JOURNAL 751 MODULE 4

KAMRAN NAZEER

This module was perhaps a culmination of our understanding of strategy. It was both
confusing and liberating at the same time. Confusing because no one seemed to
have a definitive answer and liberating, for exactly the same reason! In times of
confusion, I rely on going back on the basics and so I went back to the
recommended readings of Mod 1. It appeared that this module did not align with the
understanding of strategy that was being reinforced from the commencement of this
unit. However, on closer scrutiny and reflection I found that no singular
understanding was being professed. Instead, it was left to personal subjective
understanding to analyse the subject of strategy.

One definition stood out for me and it struck to me as the most relevant definition of
strategy. It was given by Dr Roger Martin of Univ of Toronto- “ Strategy is an
integrative set of choices that positions you on a playing field of your choice, in a way
that you have a high probability of winning.” This definition helped me rationalise the
difference between a plan and a strategy and helped me to attune a theoretical
frame of International Relations I had been mulling over for a long time.

It is proffered that the theories of International Relations do not work in competition

but are mutually reinforcing as they cater to the gaps, inadequacies, or limitations of
the complementary models. Consequently, models of International Relations should
be viewed as a complementary architecture that can be employed as an
amalgamated whole. To understand this, one must co-relate that state actions
seldom fall into neat categories of IR Theories. Further, situational arguments for
prevailing problems can even lead to the diffusion of one theory into another. This
should be acceptable as no model can claim perfect accuracy in all circumstances.
The wide-ranging debates on the ongoing Ukraine War exemplify how no single
theory can offer an accurate explanation.1 One may argue that all modern states take
a hybrid approach, and it would not be wrong. Likewise, the proliferation of multiple
blended theories to offer explanations of state behaviours itself demonstrates the
utility of any such novel proposal. Moreover, it meets the criteria elucidated by Walt-
‘fit the available evidence’, and having ‘explanatory power’2.

In this proposed concept, state behaviour is adjudged through the lenses of Realism,
Liberalism and Constructivist thought. Realism is treated as the prudent predictive
model; Liberalism, as human idealism worthy of aspiration3; and Constructivism, as a
dominant aspect governing Realistic application through a subjective state self-
image4. The policy and action output that emerges out of this interaction is a result of
these three theoretical features, and not merely from the application of a single
1
John J. Mearsheimer, UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis, University of
Chicago, 26 Sep, 2015, Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube accessed on
March 03, 2024; Fiona Hill, “Fiona Hill on Putin and Ukraine”, Associated Press, February 14, 2023, Extended
Interview: Fiona Hill on Putin and Ukraine (youtube.com) accessed on March 3, 2024.
2
“Theory and Policy in International Relations: Some Personal Reflections by Stephen M. Walt,” Yale Journal of
International Affairs, September 18, 2012, https://www.yalejournal.org/publications/theory-and-policy-in-
international-relations-some-personal-reflections-by-stephen-m-walt.
3
Richard Devetak, Jim George, and Sarah V. Percy, eds., An Introduction to International Relations, Third
Edition (Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017): 8, 110.
4
Devetak, George, and Percy. p 107.
concept. Consequently, a State’s rational action emerges as a Realist option
governed by the core of its Constructed self-image and further calibrated
within a justified frame of nationally subscribed Liberal ideals. An illustrated
representation of this theoretical model can be found in Fig 1 below.

Fig 1: Depiction of State Outputs

I intend to use this model to judge India’s actions of strategic scale, its decisions and
choices. Perhaps this model can explain the reasons behind the choices and
decisions India made and provide a perspective to its unstated Grand Strategy.