Anushka Bhattacharya, Gokhale Memorial Girls College, Calcutta University

Stephen T. Satkiewicz’s seminal work on “Civilisational Strategic Studies” presents a compelling and timely synthesis that bridges civilisational theory with strategic analysis, addressing the profound geopolitical transformations exemplified by the war in Ukraine and the broader dissolution of the post Cold War order. His argument for integrating civilisational analysis into strategic studies offers a sophisticated framework that transcends traditional state-centric approaches, providing scholars and practitioners with a more nuanced understanding of both contemporary and historical conflicts. This commentary examines the strengths and potential limitations of this civilisational approach while reflecting on its broader implications for scholarship and policy formulation. The civilisational approach fundamentally challenges the limitations of conventional strategic studies, which traditionally focus narrowly on state actors and military capabilities. Satkiewicz’s framework invites scholars to consider the deeper social, historical, and ideological forces that shape strategic behaviour, including the increasingly important roles of non-state actors and hybrid warfare tactics. This broader analytical lens recognises that strategy emerges not merely from rational calculations of power and interest but from complex civilisational contexts that inform how different societies conceptualise conflict, security, and their place in the world. By incorporating historical depth through references to seminal thinkers like Clausewitz and Toynbee, the article demonstrates how civilisational analysis can illuminate long-term patterns of conflict that extend far beyond immediate tactical or political concerns.

The intellectual strength of Satkiewicz’s work lies in its systematic integration of multiple analytical models. The six-context “Strategy Bridge” encompassing socio-cultural, economic, technological, military, geographical, and historical dimensions combined with the GRINS Model which covers geopolitical, regime, ideas, military organisation, and science demonstrates how civilisational and strategic studies can be woven into a holistic analytical approach. Satkiewicz’s introduction of “meta-strategy,” the study of how different civilisations conceptualise and practise strategy itself, provides a vital tool for comparative analysis that probes beneath the surface of tactical differences to reveal the philosophical and cultural underpinnings of strategic thought.

Perhaps most crucially, the civilisational approach offers an antidote to the simplistic East-West dichotomies that have long plagued strategic discourse. Satkiewicz criticises the tendency to treat figures like Clausewitz and Sun Tzu as representatives of monolithic strategic blocs, urging scholars instead to examine these thinkers within their specific historical and philosophical milieus. His critique of the decontextualised use of Sun Tzu in Western strategic discourse underscores the intellectual superficiality that results when ancient wisdom is divorced from its cultural and historical roots. This nuanced approach fosters deeper engagement with primary sources and cultural backgrounds, laying the groundwork for genuinely cross-civilisational dialogue about strategy. While intellectually compelling, the civilisational approach’s practical application poses significant challenges. Policymakers working under time constraints and facing urgent crises may find it difficult to translate broad, multi-dimensional frameworks into actionable decisions. The model’s richness and complexity, a strength in academic analysis, can become unwieldy in the fast-paced environment of strategic decision-making. Nevertheless, the approach’s capacity for deeper insight into actors’ motivations rooted in long-standing historical narratives and cultural worldviews offers a substantive corrective to more superficial analyses. A civilisational lens can enhance policymakers’ ability to anticipate the motivations and behaviour of strategic actors whose decision-making is shaped by profound historical and cultural legacies. In the context of the war in Ukraine, understanding the civilisational narratives at play can lead to policy responses that account for deeper drivers of conflict, not merely immediate military or political calculations. Moreover, identifying areas of shared values or mutual understanding can pave the way for diplomatic engagement, even among adversaries, by revealing common cultural or historical touchstones.

Civilisational ontology the view of civilisations as complex, dynamic entities with distinct cultural, historical, religious, and social attributes provides a foundational lens through which conflicts are framed. Such framing determines whether disputes are perceived as clashes of irreconcilable worldviews or as disagreements within a shared civilisational space. This ontological perspective influences strategy selection, the legitimacy ascribed to actions, and the pathways to resolution. By illuminating these civilisational dynamics, policymakers and scholars can craft culturally sensitive policies, refine negotiation strategies, and improve communication across divergent worldviews. The civilisational approach to strategic studies, as articulated by Satkiewicz, represents a significant advancement in both academic scholarship and practical strategic analysis. Although challenges remain in its immediate policy application, the approach’s depth and contextual richness provide invaluable insights for navigating an increasingly complex global environment, where civilisational identities profoundly influence international relations and conflict dynamics.

References:

Books

• Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
• Coker, Christopher. The Rise of the Civilizational State. Cambridge: Polity, 2019.
• Dawson, Christopher. Dynamics of World History. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2002.
• Freedman, Lawrence. Strategy: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
• Gray, Colin S. The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Gray, Colin S. War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2011.
• Handel, Michael I. Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought. 3rd ed. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2001.
• Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Online Articles

• Bassford, Christopher, and Edward J. Villacres. “Reclaiming the Clausewitzian Trinity.” Military Strategy Magazine. Accessed October 17, 2022. https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/TRININTR.htm
• Gray, Colin S. “Strategic History.” Military Strategy Magazine. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/Strategic-History/
• Herberg-Rothe, Andreas. “Clausewitz or Sun Tzu – Paradigms of Warfare for the 21st Century.” World Security Network. Accessed October 17, 2022. https://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Other/Herberg-Rothe-Andreas/Clausewitz-or-Sun-Tzu-%E2%80%93-Paradigms-of-warfare-for-the-21st-century
• Satkiewicz, Stephen T. “On Civilizational Strategic Studies.” Comparative Civilizations Review 88, no. 88 (2023): Article 6. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol88/iss88/6
• Herberg-Rothe, Andreas. “Clausewitz or Sun Tzu – Paradigms of Warfare for the 21st Century.” World Security Network. Accessed October 17, 2022. https://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Other/Herberg-Rothe-Andreas/Clausewitz-or-Sun- Tzu-%E2%80%93-Paradigms-of-warfare-for-the-21st-century.
• Satkiewicz, Stephen T. “On Civilizational Strategic Studies.” Comparative Civilizations Review 88, no. 88 (2023): Article 6. (Reference Links).

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the Jadavpur Association of International Relations (JAIR) or any of their affiliates. JAIR Learning Commons serves as a platform for academic learning and student expression and encourages diverse perspectives and critical engagement.