The new US security strategy from Ukrainian point of view

From the Obozrevatel:

"The New US National Security Strategy: Threats to Europe and Ukraine, "Delicacies" for Putin, and Impotence Against China. Interview with Former Ambassador to the US Shamshur

Roman Pryadun, 12/10/2025 

 – Do you think this could be considered a revolutionary change in American foreign policy? Because Europe isn't an enemy, but it's not a friend either. Russia is more of a "partner." The Middle East and Africa are completely sidelined, considered secondary.

Yes, this is truly a significant, even radical, change. There's a saying: "turning the tables." Trump is doing just that in global politics: completely shifting the focus and emphasis.

Biden's strategy identified two key threats: China as the primary strategic threat, and Russia as a pressing, "here and now" threat. This is completely eliminated in the new document...

The section on Europe is most striking. It seems to contain phrases about an "important ally" and an "emotional connection," but it's presented in such a way that one wonders: does this strategy even need Europe?...

It's also interesting that the US is telling Europe how to live, but at the same time, it's writing that there's no need to "teach" Arab monarchies democracy. Russia's problems in this regard are also silent. 

And another point. For the first time, such a document contains virtually no discussion of values—democratic principles, their promotion, and protection. There's not a single hint of a mission to defend democracy. Everything is reduced to "it must be said because it's rude not to." This perfectly demonstrates Trump and his team's attitude toward democracy: they pay lip service to formal allegiance, without any real action. And this is unsurprising, given that Trump gravitates toward authoritarian leaders and a model of strong, almost authoritarian, executive power. This is immediately apparent...

Donald Trump is inconsistent. He advocates the war on drugs, sends a navy to the Caribbean, and targets Venezuela, but at the same time, the presidential pardon list includes very high-level figures connected to the US drug trade... 

– Regarding Russia, it seems Trump is maintaining a certain consistency in this area. Briefly examining the Russian block, the "restoration of relations" with Russia is explicitly stated. And, interestingly, the United States' fundamental interest is formulated as a desire to negotiate a swift end to the war in Ukraine. Apparently, this applies under virtually any terms. Moreover, the document never mentions Russia as a threat to the United States. 

Regarding Russia, this is entirely consistent with what we've already heard and seen from Trump. Clearly, outright writing into the doctrine that the US will build a "bright future" with Russia, legitimize it, and bring it back into the international community would be too much, even for Trump. But the phrase "strategic stabilization of relations" means something simple: the US intends to build new or restored partnerships with Russia. 

And against this backdrop, the topic of Russian aggression against Ukraine completely disappears. All that remains is the phrase about the "need to cease hostilities," specifically for the sake of stabilizing relations with Russia. It's no surprise that the Kremlin is already applauding. They're happy with everything. The same, incidentally, applies to China: they're also pleased because China is no longer considered the United States' main systemic adversary. 

 

And paradoxically, at the same time, Washington is making demands on Europe, trying to "teach" and remake it politically in the direction of Trump's America. But with regard to the autocratic aggressors, it's the opposite: they're proposing coexistence and building "stable cooperation." This is very disappointing.

 

– Another step toward Russia, which Trump previously voiced, is simultaneously a blow to NATO. One of the priorities of European policy in the strategy is formulated as follows: "to end the perception of NATO as an ever-expanding Alliance and prevent such a development in reality." In other words, the current administration is effectively officially putting an end to NATO expansion, ignoring the opinions of other NATO members. This is a clear and overt attack on the very existence of NATO as a fully-fledged and effective structure.  

Regarding NATO's non-expansion, Trump and his team have been consistent. They initially stated that they did not see Ukraine joining NATO. This became a de facto policy long before the strategy was released. The document so far contains mantras about the importance of NATO and cooperation, but in reality, it is a declaration of the beginning of the US distancing itself from its own alliance commitments. This has already been communicated to the Europeans: by 2026, they must assume the alliance's key defense capabilities and "stand on their own feet."

 

Moreover, even Trump's "peace plans" for Ukraine recommend resuming dialogue between NATO and Russia with US mediation. In other words, NATO remains a mere shell of an empty structure. The United States is demonstrating that it no longer considers itself committed to the Alliance and sees no future for it. And a careful reading of the European strategy section leaves the impression that the administration sees no future for the EU itself. And if the EU were to disintegrate altogether, Washington, judging by the text, would be rather pleased... 

– A significant part of this US national strategy – and even Russia acknowledges this – actually coincides with the Kremlin's vision for Europe and NATO. Why is this?

This is entirely consistent with Trump's worldview: there are big players—they negotiate. There are small ones—they listen and don't cause problems. The new friends are the authoritarian monarchies of the Gulf. The old partners are Vladimir Putin. This, in essence, is his vision of a new "world order." And it's very close to Putin's vision of the world. Trump promotes his model of "imperial presidency," and Putin his "imperial power." And as soon as this is put down on paper, the similarities are simply glaring. Especially in foreign policy. 

– There's a section there regarding Ukraine. It's in the interests of the United States to end the fighting as quickly as possible, avoid further escalation, stabilize relations with Russia, and ensure Ukraine's recovery—but only after the war. Nothing about a just peace. Nothing about aggression. All fundamental issues are absent. 

Yes, I agree with you. There's no evidence of Russian aggression. There's no definition of Ukraine as a victim. There's no statement that Ukraine's defense is in the interests of the US and the West. Instead, there's this abstract "cease hostilities," as if these are two countries that can't divide territory and need to be forced to come to an agreement. There's a formula about Ukraine remaining a viable state. But even this is presented in a "poor man's talk" style.

The document's primary focus is on restoring strategic stability with Russia. This explains why it contains no condemnation of Moscow or recognition of it as a threat. Trump still wants to speak to Putin as a partner, to build a "bright future" with him based on shared interests. This is a return to the good old "business as usual" that we've heard a million times before.  

– The tone toward Europe, unlike Russia, is much harsher. It seems as if the Trump administration has blamed all the problems and negative aspects of the new Strategy on Europe: the democratic deficit, the lack of freedom of speech, the suppression of right-wing political movements, migration, which, according to the authors, will transform Europe into something unrecognizable. And, of course, the topic of troop withdrawal—the idea that Europe should be responsible for its own security. The general sentiment was that the United States is questioning even the very NATO alliance with European countries. Why such harsh criticism and such language directed at our partner? 

Overall, this isn't much of a surprise. It all began with US Vice President Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference. It set a tone the administration hasn't let up: a profound critique of the foundations of the European political and social model.

For the first time, at least in my life experience, the United States is acting as a kind of "teacher" to Europe, explaining how exactly it should live and in what direction it should move...

Trump is creating an ideological matrix for how Europe should develop – its politics, its social life. In short, Europe should move toward Orbán's Hungary, strengthening precisely those principles championed by the European far right. And this is precisely the Europe that, according to the strategy, is "acceptable" to Trump. This is an entirely new approach in US security documents and, in essence, an attempt to define what Europe should be. In recent years, there has been much talk about Trump and his entourage attempting to create an internationalist far right. What we see in this strategy fits perfectly with this trend.

– So the phrase 'our goal is to help Europe correct its current course' seems like a direct signal to the far right: work to break up the bloc, and we'll help you? It's effectively a call to those who resist Brussels.

If we look at the ultimate consequences of these political signals, then yes, this is a path to the destruction of the EU. And this, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the plans of Putin and the Russian authorities. If I were a politician on the radical right, I would perceive this strategy as encouragement, a promise of support from political "like-minded" people in the United States. 

Note: some of Trump's actions not only align with the positions of the far right in Europe – they are even more radical than they can tolerate within their own countries. The EU has institutional safeguards, and Trump lacks these restraints. Therefore, what we are seeing in relation to Europe is essentially a manifesto of the far right, who would like to reshape Europe and the world according to their own rules. 

– For several years now, the argument has been made—from Democrats to Republicans—that China poses the most long-term threat to US interests. China is mentioned in the PLA strategy, but the wording is extremely cautious. Why such a lighter version of the story regarding Beijing? 

...In my opinion, the reason is that Trump already tried to strangle China with tariffs once – and lost. China proved better prepared and responded with steps that were painful for the US, including cutting off rare earth metal supplies. Trump was forced to back down and move on to negotiations.

Moreover, US Treasury Secretary Bessent insisted that the section on China be handled with extreme caution, without forceful statements. This fits Trump's worldview, where the "big guys"—large countries that negotiate among themselves—play the leading role. While there are indeed many grandiose statements, in reality, Trump avoids drastic moves against strong countries and only demonstrates toughness toward those he considers weak. 

– So, they don't have the resources to put significant pressure on China?

Exactly, they don't have the resources. And Trump wants to reach an agreement with China.

– In Congress, both Democrats and Republicans reacted quite harshly to the new Strategy, particularly its Russia component. To what extent can Congress influence the strategy's implementation in the form the administration has presented it? 

The only good news we've received from the United States in recent days is the results of public opinion polls. They show that support for Ukraine has grown... If this trend continues, it will encourage those Republican politicians who are willing to advocate for more active support for Ukraine and prevent its actual surrender, which is what the administration is unfortunately moving toward."