Debates on extended deterrence in the contemporary U.S. scholarly community

The debate on extended deterrence in the United States remains a central topic within academic discourse, reflecting broader disagreements over the country's global strategic role. This article analyzes the key arguments within this debate, focusing on two dominant camps: proponents of a strategy of primacy, who advocate a robust and expansive deterrence posture aimed at preserving U.S. hegemony, and advocates of restraint, who argue for a more limited approach focused on reducing external commitments and safeguarding vital national interests. A central issue in this debate concerns the scope of the U.S. security presence in Europe, with the question of Ukraine serving as a persistent catalyst for these discussions for more than three decades. Methodologically, it relies on qualitative analysis of academic sources and expert commentary in order to trace the evolution of debates on extended deterrence. It examines how and to what extent scholarly arguments have evolved in response to changing geopolitical circumstances, particularly in the context of the post-Cold War security architecture, NATO enlargement, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Through an analysis of strategic rationales and risk assessments on both sides, the study highlights key points of disagreement regarding credibility, escalation risks, and alliance commitments. The findings indicate that the approach of the second Trump administration, although not based on identical arguments, shifts the balance in favor of proponents of restraint, who question the long-term sustainability of extended deterrence and emphasize the risks of unintended escalation. In contrast, advocates of primacy continue to view deterrence as a mechanism for maintaining global stability. The persistence of these debates underscores fundamental uncertainty regarding the future of U.S. grand strategy and the balance between deterrence and restraint in an era of shifting global power dynamics.