The rules of war and its character has change, military doctrine now thrives in chaos, where military policy and defence strategy has merged as ‘critical thinking ecosystem’, where ‘everything matter’ because ‘today war’, is ‘not declared’ and dynamics of future conflict, ‘unrestricted’ underscores defence policy formulation. ‘The United States military doctrine of ‘The Joint Force 2020 concept’ with integrated capabilities and the use of robotic and artificial intelligence apparatus for decision making is taking on a mass character. Russia military doctrine employs, ‘multi-domain operations’ in the diplomatic, information, cyber, economic, and military domains for regional hegemony. Both military powers seek ‘defence foresight’ to manage their national interests outside of their borders of its territory using ‘high-precision weaponry and proxies’. Its execution requires the optimization of global strategic posture into the ‘instruments of power’ termed ‘warfare ecosystem’ schema – iterated exploration of alternatives paths for results that, ‘optimize risk and uncertainty’, with the principles of minimum regrets, flexibility, versatility and adaptability encapsulate the ‘warfare strategy’ as a wicked problem. The construct of space infrastructure capabilities today remains the final frontier for defence policy formulation that, ruthlessly attack inefficiencies of defence posture of modern military strategic thinking to migrate into ‘warfare ecosystem’ foresight.
Creating an institutional framework on a global scale to understand balance-of-power strategies is the crux of foreign policy today with United States superpower exceptionalism. ‘Altercating’ defence, diplomacy and development encapsulate the United States foreign policy in relation to national interests globally. Role theory applied in comparing the United States and Chinese grand strategies as case studies. The United States superpower statecraft’s clarity help superimposed any form of countervailing alliances globally; while China’s sociological pragmatist role currently could change based on ‘Power Transition Theory’ for hegemony power. Beijing is pursuing a grand strategy that combines both ‘internal balancing’ and external ‘soft balancing’, encapsulated as ‘warfare ecosystem construct’ as countervailing alliances for balance-of-power strategies with development of ‘Economic Corridors’ in East Asia ; and the United States ‘Globalization Agenda’ both executed as ‘mechanisms of power’ date back to their ‘hegemonic histories’ with adaptive construct for national interests.
National Interest and Warfare Ecosystem 2: Wicked Problems Framework and Policy Development (Published)
The pursuit of the national interest is closely linked to geography, strategy and contexts specific in foreign policy, anchoring remains significant and spatial to the Nation’s production possibility frontier with empirical case studies of China and the United States of America. Foreign policy solutions ‘desired outcome’ are in ‘the continuum’ termed poly singularity. Public value theory, Kingdon’s multiple streams approach and Baumgartner and Jones’s punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) was applied as critical thinking to captures decision constructive process of national interest with focus on value streams for stakeholders with the contexts specific situation illuminated as spatial polysingularity construct in framework. China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)’ Project altercasting as liberalist and realist for global economic and militarily power in East Asia. The United States energy interests drives its ‘Globalization Agenda and market economies’ globally. A new superpower crucible framework with win-win national interest’s scenario termed ‘warfare ecosystem’ postulated.