by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] The White House has published the US National Security Strategy for 2025. Its release was expected back in the fall, but was delayed by the divisions in Washington and the protracted shutdown that paralyzed the US government.
Moreover, the international situation is constantly changing, with one crisis following another. This literally forced Donald Trump's advisers to rewrite the strategy text practically on the fly.
Ultimately, it was presented to the public. And it's already safe to say that the new US national security strategy has become a sensation worldwide.
It was last updated in 2022, when the strategy had to be rewritten due to the outbreak of the active phase of the conflict in Ukraine. Just a few months earlier, in November 2021, the Biden administration promised to make relations with NATO and strengthening the North Atlantic Alliance a priority.
The Biden team's reckless actions provoked the current conflict. In 2022, they rewrote their strategy and emphasized combating "revisionist" powers like Russia and China. At the time, Russia was defined as an "immediate threat," while China was seen as the United States' main long-term rival.
The Democrats in the White House were forced into a constant state of political schizophrenia, torn between the need to fight Russia in Ukraine and compete with China. The US clearly lacked the capacity to wage a two-front confrontation.
And in the fall of 2023, the Middle East crisis intensified, eating away at America's limited resources even more.
Following Trump's second inauguration, Washington's foreign policy began to shift significantly. These changes are now reflected in the new strategy. It sets the key goal for the United States in the near term as achieving "absolute dominance" in the Western Hemisphere.
In effect, we're talking about a return to the era of the Monroe Doctrine, under which the United States secured its right to pursue expansionist policies in the New World. At that time, it faced the European empires.
Currently, the United States' main competitor is China, which has long been a key trading partner for most Latin American countries. Restoring its position under the current circumstances will be extremely difficult for Washington.
A clear example of this is the vacillation over Venezuela, where the White House has been threatening war for three months now. However, this has not yet happened due to fears of a painful defeat for the United States and a loss of face.
that last sentence is pure Russian bullshit/bravado/wishful thinking
Trump's team is actively supporting right-wing politicians like Javier Miley in Argentina and Pinochet's pro-government ally José Antonio Casta, who recently won the Chilean presidential election. However, even they are forced to improve relations with China, even though they are ideologically closer to Trump.
We can talk about the formation of a genuine pro-Chinese consensus in Latin America – no matter who comes to power, right or left, their trade turnover with China continues to grow.
At the same time, the new national security strategy no longer views the Middle East as a priority region. The United States once desperately needed it for its oil supplies. However, currently, the lion's share of Middle Eastern hydrocarbons goes either to Europe or the rapidly growing Asian economies.
The strategy's authors emphasize cooperation with Middle Eastern monarchies. The Israeli lobby, meanwhile, is de facto under attack—efforts are being made to curb its ambitions.
But the most interesting innovations are emerging in the European direction.
On the one hand, it seems that Europe is now becoming almost the main challenge for the United States. It is receiving a great deal of attention—Europeans are criticized for the civilizational decline caused by the uncontrolled influx of migrants and a retreat from their own values.
The strategy clearly indicates that in the medium term, individual NATO members will no longer be culturally and ethnically European countries.
However, by that time the North Atlantic Alliance, like the European Union, may no longer exist in its current form.
The Trump administration is scolding European elites for their desire to maintain a state of confrontation with Russia, which has led to the current crisis in the Old World.
The White House promises to support patriotic and nationally oriented forces in Europe in opposition to the liberal establishment, and to fight censorship and the dictates of minorities.
Unlike all other US national security strategies of the past ten years, the current one contains almost no criticism of Russia. On the contrary, the document calls for restoring strategic stability in relations with Moscow and returning Russian energy supplies to Europe.
It's not because the US is particularly concerned about the fate of the European economy. The reason is different: the White House is concerned about Russian oil and gas supplies to China, which enhances China's competitiveness.
Trump's team sees Asia as a higher priority than Europe or the Middle East. They need to focus on competing with China, even though this seems like an impossible task for the modern United States.
Washington is demanding that its allies in Asia, as well as in Europe, increase military spending to 5% of GDP and become more proactive in their own security.
Overall, the current strategy appears to be a more realistic document than what was previously published. However, it, too, is essentially ten to fifteen years behind reality. Back then, it was still possible to talk about a serious struggle with China for Asia or Latin America. Now, however, it is becoming extremely difficult for the United States to resist China.
However, it is already good that there is an emerging understanding of the need to seriously negotiate issues of strategic stability with Russia.
The current administration's leading realists, Pentagon Chief Strategist Elbridge Colby and State Department Policy Director Michael Anton, contributed to the current document. They advocate for a US reorientation toward the Indo-Pacific region.
However, we must also keep in mind the inertia of thinking among representatives of the American "deep state." They can sabotage any currently published strategies in every possible way. Take those hawkish neocons, who are willing to simultaneously wage war on Venezuela, increase pressure on Iran, and allocate tranches to Ukraine.
The US clearly lacks resources for all areas, but many supporters of endless wars, as a rule, do not discuss the consequences of their policies.
However, the electorate is already growing tired of their agenda—in the context of Venezuela, for example, about 70% of Americans oppose further escalation. Support for a ground operation is extremely low—no one wants to send troops.
70% - of Democrats, maybe
Ahead lies a long and bitter confrontation between various lobby groups in Washington, who will try to influence the implementation of Trump's new doctrine.
The size of the pie, both financial and military, is steadily shrinking, so the intra-species struggle to divide it will only intensify. And whether Trump succeeds in breaking the foreign policy status quo in the United States will determine not only the fate of his administration, but also the future of America and a significant part of the world.
One thing is clear: with its new strategy, Washington has already officially acknowledged the obvious, namely the collapse of the unipolar model of domination.
| Courtesy of Skidmark: |
The thing itself, straight from the White House: National Security Strategy of the United States of America