives for which American presidents have found public support.

"Nothing dissolves soft power more effectively than charges of hypocrisy. The result is that human rights are an essential part of foreign policy, but their effective inclusion is never an easy task."

"There is more contention when verbal or economic support for human rights, or curtailment of military sales to a country such as Saudi Arabia, offends authoritarian leaders and obstructs other aspects of American foreign policy. Such disputes over values are normal and to be expected in a democracy. Americans have a degree of cosmopolitan concern about human rights in China or Myanmar, but human rights and democracy promotion cannot be the sole focus, as Jimmy Carter discovered. Foreign policy involves trade-offs among many objectives, including liberal values. Otherwise, we would have a human rights policy instead of a foreign policy.

"Trade-offs among priorities and objectives are at the heart of an effective foreign policy, and this creates problems not only for our human rights values but also for our soft power. Nothing dissolves soft power more effectively than charges of hypocrisy. The result is that human rights are an essential part of foreign policy, but their effective inclusion is never an easy task." ■

Read the full publication.

Related Publications

Making a movement: maria kuznetsova on the state of human rights in russia, a first-hand account of the 2022 russian invasion of ukraine, making a movement.

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Foreign policy

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Miscellaneous essays
• Reading time: 4 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 21 October 2015*
• File format: Text
• Words: 935 (approx)
• Number of pages: 4 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 935 words. Download the full version above.

The foreign policy includes actions and policies of one state-actor toward others international actors in order to achieve national goals of the country. This process is important for the state because it influences economic prosperity, domestic policies, maintaining sovereignty, shaping national identity and other aims of the government. National identity and foreign policy processes are interconnected with each other in a way that both of them directed for understanding values, goals and ideas of the certain nation. As Hill and Wallace says on their relationship: ‘Effective foreign policy rests upon a shared sense of national identity, of a nation-state’s `place in the world’, its friends and enemies, its interests and aspirations. These underlying assumptions are embedded in national history and myth, changing slowly over time as political leaders reinterpret them and external and internal developments reshape them’. According to them, national identity of the country influences on effective foreign policy, so there can be said that foreign policy decisions can shape national identity of the country vice versa. National identity process can be considered as one of the complicated one for the country which can be shaped from different perspectives, as for example it can be shaped with the big influence of one political leader who will use common history and myths of the country, or it can be shaped by foreign policy decisions which shape national image of the country and its population on international level. Kazakhstan is one of the former Soviet Socialistic republics which gained its independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and started to develop itself as strong independent country. The country is 9th largest country in the world with plenty of natural resources, with variety of ethnic nations and with high level of economy. The government of the sovereign Kazakhstan with its president Nursultan Nazarbayev developed strategic plan for the prosperity of the country. Gaining sovereignty was very important for the population, so the government tries to do everything that in their hands for not losing their independence. Some of the main goals of this strategic plan was developing national identity of the country, creation of national image on the international arena and gaining recognition by the international community. Considering history of Kazakh population, they were under the Soviet rule for a long time influenced by their ideology, interests, culture, language and other things, so one of the main goals for creation national identity of Kazakhstan was to escape from Russian influence on the people’s minds. The government developed such important policies to increase national feelings of the population as process of Kazakhization and language policies in Kazakhstan, publishing all necessary documents, making changes in their Constitution and introducing other domestic policies for introduction main elements of these processes. Domestic policies were not enough, so the government decided to use foreign policy decisions for strong nation building process, because the way how the country presents itself on international arena, population will follow, value and develop themselves and their interests. Kazakhstan created foreign policy’s strategies, one of them was developing mutli-vector foreign policy of the country for balancing relations, not only between big powers as the United States, China and Russian Federation, but also with other countries. Other foreign policy strategy was representation the country and gaining its place on international arena with own national interests, values and culture. The government implemented strategic plan for gaining international recognition by Western public and Western politics, for maintaining and strengthening their sovereignty and developing the concept of ‘Eurasianism’ which they developed as well as for national identity process presenting Kazakh population as ‘Eurasians’ and along with for foreign policy strategy, because it helped to achieve main important foreign policy goals. Kazakhstan is one of the former Soviet Socialistic countries who achieved its main foreign policy and national identity goals which led to the prosperity and development of sovereign Kazakhstan. This work aims to research relationship of national identity and foreign policy decisions through the following question: How do foreign policy decisions of Kazakhstan shape the process of nation building in the country? The hypothesis that was developed for this dissertation answering research question is that foreign policy decisions shape national identity of Kazakhstan through the development of their image and representation themselves on international arena. Mainly this thesis work is based on qualitative approach, because it explores, analyzes and investigates all necessary data about national identity and foreign policy of Kazakstan through the secondary sources. The aim of this work is to examine the influence of foreign policy decisions on national identity in the case of Kazakhstan, providing the analysis of foreign policy’s policies shaping the sense of national identity among the Kazakh population. For the analysis of foreign policy events, the thesis is used such secondary data as books, articles in newspapers, analytical papers and journal articles. The dissertation is structured in a following way. The first chapter provides theoretical and conceptual framework, analyzing different definitions of the ‘national identity’ term and identifying one which is more applicable for the thesis. Also it discuses features of constructivism theory the dissertation based on, which explains relationship between two processes. The second chapter analyzes historical background of Kazakhstan, discussing events which became roots for national identity building process, and provides policies on this process which were implemented after the country gained independence. The third chapter of the thesis provides analysis of foreign policy policies that were developed, which influenced on shaping nation-building process of the country. Finally, conclusion summarizes all main points and findings of the research giving suggestions for the further research in this certain area.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Foreign policy . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/miscellaneous-essays/essay-foreign-policy/> [Accessed 07-04-24].

These Miscellaneous essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

Essay: Russia Is Back to the Stalinist Future

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

• World Brief
• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief
• China Brief
• Latin America Brief
• South Asia Brief
• Situation Report
• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

The Crisis in Haiti

The new idea of india, ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Winter 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

Her Power 2024

The atlantic & pacific forum, principles of humanity under pressure, fp global health forum 2024, fp @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

Russia Is Back to the Stalinist Future

With a Soviet-style election, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has come full circle.

• Human Rights

In 1968, the American scholar Jerome M. Gilison described Soviet elections as a “ psychological curiosity ”—a ritualized, performative affirmation of the regime rather than a real vote in any sense of the word. These staged elections with their nearly unanimous official results, Gilison wrote, served to isolate non-conformists and weld the people to their regime.

Last Sunday, Russia completed the circle and returned to Soviet practice. State election officials reported that 87 percent of Russians had cast their vote for Vladimir Putin in national elections, giving the Russian president a fifth term in office. Not only were many of the reported election numbers mathematically impossible , but there was also no longer much of a choice: All prominent opposition figures had been either murdered , imprisoned , or exiled . Like in Soviet times, the election also welded Russians to their regime by serving as a referendum on Putin’s war against Ukraine. All in all, last weekend’s Soviet-style election sealed Putin’s transformation of post-Communist Russia into a repressive society with many of the features of Soviet totalitarianism.

Russia’s return to Soviet practice goes far beyond elections. A recent study by exiled Russian journalists from Proekt Media used data to determine that Russia is more politically repressive today than the Soviet Union under all leaders since Joseph Stalin. During the last six years, the study reports, the Putin regime has indicted 5,613 Russians on explicitly political charges—including “discrediting the army,” “disseminating misinformation,” “justification of terrorism,” and other purported crimes, which have been widely used to punish criticism of Russia’s war on Ukraine and justification of Ukraine’s defense of its territory. This number is significantly greater than in any other six-year period of Soviet rule after 1956—all the more glaring given that Russia’s population is only half that of the Soviet Union before its collapse.

In addition to repressive criminal charges and sentences, over the last six years more than 105,000 people have been tried on administrative charges, which carry heavy fines and compulsory labor for up to 30 days without appeal. Many of these individuals were punished for taking part in unsanctioned marches or political activity, including anti-war protests. Others were charged with violations of COVID pandemic regulations. Such administrative punishments are administered and implemented rapidly, without time for an appeal.

On March 4, 2022, a little over a week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Russia’s puppet parliament rapidly adopted amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that established criminal and administrative punishments for the vague transgressions of “discrediting” the Russian military or disseminating “false information” about it. This widely expanded the repressive powers of the state to criminally prosecute political beliefs and activity. Prosecutions have surged since the new laws were passed, likely leading to a dramatic increase in the number of political prisoners in the coming years. In particular, punishments for “discrediting the army” or “justification of terrorism”—which includes voicing support for Ukraine’s right to defend itself—have resulted in hundreds of sentences meted out each year since the war began. The most recent such case: On Feb. 27, the 70-year-old co-chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights group Memorial, Oleg Orlov, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for “discrediting” the Russian military.

As the Proekt report ominously concludes, “[I]n terms of repression, Putin has long ago surpassed almost all Soviet general secretaries, except for one—Joseph Stalin.” While this conclusion is in itself significant, it is only the tip of the iceberg of the totalitarian state Putin has gradually and systematically rebuilt.

A man votes in Russia’s presidential election in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk on March 15. ladimir Nikolayev/AFP via Getty Images

As in the Soviet years, there is no independent media in Russia today. The last of these news organizations were banned or fled the country after Putin’s all-out war on Ukraine, including Proekt, Meduza, Ekho Moskvy, Nobel Prize-winning Novaya Gazeta, and TV Dozhd. In their place, strictly regime-aligned newspapers, social media, and television and radio stations emit a steady drumbeat of militaristic propaganda, promote Russian imperialist grandeur, and celebrate Putin as the country’s infallible commander in chief. In another reprise of totalitarian practice, lists of banned books have been dramatically expanded and thousands of titles have been removed from the shelves of Russian libraries and bookstores. Bans have been extended to numerous Wikipedia pages, social media channels, and websites.

Human rights activists and independent civic leaders have been jailed, physically attacked, intimidated into silence, or driven into exile. Civic organizations that show independence from the state are banned as “ undesirable ” and subjected to fines and prosecution if they continue to operate. The most recent such organizations include the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, Memorial, the legendary Moscow Helsinki Group, and the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum . In their place, the state finances a vast array of pro-regime and pro-war groups, with significant state resources supporting youth groups that promote the cult of Putin and educate children in martial values to prepare them for military service. Then there are the numerous murders of opposition leaders, journalists, and activists at home and abroad. Through these various means, almost all critical Russian voices have been silenced.

Private and family life is also increasingly coming under the scope of government regulation and persecution. The web of repression particularly affects the LGBT community, putting large numbers of Russians in direct peril. A court ruling in 2023 declared the “international LGBT movement” extremist and banned the rainbow flag as a forbidden symbol, which was quickly followed by raids and arrests . Homosexuality has been reclassified as an illness, and Russian gay rights organizations have shut down their operations for fear of prosecution. Legislation aimed at reinforcing “traditional values”—including the right of husbands to discipline their wives—has led to the reduction in sentences and the decriminalization of some forms of domestic violence.

Russia’s Military Is Already Preparing for Its Next War 

Moscow is rebuilding its military in anticipation of a conflict with NATO in the next decade, Estonian officials warn.

It’s Time to Declare Putin an Illegitimate Leader

Russia’s sham elections next month—with voting on occupied Ukrainian territory—should not be recognized.

Ukraine Isn’t Putin’s War—It’s Russia’s War

Jade McGlynn’s books paint an unsettling picture of ordinary Russians’ support for the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

Many of the techniques of totalitarian control now operating throughout Russia were first incubated in territories where the Kremlin spread war and conflict. Chechnya was the first testing ground for widespread repression, including massive numbers of victims subjected to imprisonment, execution, disappearance, torture, and rape. Coupled with the merciless targeting of civilians in Russia’s two wars in Chechnya, these practices normalized wanton criminal behavior within Russian state security structures. Out of this crucible of fear and intimidation, Putin has shaped a culture and means of governing that were further elaborated in other places Russia invaded and eventually came to Russia itself.

In Russian-occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine since 2014, there has been a widespread campaign of surveillance, summary executions, arrests, torture, and intimidation—all entirely consistent with Soviet practice toward conquered populations. More recently, this includes the old practice of forced political recantations: A Telegram channel ominously called Crimean SMERSH (a portmanteau of the Russian words for “death to spies,” coined by Stalin himself) has posted dozens of videos of frightened Ukrainians recanting their Ukrainian identity or the display of Ukrainian symbols. Made in conjunction with police operations, these videos appear to be coordinated with state security services.

In the parts of Ukraine newly occupied since 2022, human rights groups have widely documented human rights abuses and potential war crimes. These include the abduction of children, imprisonment of Ukrainians in a system of filtration camps that recall the Soviet gulags, and the systematic use of rape and torture to break the will of Ukrainians. Castrations of Ukrainian men have also been employed.

As Russia’s violence in Ukraine has expanded, so, too, has the acceptance of these abominations throughout the state and in much of society. As during the Stalin era, the cult of cruelty and the culture of fear are now the legal and moral standards. The climate of fear initially employed to assert order in occupied regions is now being applied to Russia itself. In this context, the murder of Alexei Navalny ahead of the presidential election was an important message from Putin to the Russian people: There is no longer any alternative to the war and repressive political order he has imposed, of which Navalny’s elimination is a part.

All the techniques and means of repression bespeak a criminal regime that now closely resembles the totalitarian rule of Stalin, whom Putin now fully embraces. After Putin first came to power in 1999, he often praised Stalin as a great war leader while disapproving of his cruelty and brutality. But as Putin pivoted toward war and repression, Russia has systematically promoted a more positive image of Stalin. High school textbooks not only celebrate his legacy but also whitewash his terror regime. There has been a proliferation of new Stalin monuments, with more than 100 throughout the country today. On state-controlled media, Russian propagandists consistently hammer away on the theme of Stalin’s greatness and underscore similarities between his wartime leadership and Putin’s. Discussion of Stalinist terror has disappeared, as has the memorialization of his millions of victims. Whereas only one in five Russians had a positive view of Stalin in the 1990s, polls conducted over the last five years show that number has risen to between 60 percent and 70 percent. In normalizing Stalin, Putin is not glossing over the tyrant’s crimes; rather, he is deliberately normalizing Stalin as a justification for his own war-making and repression.

Putin now resembles Stalin more closely than any other Soviet or Russian leader. Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, and Yuri Andropov—not to mention Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin—Putin has unquestioned power that is not shared or limited in any way by parliament, courts, or a Politburo. State propaganda has created a Stalin-like personality cult that lionizes Putin’s absolute power, genius as a leader, and role as a brilliant wartime generalissimo. It projects him as the fearsome and all-powerful head of a militarized nation aiming, like Stalin, to defeat a “Nazi” regime in Ukraine and reassert hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe. Just as Stalin made effective use of the Russian Orthodox Church to support Russia’s effort during World War II, Putin has effectively used Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill as a critical ally and cheerleader of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. And just like Stalin, Putin has made invading neighboring countries and annexing territory a central focus of the Kremlin’s foreign policy.

A young Communist holds a flag depicting Stalin before placing flowers on his tomb in Moscow on March 5, during a memorial ceremony to mark the anniversary of the Soviet leader’s death. Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images

Putin’s descent into tyranny has been accompanied by his gradual isolation from the rest of society. Like the latter-day Stalin, Putin began living an isolated life as a bachelor even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Like the later Stalin, Putin lacks a stable family life and is believed to have replaced it with a string of mistresses, some of whom are reported to have borne him children for whom he remains a remote figure. Like Stalin, he stays up late into the early-morning hours, and like the Soviet dictator, Putin has assembled around him a small coterie of trusted intimates, mostly men in their 60s and 70s, with whom he has maintained friendships for decades, including businessmen Yury Kovalchuk and Igor Sechin, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, and security chief Nikolai Patrushev. This coterie resembles Stalin’s small network of cronies: security chief Lavrentiy Beria, military leader Kliment Voroshilov, and Communist Party official Georgy Malenkov. To others in leadership positions, Putin is a distant, absolute leader who openly humiliates seemingly powerful officials, such as spy chief Sergey Naryshkin , when the latter seemed to hesitate in his support during Putin’s declaration of war on Ukraine.

Through near-total control of domestic civic life and media, his widening campaign of repression and terror, relentless state propaganda promoting his personality cult, and his vast geopolitical ambitions, Putin is consciously mimicking the Stalin playbook, especially the parts of that playbook dealing with World War II. Even if Putin has no love for Soviet Communist ideology, he has transformed Russia and its people in ways that are no less fundamental than Stalin’s efforts to shape a new Soviet man.

Putin’s massive victory in a Soviet-style election last weekend represents the ratification by the Russian people of his brutal war, militarization of Russian society, and establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. It is a good moment to acknowledge that Russia’s descent into tyranny, mobilization of society onto a war footing, spread of hatred for the West, and indoctrination of the population in imperialist tropes represent far more than a threat to Ukraine. Russia’s transformation into a neo-Stalinist, neo-imperialist power represents a rising threat to the United States, its European allies, and other states on Russia’s periphery. By recognizing how deeply Russia has changed and how significantly Putin is borrowing from Stalin’s playbook, we can better understand that meeting the modern-day Russian threat will require as much consistency and as deep a commitment as when the West faced down Stalin’s Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the founder of Myrmidon Group, and the author of Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the War with Russia , to be published by Yale University Press in June 2024.

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

More from Foreign Policy

Is this a revolution or are people just very ticked off.

In a new book, Fareed Zakaria explores how much the times are a-changin’. At risk, he says, is the entire global system.

Egypt Is What Happens When the U.S. Gives Up on Democratization

Civil society loses—and China and Russia fill the vacuum.

Why Biden Can’t Force a Truce on Israel—or Won’t

The United States has intervened in past Mideast wars, but this one is different.

America’s Next Soldiers Will Be Machines

Modi’s messenger to the world, the problem isn’t just netanyahu. it’s israeli society., china is gaslighting the developing world, america’s new expression of soft power, the panama canal is running dry, israel approves reopening key border crossings, what in the world, who’s on the hook for the u.s. bridge collapse.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.