The United States has now published two of the three pillars of its main strategic doctrine: the National Security Strategy at the end of 2025 and, in January, the National Defense Strategy. Only the Nuclear Posture Review remains. Many observers described US President Donald Trump’s security strategy as revolutionary. In Russia, it drew cautious and in some cases even approving reactions. The defense strategy develops many of the same ideas, although it softens the language on certain issues, including Russia. What stands out in both texts is their blunt, almost cynical tone. The usual moral packaging has largely disappeared. That clarity, uncomfortable as it may be, is useful.
The new Pentagon strategy openly breaks with the philosophy that guided US policy for decades. The language of a “rules-based world order” and the missionary liberalism of “nation-building” through regime change are effectively discarded. These doctrines, associated with Trump’s political opponents, are treated as failures that led to endless, exhausting wars such as Afghanistan. In this sense, Washington is not repenting, but drawing a pragmatic conclusion: attempts to remake other societies in America’s image have proven too costly and too unreliable.
This rejection leads to a more fundamental shift. The US implicitly acknowledges that it can no longer exercise universal control in a multipolar world. Resources must be concentrated. Commitments must be prioritized. Allies are no longer to be indulged as dependents. They are expected to pay more, do more, and demand less political autonomy in return. In effect, Washington is rationalizing its empire.
At the same time, the strategy is anything but pacifist. Its underlying philosophy is the preservation of American military superiority. Peace, in this view, is possible only “from a position of strength.” The text largely avoids ideological terms such as “democracy” or “the West,” replacing them with the language of power, interests and coercion. The US is not retreating into isolationism. Its interventionism is simply evolving. Large-scale occupations and long stabilization missions are out; short, technologically intensive strikes are in. Economic strangulation and sanctions remain legitimate tools. Not to mention selective force. “Regime change” may be rhetorically abandoned, but the forcible weakening or overthrow of unfriendly governments is still practiced.
Trump’s America accepts the existence of other power centers, including China and Russia. But this is not recognition of equality. It is a demand that these powers accept US superiority and behave “responsibly.” That is, within limits defined in Washington. This is Trump’s version of multipolarity: coexistence, but on American terms.
The strategy places homeland defense and control of the Western Hemisphere above all else. The security of the American continent is treated as inseparable from US national survival. Trump’s updated interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine envisions the restoration of near-absolute US military dominance in the Americas. The presence of non-regional powers, above all China, is to be restricted. Strategic assets such as the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and Greenland are treated as critical nodes. US pressure on Denmark and the European Union to secure strategic control over Greenland, linked to missile defense and Arctic positioning, fits this logic.
The second priority is the Indo-Pacific and the containment of China. Washington seeks to prevent Beijing from achieving dominance in the region, especially through control over Taiwan and access to the so-called first island chain. The US speaks of avoiding direct confrontation but insists that negotiations with China can occur only from a position of overwhelming strength. Military build-up, allied rearmament, and “intimidation” are presented as the main tools of deterrence.
The third priority is the restructuring of relations with allies. Western Europe, seen as declining in relative importance, is expected to carry a far heavier share of defense costs, potentially up to 5% of GDP. In return, allies do not gain strategic autonomy; they are expected to follow US policy, especially toward China, and to purchase American weapons. NATO remains, but its exclusive role in US strategy is diluted. Washington wants a more transactional alliance system.
Russia still appears in the strategy, but its role is downgraded compared to earlier eras. It is no longer portrayed as a direct, immediate threat to the US itself. Rather, it is described as a “persistent” challenge, primarily for NATO’s eastern members. The implication is that European allies should deal with Russia largely at their own expense, with the US in a supporting role. Washington’s main adversary is clearly the People’s Republic of China.
The strategy barely addresses strategic stability with Russia. With the New START Treaty expiring, the future of arms control is uncertain. The US appears to prefer freedom of action in developing its strategic arsenal. This is a significant signal. The architecture that underpinned nuclear stability for decades is eroding.
For Russia, several conclusions follow. First, the US under Trump will remain a geopolitical adversary for the foreseeable future, regardless of any tactical agreements, including on Ukraine. Hopes for a grand bargain or a “new Yalta” are unrealistic. Cooperation may be possible on specific issues, but rivalry will remain the structural norm.
Second, American decline should not be exaggerated. The US retains enormous military, technological, and financial power. Trump’s strategy is an attempt to halt and reverse relative decline by consolidating control over its core sphere and concentrating resources against its main competitor, China. Whether this attempt succeeds is another question. Domestic resistance and political polarization could undermine continuity. Meanwhile, future electoral shifts will also come into play.
Third, nuclear deterrence remains the foundation of Russian security policy. If arms control regimes weaken, the credibility and survivability of Russia’s deterrent must be strengthened. At the same time, Russia’s security depends not only on external balances but also on internal stability and cohesion. Periods of political transition create vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.
US “distancing” from Europe does not reduce confrontation on the continent. Western Europe today is more hostile toward Russia than at any time in recent decades. Moscow must maintain a strategy of military and geopolitical deterrence toward NATO’s European members, including nuclear deterrence. Integration with Belarus in the security sphere becomes even more important.
In the Arctic, American ambitions could clash directly with Russian interests. Moscow will need to reinforce its northern defense infrastructure and protect the Northern Sea Route. Globally, military-technical partnership with China becomes increasingly central to Russia’s strategic position in Eurasia. In the Middle East, coordination with Beijing to support Iran’s capabilities contributes to a counterbalance against US pressure. Political and economic support for states like Cuba also fits this logic.
The overarching picture is clear. The new US defense strategy is not about withdrawal, but about consolidation and reprioritization. It outlines a more selective, more openly force-based version of American hegemony. For Russia, this means a prolonged period of structured rivalry and limited pragmatic cooperation. It also will translate to a continued reliance on deterrence. Resilience at home and deeper partnerships outside the Western bloc will be essential in responding to this new phase of American strategy.
This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
