In consideration of the motives and actions of a country, there is a tendency to attribute to it a singular intent and will as if it be a monolithic entity. In a fashion akin to personification, we sometimes come to look at the state no different from a single being, as if this "thing" is the grand amalgamation of the values and philosophies that is likened to the nation. This phenomenon of humans personifying non-human things is a familiar subject to the social sciences, where it is understood as a mental strategy in dealing with elements unknown and rationalizing events that we do not fully understand. For political analysts however, this can be a fatal cognitive trap that fogs the reality of the political sphere under the fiction of the monolithic state entities.
While this may arguably be a thing of common sense, it is precisely those that are most evident which often eludes us through complacency and lack of practice. For an analyst, it is one of our most important tenant in conducting sound analysis to avoid attribution of characteristics based on our personal experiences, perspectives, and assumptions. Yet, in practice, this is perhaps one of the most difficult challenge those in the profession face and as such requires utmost vigilance and diligence to ensure it does not pervade our thinking process. As we struggle to understand the unknown with incomplete information and elements of uncertainty, we inevitably seek mental shortcuts, such as the simplification of the complex bureaucratic machination that is the state into a monolithic entity.
For example, take the similarities and differences between US-Russia relations from the previous and current administration. A monolithic view of the US as a single and continuous entity would be insufficient to adequately explain the change in the relationship despite a lack of change in the official stance with the new administration. To understand this issue, it is necessary to look at the stance taken by the administration (in both official and unofficial capacity), the execution of policy, and Russia's actions.
During the previous administration, the official foreign policy towards Russia was a duality of limited military coordination against similarly aligned interests, but politically and economically, the foreign policy poised Russia as an opposition in response to their various international transgressions. And perhaps more importantly to the topic, there was a high level of consistency and coordination between the various agencies and spokesperson in establishing a clear stance and acting in accordance to it.
In comparison, the current administration has given mixed signals as to how it will shape its relationship with Russia. The POTUS himself has made unofficial remarks to his admiration of Russia and his desire to shift US foreign policy to that of closer military and possibly political cooperation, going as far as hinting at the possibility of revisiting the Russia sanctions. However, most of official stances from the DoD and DoS in regards to Russia have not meaningfully changed from that of the previous administration. While the official stance itself has not changed, the discrepancy between the stances of the POTUS and the various supporting agencies will likely cause issues down the line. Without consistency and proper coordination of strategy from the Trump administration, Russia will be empowered to take action that they otherwise might not have taken under the previous administration.
Under the framework of a monolithic state entity, the change in US-Russia relation cannot be adequately explained given the continuum of an unchanged official foreign policy and is unable to account for a dramatic shift in narratives through a new administration. A superficial look at states as a giant single organism fails to catch the nuances of the many actors and institutions involved in the development of what is generally called a "policy". To avoid this cognitive trap, it is necessary to consciously force yourself to clarify and breakdown larger pieces into smaller elements. For instance, when referring to the actions of a larger entity, remain cognizant of the institutions and key figures involved, and the relation of the action against affected actors and any historical relevance that may exist.
