Grand strategy is not something that begins in the present. It is built on accumulated choices, inherited assumptions, and historical paths that shape how power is exercised over time. One of the core failures in contemporary foreign-policy debates is the tendency to strip events of their historical context, treating today’s crises as isolated moments rather than the downstream effects of earlier decisions.As Sarah Paine lays out, this is especially dangerous when military action is judged narrowly. Tactical success and operational effectiveness can coexist with long-term strategic failure. Decisions that look decisive in the moment — an intervention, a show of force, a coercive move — can quietly undermine credibility, relationships, and deterrence years later.This pattern is visible in the legacy of U.S. interventions in Latin America. Actions taken for short-term advantage often produced enduring strategic consequences: weakened trust, regional backlash, and incentives for others to organise against American influence rather than within it. These are not moral arguments so much as strategic ones. Power that alienates is power that leaks.By contrast, what sustained U.S. influence after the Second World War was not territorial expansion or continental domination, but a maritime strategy anchored in alliances, trade routes, and shared security frameworks. The continental paradigm — the pursuit of control through land, coercion, and zero-sum thinking — tends to generate resistance and instability. It creates more enemies than it neutralises.This is where Europe enters the picture. European unity is no longer a rhetorical preference but a strategic necessity, especially in response to external pressure and Russian aggression. Yet that unity depends on predictability from Washington. When U.S. policy oscillates — signalling commitment one moment and ambivalence the next — allies do not wait passively. They hedge, adapt, and prepare for a less reliable partner.The deeper risk is the erosion of the rules-based order itself. Rules are not sustained by declarations, but by consistent behaviour. When evidence-based assessments are replaced by optimism or improvisation — when hope substitutes for strategy — instability follows. Alliances fray not because they are attacked directly, but because confidence in them quietly drains away.As Paine make clear, the strategic effects of U.S. actions rarely end where they begin. They echo through alliance structures, institutional trust, and global expectations. Once those are damaged, restoring them is far harder than preserving them in the first place.