Keywords
strategic uncertainty
political adaptation
decision-making
cognitive biases
bounded rationality
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the behavioral strategies employed by international political actors to adapt to conditions of profound uncertainty. The relevance of the topic lies in the growing need to revise theoretical and practical approaches in international relations, as classical rationalist models based on probabilistic reasoning are increasingly ineffective in the face of unpredictable challenges. The core analytical concerns identified in this study are the cognitive overload experienced by political leaders and the institutional inability of formal structures to respond adaptively. The aim of the paper is to identify and classify the key behavioral strategies used by international actors to navigate uncertainty. Methodologically, the research is grounded in conceptual analysis and the synthesis of insights from behavioral political theory and international political relations. Drawing on prospect theory and the bounded rationality model, the study reveals the psychological foundations of contemporary strategic behavior. The findings indicate a shift from long-term analytical planning to short-term, heuristic-based decision-making. Based on this, an original typology of behavioral adaptation strategies is proposed, which includes five core strategies: Strategic Hedging, Experimental Iteration, Narrative Dominance, Reflexive Entrenchment, and Strategic Shaping. This model enables a systematic analysis of political behavior through the lens of public policy outputs and cognitive constraints in decision-making. Its practical application can support the identification of strengths and weaknesses in state strategies and help set priorities for enhancing strategic resilience. The article concludes that in an era of systemic turbulence, the ability to psychologically adapt and maintain behavioral flexibility has become a more important source of international influence than the traditional material assets that shaped past power hierarchies. Future research should explore the influence of artificial intelligence on leaders’ cognitive processes and develop tools to strengthen the psychological resilience of governance systems.
References
1. Ratnikov, V. (2023). Uncertainty as a Global Phenomenon and its Manifestations in Education. Philosophy of Education, 29(1), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2023-29-1-10
2. Fesenko, M. V. (2015). Vytoky ta naslidky hlobalnoi systemnoi kryzy [The Origins and Consequences of the Global Systemic Crisis]. Istoryko-politychni studii – Historical and Political Studies, (2), 111–120. http://elibrary.ivinas.gov.ua/3856/1/2015_ipc_2_13%20%20Витоки%20на%20наслідки%20глобальної%20системної%20кризи.pdf (in Ukrainian)
3. Magda, Ye. V. (2015). Hibridna viina: vyzhyty i peremohty [Hybrid War: To Survive and Win]. Vivat. http://resource.history.org.ua/item/0017883 (in Ukrainian)
4. Andriyevskyy, T. H. (2018). Tsili rosiisko-ukrainskoi hibridnoi viiny [The Goals of the Russo-Ukrainian Hybrid War]. Politychne zhyttia – Political Life, (2), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2018.2.17 (in Ukrainian)
5. Kresin, O. V. (2022). Osnovni vydy hibrydnykh zahroz ta pravovi osnovy zabezpechennia konstruktyvnoi vzaiemodii instytutiv derzhavy i suspilstva [The Main Types of Hybrid Threats and the Legal Foundations for Ensuring Constructive Interaction Between State and Society Institutions]. In S. I. Pyrozhkov, O. M. Maiboroda, & N. V. Khamitov (Eds.), Natsionalna stiikist Ukrainy: stratehiia vidpovidi na vyklyky ta vyperedzhennia hibrydnykh zahroz: natsionalna dopovid [National Resilience of Ukraine: A Strategy for Responding to Challenges and Anticipating Hybrid Threats: National Report] (pp. 326–345). Instytut politychnykh i etnonatsionalnykh doslidzhen im. I. F. Kurasa NAN Ukrainy. (in Ukrainian)
6. National Institute for Strategic Studies. (2025). Analitychni dopovidi [Analytical Reports]. https://niss.gov.ua/publikacii/analitichni-dopovidi (in Ukrainian)
7. Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The End of Liberal International Order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241
8. Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X
9. Lake, D. A., Martin, L. L., & Risse, T. (2021). Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization. International Organization, 75(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000636
10. Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Disinformation and Decline of Democratic Norms. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2024/mounting-damage-disinformation
11. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00342
12. Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press. https://archive.org/details/worldsystemsanal0000wall/mode/2up?view=theater
13. Center for Security Studies. (2025). Strategic Trends 2025: Key Developments in Global Affairs. https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/ST2025.pdf
14. Mazarr, M. J., et al. (2021). Stabilizing Great Power Rivalries (Research Report). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA400/RRA456-1/RAND_RRA456-1.pdf
15. Streb, J. M. (2001). Political uncertainty and economic underdevelopment. Estudios de Economía, 28(1), 89–114. https://estudiosdeeconomia.uchile.cl/index.php/EDE/article/view/40790
16. Viale, R. (2021). Bounded rationality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/bounded-rationality/
17. Da Silva, S., Gupta, R., & Monzani, D. (2023). Editorial: Highlights in Psychology: Cognitive Bias. Frontiers in Psychology, (14), 1242809. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1242809
18. Joyce, A., & Paquin, J. (2022). Behavioral Public Strategy. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(3), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.30
19. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://ia800603.us.archive.org/10/items/DanielKahnemanThinkingFastAndSlow/Daniel%20Kahneman-Thinking%2C%20Fast%20and%20Slow%20%20.pdf
20. Wagner, C. (2021, March). The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) between Australia, India, Japan and the United States (SWP Comment 2021/C 19). German Institute for International and Security Affairs. https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/the-quadrilateral-security-dialogue-between-australia-india-japan-and-the-united-states
21. U.S. Department of Defense. (n.d.). AUKUS. https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/AUKUS/
22. Cuadrado Guirado, I. et al. (2022). Awareness of the Psychological Bias of Naive Realism as a Subtle Strategy for Improving Stereotypes Towards Moroccan Women in Spain. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, (88), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.17561/tii.v10.7410
23. Global Leaders Institute (2024). Unveiling the Unconscious: Techniques for Debiasing https://www.globalleadersinstitute.org/blog-post/unveiling-the-unconscious-the-power-of-debiasing-in-decision-making/
24. Blavatskyy, P. R. (2024). A Behavioral Definition of Loss Aversion. Economics Letters, (235), 111555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111555
25. Proeger, T., & Meub, L. (2014). Overconfidence as a Social Bias: Experimental Evidence. Economics Letters, 122(2), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.11.027
26. McBride, J., Berman, N., & Chatzky, A. (2023). China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Maryna Kalashlinska