Visual analysis engine
Multi-perspective analytical charts · 41 scored factorsTop strategic strengths
High capacityStrategic attention areas
Development priorityOverall score
Weighted across five pillars Equal weightingPillar profile
All four countries overlaidPriority pillars
Five domains · all countries SCALE 0–100Strategic postures
Four grand strategy typologies · all countries2D factor matrix
Hegemonic against balancing postureWidest divides
Factors separating the field mostFactor matrix — all 41
Shaded by score within each country's colour · leader marked| Factor | United States | China | Russia | India | Spread |
|---|
Country overview
Pillar profile
All five priority domains, scored 0–100.
Strategic posture
Score on each of the four typologies.
Leading factors
Across all 41Attention areas
Across all 41Country comparison
Factor-level head to head vsStrategic posture analysis
Four competing grand strategy typologiesPosture classification
Score and assigned profileFull factor data
41 scored factors · leading value highlighted| Factor | USA | China | Russia | India | Spread |
|---|
Methodology
The CSGEF Grand Strategy Comparison Framework begins with Strategic Foundations and Context — a national power assessment and a geopolitical position assessment. That step is outside the scope of this platform.
Loaded here is Step 2: strategic goals and objectives, focused on strategic intent. Two tracks — the strategic priority matrix (5 pillars, 25 factors) measuring where resources are committed, and the grand strategy typology (4 postures, 16 factors) measuring the strategic role each state plays.
Every factor is an expert judgement on a 0–100 scale, not an observed statistic. Pillar and posture scores are unweighted means. Differences of a few points are not meaningful; rank order and large gaps are.
No time seriesCSGEF publishes a single snapshot. The trends module therefore ships empty and accepts historical values entered by the analyst. Nothing on this platform is extrapolated, projected or back-filled automatically.
Data note
UnresolvedCSGEF reports the United States at 86.6 and China at 77.0 for the economic pillar. Its own factor table produces the reverse: China 86.6, United States 77.0. Russia (71.0) and India (58.2) reconcile exactly, as does every other pillar.
This platform computes pillar scores from the factor table, so the economic pillar reads China 86.6. The published headline scores (79 / 72 / 68 / 65) are preserved unchanged.
Source: CSGEF — Grand Strategy: Comparison of Strategic Goals Metrics. Scores reproduced, not independently verified.
How the scores are calculated
Factor scores are published by CSGEF on a 0–100 scale — expert judgements of strategic intent, not measured statistics.
Pillar score = unweighted mean of its five factors. Security = mean(territorial defence, alliance obligations, nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism, cyber security)
Posture score = unweighted mean of its four factors, reported separately. A country can rank first on one posture and last on another by design.
Overall score = weighted mean of the five pillars. The framework publishes no weights, so the platform defaults to 20% each. Adjust in the Scoring Weights tab.
Peer gap is the distance to the country immediately above, or the lead over second place for a first-placed country.
Not calculated: momentum and trajectory. CSGEF publishes one snapshot; the trends module only plots values an analyst enters.