By Richard Martin | The Strategic Code: Analyzing the intersection of geopolitics, grand strategy, and political economy.
Resentment, Risk Externalization, and the Unbound Superpower
The United States is undergoing a strategic transformation unlike anything seen since the end of the Second World War. This transformation is not a return to isolationism, nor the emergence of a new ideology, nor simply the influence of one administration. It is something deeper: a shift in how Americans understand burdens, benefits, obligations, and risks in the international system they once built and managed.
This essay explores that shift. It expands on the idea that the United States is becoming an unbound superpower. It examines the collapse of post-Cold War assumptions, the rise of burden resentment, and the belief that America can externalize risks without suffering consequences.
This analysis is not moral commentary. It is a structural assessment of how states, systems, and actors behave under constraint. I describe incentives, capabilities, and imperatives, not what any actor ought to do. My goal is diagnosis, not judgement. This orientation is essential for understanding the forces shaping American strategy today.
I. Understanding the Post-1945 American Role
After the Second World War, the United States assumed extraordinary burdens. It kickstarted and financed the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, provided security guarantees across three continents, maintained open sea lanes, and built institutions that enabled global trade and more transparent diplomacy. None of this was costless. The United States accepted these burdens because they aligned with its long-term interests. It understood the consequences of letting the world drift into disorder, as it had done after 1919.
This burden bearing model was not idealistic. It was strategic. It linked American security to a stable world economy, reliable alliances, and the containment of the Soviet Union and its allies. The United States expected others to contribute, but it accepted that its relative power required disproportionate responsibility.
This understanding held throughout the Cold War. American policymakers knew that alliances had costs but believed those costs were justified.
The problem began after 1991.
II. The Post-Cold War Illusion: Burden Shifting and the Decline of Strategic Seriousness
The collapse of the Soviet Union created the impression that American primacy could be maintained with far less effort. Burdens that were once understood as necessary became seen as optional. Responsibilities that were once accepted as structural became treated as discretionary. The shift was subtle but significant.
Three illusions emerged.
First, the illusion of passive order.
American policymakers believed the world would remain open, stable, and favourable without sustained American engagement. They underestimated the work required to maintain that order. The need to take charge of the pacifying the Balkans was a case in point.
Second, the illusion of cost shifting.
The United States continued to carry major security burdens while expecting allies to increase their contributions. When they did not, many Americans concluded that they were being exploited. The burden sharing dispute became a long-term source of frustration.
Third, the illusion of insulation.
Americans increasingly believed that geography, wealth, and power would shield the United States from global instability. The idea that the country was uniquely insulated from consequences took hold.
These illusions created a strategic environment in which burdens seemed unnecessary, unfairly distributed, or avoidable. The political space for resentment widened.
III. The Rise of Burden Resentment
The belief that the United States has been taken advantage of is now a powerful political force. It did not originate with Donald Trump, but he articulated it more clearly and aggressively than any recent leader. In this worldview, allies underinvest in defence, run trade surpluses at American expense, and expect U.S. support while criticizing American priorities. This story is persuasive to many Americans not because it is morally satisfying, but because it resonates with their sense of declining national prosperity and eroding social cohesion.
The Trump Administration operates from the premise that the United States has been duped. It views alliances as asymmetric relationships in which America pays the bills while others reap the benefits. It is a politics of resentment, driven by the belief that the United States has subsidized global stability for too long and received too little in return.
This sentiment explains the administration’s desire to threaten allies into greater commitments, withdraw from treaties, and withhold support. In this view, allies respond only to pressure, not cooperation. This is not strategic renegotiation. It is a form of political catharsis.
IV. The New Danger: Risk Externalization as Grand Strategy
The most significant shift is not resentment but the belief that the United States can walk away from burdens without suffering major consequences. This belief is the true meaning of what I previously called costlessness. It is not that American engagement was ever free. It is that many Americans now assume the consequences of disengagement will fall elsewhere and that the country can thrive behind its borders regardless of global developments.
This creates a posture of strategic risk externalization. It manifests in several ways.
First, the belief that geography guarantees safety.
Two oceans and a friendly continent seem to promise insulation. This overlooks the ways in which American prosperity depends on global trade, technology networks, and stable financial systems.
Second, the belief that alliances are optional.
The United States behaves as if withdrawing security commitments will have little impact on its own position. This neglects the network effects of alliance structures and the role they play in sustaining global order.
Third, the belief that adversaries will not fill vacuums.
American policymakers underestimate the willingness of Russia, China, and regional powers to exploit strategic openings.
Fourth, the belief that America can fight on its own terms if needed.
This overlooks logistical realities, forward basing requirements, and the value of coalition support.
Together, these attitudes produce a volatile mix of unilateralism and disengagement. It is not isolationism. It is a belief in sovereign autonomy so complete that it dismisses the interdependence that made American primacy possible in the first place.
V. The Emergence of Fortress America
Fortress America is not a wall around the country. It is a worldview that assumes the United States can insulate itself from global disorder while maintaining its advantages through domestic renewal. It prioritizes border control, industrial policy, resource security, and hemispheric influence. It places less value on alliances and institutions, treating them as tactical tools rather than structural commitments.
This worldview is driven by domestic pressures: economic dislocation, demographic anxiety, polarization, and a declining faith in American exceptionalism. It is also driven by a political belief that the burdens of global leadership have become a drain on national strength.
Fortress America reflects the desire to reclaim autonomy. It views constraints, obligations, and commitments as threats to sovereignty. It seeks freedom of action above all else.
VI. The United States as an Unbound Superpower
The unbound superpower is not a hegemon in retreat. It is a hegemon attempting to retain the benefits of primacy while repudiating the burdens that make primacy sustainable. It behaves as if alliances can be kept without investment, as if commitments can be discarded without consequence, and as if global stability can be taken for granted.
This position is profoundly unstable. It creates unpredictability for allies, opportunities for adversaries, and uncertainty for global markets. It erodes the network of trust that has supported American power for generations.
The unbound superpower seeks maximum flexibility, but in doing so it undermines the very structures that gave it flexibility in the first place.
VII. The Structural Paradox
The United States is deeply embedded in the international system. It cannot escape the structure it created. The dollar is the backbone of world finance. American technology and standards shape global networks. Allied security depends on American credibility. Maritime shipping relies on the U.S. Navy. Every major institution is built around American participation.
The paradox is stark. The United States is indispensable to the system. The United States resents being indispensable. The United States wants to reduce its burdens. The system cannot function without American burdens.
This paradox defines the current era.
VIII. Conclusion: A Superpower in Transition
The American strategic revolution is not a momentary deviation. It is a structural shift driven by domestic pressures, strategic fatigue, and a belief that American insulation can compensate for global disengagement. It is a move from a burden bearing superpower to a burden avoiding superpower and finally to an unbound superpower.
The danger is not that the United States will withdraw completely. It is that it will withdraw partially and unpredictably, leaving allies uncertain and adversaries emboldened. It is that it will assume risks can be externalized, even when the consequences are systemic.
The United States is not returning to isolationism. It is entering a new phase where autonomy is valued above order, flexibility above stability, and sovereignty above strategy. The unbound superpower is not a stable equilibrium. It is a transitional posture whose consequences remain unclear.
What is clear is that the United States will not bear the same burdens it once did. The world that depended on American reliability must now confront that reality and adjust accordingly.
© 2025 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
