IV. The Directions of the Foreign Policy of the United States of America
The main point that I would like to make here is the following: the United States acknowledges that it cannot be the international guardian anymore as it has been until now. From 1945, the United States reshaped how the world views international relations, how the world should see the international security landscape, and also took into its own hands the security over the European continent. From 1990, the United States was ready to begin a process of democratization at global scale. Being the sole winner of the Cold War, the United States promoted globalization not only on European soil, but also in Russia, communist China, and the Middle East. Bill Clinton was the US President who promoted this agenda at the international level. Now, the US begins to disengage from Europe and to move its interests to Asia. Of course, this may come as a shock to most of the readers. However, Barack Obama was the first president to speak about the “Pivot” that the US needs to make towards Asia. This is the moment when the United States recognizes the phenomenon of MULTIPOLARITY, of which I commented some paragraphs before. The paragraph within the national security that underlines this is: “we cannot afford to be equally attentive to every region and every problem in the world”[1]. Recognizing the multipolarity of the world is the element that would be celebrated by China and Russia alike. This is the rhetoric that China and Russia waited for: the recognition that the US is no longer the sole guarantor of international order, but that there are more ways of thinking about international relations. From now on, the democratic regime will not be the only legitimate regime recognized at the top of the international order, but there will be more regimes that will compete for supremacy. Even though most of the strategy is recognizing the fact that China is the most important adversary of the United States, the recognition of the phenomenon of multipolarity will also give credit also toother political regimes throughout the world that will want to leave a footprint on the soil of international relations.
A. Western Hemisphere
The first foreign policy priority for the United States is the Western Hemisphere. In comparison with the former security strategy, where this subject is treated in only a page out of 68, now the Western Hemisphere becomes the first strategic foreign policy point of the United States. The strategy the US is forging is the reshaping of the Monroe Doctrine, a subject that I briefly touched on in some paragraphs before. The main implication of this strategy will be: “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere”[2]. And here the main competitors of the United States are communist China, which is trying to take control over the Panama Canal, but also key players within the region in order to enhance its influence in the region, and the Russian Federation, a key ally of Venezuela. The war against drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal migration, and drug cartels is of utmost importance for the Trump administration. There is, however, a huge vulnerability listed: “But we must not overlook governments with different outlooks with whom we nonetheless share interests and who want to work with us”[3]. This is a reiteration of what I wrote before: we want to retain the power with the most influence at home and in my region. I am ready to work with like-minded partners in the form of governments and political parties, but we are also able to work with governments that do not share our worldview (authoritarian and totalitarian regimes). We are ready to be against governments that are against us, but we do not judge their political system. We are not against a government because its political worldview is not like ours. Even if the political regime differs, we are still ready to make deals. The United States will reorganize its military forces in the Western Hemisphere based on 4 principles:
1. A Coast Guard powerful enough to prevent any kind of illegal migration or drug trafficking through the sea traffic;
2. “Establishing or expanding access in strategically important locations”, which means no less than involving the US army in controlling key areas of the Western Hemisphere in order to protect its immediate interests and to block the access of Russia and China in its immediate neighborhood;
3. Deployments of US troops against drug cartels or illegal migration;
4. “A readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, especially the missions identified in this strategy, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years”[4], which means a reorganization of the US army or, in other words, taking forces from other theatres of operation and moving them to the regions of upmost importance.
The next important point the strategy is making is the fact that: “We want other nations to see us as their partner of first choice, and we will (through various means) discourage their collaboration with others”[5]. This is a very important statement because it means that the United States will establish a grand strategy to win the competition in its neighborhood with its adversaries, Russia and China. This could also mean: the countries from the Western Hemisphere must reduce their dependencies on China and Russia and build close relations with the United States. If the Monroe Doctrine was meant to tell the European colonial powers that the United States controls its immediate neighborhood, the new ‘Monroe Doctrine with Trump characteristics’ could mean: China and Russia, stay out of our strategic points of control. We recognize your regime, but we do not agree with expanding your influence near our borders. And the strategy goes further, making the same point: “Non-Hemispheric competitors have made major inroads into our Hemisphere, both to disadvantage us economically in the present, and in ways that may harm us strategically in the future. Allowing these incursions without serious pushback is another great American strategic mistake of recent decades”[6]. The strategic mistake of recent decades made the previous US administrations, which allowed communist China to extend its influence near the borders of the United States and also take control of the Panama Canal. The United States is precisely saying that it cannot reverse certain economic agreements made in the past, but it can talk to its regional partners in the area and show them that the low prices are coming with a price, a price of espionage, cybersecurity, and debt-traps. This is exactly what I have written in the past about what the European Union has done in the last few decades. It has sacrificed its strategic economic importance for cheap labor, cheap goods, and services. At the same time, some EU member states are also part of the “Belt and Road Initiative” strategy of communist China, selling their own strategic assets for an economic debt-trap. The most interesting case is: Piraeus Port (Greece), where China controls, through the COSCO company, a state-owned Chinese company (meaning controlled by the Chinese Communist Party), approximately 67% of the shares of the port. The good news is the fact that the new US Ambassador of the United States in Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, has criticized the fact that China owns a large share of the Piraeus Port, saying “<<It is unfortunate, but I think there’s ways around it, that something could be worked out, whether you pursue a path of enhancing output in other areas or perhaps that Piraeus could be for sale>>”[7]. This is a huge step that clearly counters the Chinese influence in Southern Europe. Of course, China retaliated, saying that “Guilfoyle’s comments were a <<malicious slander” against Sino-Greek trade relations and a “serious interference in Greek internal affairs>>”[8]. This is a sign that the United States is ready to counter the Chinese influence everywhere. This represents extremely good news.
The United States mobilizes its entire apparatus (embassies, private sector, the US Government, the Department of State, the Department of War, the Department of Energy, finance corporations and finance institutions) to counter the foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere: “Every U.S. official working in or on the region must be up to speed on the full picture of detrimental outside influence while simultaneously applying pressure and offering incentives to partner countries to protect our Hemisphere. Successfully protecting our Hemisphere also requires closer collaboration between the U.S. Government and the American private sector. All our embassies must be aware of major business opportunities in their country, especially major government contracts. Every U.S. Government official that interacts with these countries should understand that part of their job is to help American companies compete and succeed”. The US took into consideration also the fact that some states would retaliate (communist China). But the US should be ready to respond against “targeted taxation, unfair regulation, and expropriation”[9], even “push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region”. In other words, the United States is more than ready to respond to decades of unfair and debt-trap practices and economic disadvantages. The United States is ready to defend itself against the economic war that China launched against the United States!
In comparison, the previous strategy is not so categorical when speaking about the Western Hemisphere. The US adopted a more peaceful tone towards the region: “Today, this region stands on the cusp of prosperity and peace, built upon democracy and the rule of law. U.S. trade in the region is thriving, and market opportunities for American goods and services, energy and infrastructure projects, and foreign direct investment continue to expand”[10]. At the same time, another major difference is the fact that in the previous security strategy, the United States mentioned what states are to blame for their malign influence in the Western Hemisphere: China and Russia, which were working with leftist governments against the United States: “China seeks to pull the region into its orbit through state-led investments and loans. Russia continues its failed politics of the Cold War by bolstering its radical Cuban allies as Cuba continues to repress its citizens. Both China and Russia support the dictatorship in Venezuela and are seeking to expand military linkages and arms sales across the region. The hemisphere’s democratic states have a shared interest in confronting threats to their sovereignty”[11]. In terms of concrete actions, the United States was ready to isolate the authoritarian governments and to support the freedom of the citizens: “We will isolate governments that refuse to act as responsible partners in advancing hemispheric peace and prosperity. We look forward to the day when the people of Cuba and Venezuela can enjoy freedom and the benefits of shared prosperity, and we encourage other free states in the hemisphere to support this shared endeavor”[12].
B. Asia
When it comes to Asia, I have to say that this strategy is the strongest anti-communist China strategy in 53 years since Richard Nixon went for the first time in China. China becomes not only the grand competitor of the United States but also the grand adversary. Even if the pages are few, there are many pages dedicated to the fatal mistake that the whole West did beginning with 1979, namely the fact that the West (Europe and the United States) did everything to include China in the global democratic system, poured a lot of money, investments and technology, even though the cheap labor was persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party. Money has no smell. Starting with the recognition of the People’s Republic of China in the detriment of Taiwan in the years 1970-1973, and the visit of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to China meant the fact that the West officially recognized the communist administration of Mao Zedong. Afterwards, money started pouring into China, the economic system of the West became more and more dependent on China, companies were offshored to China, and China became more and more powerful. Even though one could clearly see that China had no intention to democratize its system but only to elude international rules and regulations and to create its own system of international relations in order to destroy the hand that fed it, China made its moves to eradicate the Western influence around the globe, undermining democratic political systems, undermining the human rights and wanting to transform its own neighbors but also other continents into vassals. And, unfortunately, China succeeded most of the time. In 2013, it launched one of the greatest economic traps the world has ever seen: the “Belt and Road Initiative”.
Even though the West has seen what terrible mistakes it has made, it continues to do so. Some of the EU members also joined this economic trap. The political will to counter China was completely paralyzed because the West had realized how dependent it had become. And with the ‘green energy’ and ‘climate change policies’, it became even more dependent on China. Solar panels, electric car batteries and other components, critical materials, natural resources, every inch of the Western economy is dependent on China or, in other words, on the Chinese Communist Party: “President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called “rules based international order.” This did not happen. China got rich and powerful, and used its wealth and power to its considerable advantage. American elites—over four successive administrations of both political parties—were either willing enablers of China’s strategy or in denial”[13].
The strategy recognized the fact that the Indo-Pacific area will become the next geopolitical battleground because of its marvelous resources, but also because of its economic wonders: “The Indo-Pacific is already the source of almost half the world’s GDP based on purchasing power parity (PPP), and one third based on nominal GDP. That share is certain to grow over the 21st century”[14]. After stating these facts, the strategy continues with a subchapter called “Economics: The Ultimate Stakes”. There, the strategy describes the fatal mistakes made by the West by accepting tp invest in China: “Since the Chinese economy reopened to the world in 1979, commercial relations between our two countries have been and remain fundamentally unbalanced. What began as a relationship between a mature, wealthy economy and one of the world’s poorest countries has transformed into one between near-peers, even as, until very recently, America’s posture remained rooted in those past assumptions”. China has developed a series of economic proxies through which it extends its influence. If we speak about wars and conflicts, a proxy is a state that you use to fight your battle. But here, China is not conducting any traditional wars (yet). Over the decades, it has built economic proxies, meaning states with a low GDP, with a low purchasing power parity, and with poor populations that one can use to influence the others with economic instruments. Through the “Belt and Road Initiative”, China has developed an octopus of states that are in partnerships with other states. China has created a series of economic proxy states, governments, and corrupt officials that, in order to gain profit to pay the bills to China and to develop their own income, had to sell a lot of goods and services that China was manufacturing to other countries that were more than willing to do so. And so, this mechanism of dependency had only one end: China. This mechanism is also described briefly in the new US security strategy: “The United States imports Chinese goods indirectly from middlemen and Chinese-built factories in a dozen countries, including Mexico. China’s exports to low-income countries are today nearly four times its exports to the United States. When President Trump first took office in 2017, China’s exports to the United States stood at 4 percent of its GDP, but have since fallen to slightly over 2 percent of its GDP. China continues, however, to export to the United States through other proxy countries”[15].
Afterwards, the strategy describes the necessary steps to defend its economy from predatory states that are only trying to harm the American economic system. In terms of the measures the US has to take for itself, the main strategies to use are ending: “predatory, state-directed subsidies and industrial strategies, unfair trading practices, job destruction and deindustrialization, grand-scale intellectual property theft and industrial espionage, threats against our supply chains that risk U.S. access to critical resources, including minerals and rare earth elements, exports of fentanyl precursors that fuel America’s opioid epidemic and propaganda, influence operations, and other forms of cultural subversion”[16].
However, the strategy also mentions that, in order to succeed in ending all these unfair economic practices, the United States has to work closely with its allies and partners. This is a clear acknowledgement that the United States views the European Union still as a partner and as an ally, at least officially. This is good news. Now, what should the West do altogether? The West should fight the Chinese dragon on all fronts in order for the Western economic system not to be subdued by the Chinese economic dragon system. I think that this paragraph clearly underlines the need of the United States to have allies and partners because together one can destroy the economic dragon developed by the Chinese Communist Party. I think this is a wake-up call for the European Union to join the economic defensive war against China by imposing tariffs and barriers and by accepting the fact that the epoch in which the European Union was doing commerce one-on-one with the Chinese Communist Party has to come to an end. I really believe that this collaboration between Europe and China must end until the Chinese people succeed to brake the communist system altogether and join the good side of the history: “the United States must work with our treaty allies and partners—who together add another $35 trillion in economic power to our own $30 trillion national economy (together constituting more than half the world economy)—to counteract predatory economic practices and use our combined economic power to help safeguard our prime position in the world economy and ensure that allied economies do not become subordinate to any competing power”[17].
At the same time, the United States has to prepare itself in order to be present in the most profitable areas on the globe. This is the main idea of the next paragraph: “the United States must execute robust diplomatic and private sector-led economic engagement in those countries where the majority of global economic growth is likely to occur over the coming decades”[18]. And these countries are predominant in Asia. While the EU has shot itself in the leg because of its enormous trade relations with China, it is no longer an economic attraction. Instead, Asia is the attraction that Europe once was. India, Thailand, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea represent countries with enormous economic potential. These are countries that are extremely attractive for investments. The United States is recognizing the fact that there is no formulation of any plan to counter the influence of China in the “Global South” region. The United States sees potential to invest in the global south together with Europe, Japan, and South Korea: “America and its allies have not yet formulated, much less executed, a joint plan for the so-called ‘Global South,” but together possess tremendous resources. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others hold net foreign assets of $7 trillion”[19].
When it comes to economic cooperation, the United States is clearly proposing to the European allies and the allies from Asia to form an economic partnership in order to cooperate not only in Africa, but also in the Western Hemisphere. So, on one hand, the United States says that the Western Hemisphere is the most important region for them and this region should be completely controlled by the United States (Trumpian Monroe Doctrine). On the other hand, it says that it is very open to cooperation with Europe and Asia to jointly invest in the Western Hemisphere.
Now, even though the strategy does not mention the Central Asian sphere, we can say that the business deals that Trump did with the Central Asian countries in November 2025 are also crucial for trying to diminish the Chinese economic influence in the region. And THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR CHINA. Developing its economic war against the West through the “Belt and Road Initiative”, China has also targeted the Central Asian countries. Now, the United States has invited the 5 Central Asian leaders and offered them a way to make a deal. This is a major point in decreasing the Chinese influence on the international arena. The United States has powerfully started to counter the economic influence of the Chinese Communist Party. And this happens also in Central Asia because, even though there was a traditional relationship between the Central Asian countries and the Russian Federation, Russia did not have enough power to develop the economy of those countries. And here China comes into play. Now, the United States retaliates against the Chinese economic war.
The most recent development when it comes to addressing and countering the Chinese influence at the global level is the newly established US initiative on 11th December 2025. On this day, the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Israel signed a declaration for the establishment of a growing alliance meant to oppose what China is doing at the global level. At the Pax Silica Summit, there were present representatives of the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Australia. There were also guest contributions from TAIWAN, the European Union, Canada, and the OECD. This alliance is called “PAX SILICA”. The name of Pax Silica is briefly explained by the US Department of State: ““Pax Silica” draws from the Latin pax—meaning peace, stability, and long-term prosperity, as seen in terms like Pax Americana and Pax Romana. Silica refers to the compound that is refined into silicon, one of the chemical elements foundational to the computer chips that enable artificial intelligence”[20]. The definition of Pax Silica is to be found on the website of the US Department of State: “Pax Silica is the Department of State’s flagship effort on AI and supply chain security, advancing new economic security consensus among allies and trusted partners”[21]. When we look at the Pax Silica Declaration, we see from the beginning the three principles upon which this alliance is built: mutual prosperity, technological progress and economic security: “We affirm our shared commitment to advance mutual prosperity, technological progress, and economic security for our peoples”[22]. The security of the supply chains is to be found in the second paragraph because we have seen how important the defense of the security chain is in a world more and more controlled by communist China, which tries to buy more and more land through the economic debt-trap diplomacy. The AI is also another important instrument that has to be developed in order to help the world get safer: “We also recognize that artificial intelligence (AI) represents a transformative force for our long-term prosperity and that trustworthy systems are essential to safeguarding our mutual security and prosperity”[23]. The artificial intelligence will be very important in order to develop goods and services that will reshape the economic arena in the next decades, and a growing demand will be met in the following areas: energy, critical minerals, manufacturing, technological hardware, infrastructure plus new emerging markets[24]. When it comes to the areas in which the members of this alliance will cooperate, these are:
1. Global technology supply chain in software applications and platforms;
2. Frontier foundation model;
3. Information connectivity and network infrastructure
4. Compute and semiconductors;
5. Advanced manufacturing;
6. Transportation logistics;
7. Minerals refining and processing;
8. Energy;
9. Information and communication technology systems;
10. Fiberoptic cables;
11. Data centers[25].
The next paragraph of the declaration is essential for understanding that the members of this alliance will do everything in their power not only to cooperate in order to ensure the maximum level of economic security but also to reduce dependencies. Economic security and the reduction of dependencies go hand in hand. Here, it is clear that communist China is the main adversary because, decade after decade, China went too far in influencing supply chains, disrupting supply chains, buying ports within strategic points, constructing military bases throughout the world, and launching an ultimate economic war against the West. What China has done in the past decades means building a NEO-COLONIAL system on top of the old ones in most of the areas. With Africa being in the hands of China (after the former empires left or were destroyed), with a part of Latin America being under the influence of China, with some strategic points, ports, and companies from Europe being guided by communist China, something must be done: “We understand the importance of addressing non-market practices that undermine innovation and fair competition. We believe that coordination is essential to protect private investment from the market distortions of overcapacity and unfair dumping practices, and to preserve a level playing field for innovation and growth. We understand the importance of cooperation on the enforcement of our respective policies to protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from undue access, influence, or control”[26]. In order to address these issues, the partners have not only to cooperate for economic security concerns but also on national security concerns because economic security is national security. Moreover, there are some interesting points made by the US Department of State. There is a new economic security build-up project (the US calls it also “initiative”) that will respond to some realities:
1. Growing demand from partners to deepen economic and technology cooperation with the United States[27].
2. The understanding that AI represents a transformative force for our long-term prosperity[28].
3. Recognition that trustworthy systems are essential for safeguarding our mutual security and prosperity[29].
4. Increasing risks from coercive dependencies[30].
5. The importance of fair market practices and policy coordination to protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure[31].
When it comes to its geopolitical meaning, the alliance is built on the main idea that “Economic security is national security, and national security is economic security”. This is an extremely important and fundamental idea that will guide the activity of this alliance in order to stop the expansion of the Chinese influence in more and more critical sectors[32].
The second subchapter of this chapter is called “Deterring Military Threats”. This represents one of the most powerful parts of the US National Security Strategy 2025 because Taiwan has become the center of the military geopolitical discussions in Asia. Even though many publications do not speak about Taiwan, I choose to do so because, in my opinion, Taiwan should be an independent, sovereign country, being one of the strongest democracies in Asia. I am not speaking here about benevolent actions that the United States is doing for Taiwan. I am speaking about a very important geopolitical point of interest for the United States to counter the influence of China, not only in the Taiwan Strait but also in the South China Sea, where China seeks dominance for more than 40 years: “Given that one-third of global shipping passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the U.S. economy. Hence, deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority. We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait”[33]. Afterwards, the US is practically saying that it will build up enough defense forces in order to counter any threat coming from China towards the First Island Chain and Second Island Chain. Geographically, the First Island Chain is formed by Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan; the Second Island Chain is formed by Indonesia, Guam, and Japan. There, the United States will bring more troops and will install more weaponry: “America’s diplomatic efforts should focus on pressing our First Island Chain allies and partners to allow the U.S. military greater access to their ports and other facilities, to spend more on their own defense, and most importantly to invest in capabilities aimed at deterring aggression”[34]. The United States is also saying openly that it will strengthen its military presence in the Western Pacific[35]. The security in the Pacific is influenced not only by the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain but also by the Third Island Chain. Ultimately, if China could get through the 2 barriers, there are 3 countries that can stop China before reaching the geopolitical barrier of the United States: Japan, Papua New Guinea, and Australia. Therefore, we will see a stronger cooperation between Japan and Australia in the future.
At the same time, in this strategy, for the first time in a long time, the United States did not mention any word regarding the “One China Principle” (which underlines the fact that Taiwan should reunify with the “Motherland” at some point in the future).
In terms of defensive and offensive realism, here we can recognize both ways to look at the international arena:
1, China is being treated as the main threat to the influence of the United States (offensive realism);
2. The objective is to prevent China from reaching a global hegemony (offensive realism);
3. The US does not want to change the political regime in China (defensive realism);
4. The US does not want direct military confrontation (defensive realism);
5. The US is still maintaining an economic relationship with China (defensive realism).
The National Security Strategy of 2017 is also extremely critical of China in various aspects. From the introduction, China is already mentioned, but with an essential difference. In this strategy, China and Russia are often together mentioned and described as adversaries of the United States: “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence”[36].
China is mentioned in all 4 pillars of the strategy. In the first pillar regarding the protection of the country, China is mentioned in the subchapter called: “Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations”, where the “Chinese fentanyl traffickers”[37] are mentioned. Within the second pillar, meaning “Promote American Prosperity”, China is mentioned in the context of stealing intellectual property: “Every year, competitors such as China steal U.S. intellectual property valued at hundreds of billions of dollars”[38]. Within the third pillar, namely “Preserving Peace through Strength”, we can see much more clearly how China is viewed by the United States. China and Russia are called “revisionist powers[39]. China is viewed as disrupting the influence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. The next point is common with what is written also in the new strategy, but the accusations are more powerful here: “For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others. China gathers and exploits data on an unrivaled scale and spreads features of its authoritarian system, including corruption and the use of surveillance. It is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own. Its nuclear arsenal is growing and diversifying. Part of China’s military modernization and economic expansion is due to its access to the U.S. innovation economy, including America’s world-class universities”[40]. The new element, which is written in the logic of political systems and regimes that are contrary to our values, China is viewed as an “authoritarian system”. In my opinion, China is a TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM. Authoritarianism is too little for what human rights abuses are conducted. Moreover, the strategy mentions the intention of China to change the commercial international system. In the fourth pillar, called “Strategy in a Regional Context”, China is also mentioned when it comes to its economic war against the West: “Although the United States seeks to continue to cooperate with China, China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda. China’s infrastructure investments and trade strategies reinforce its geopolitical aspirations”[41].
The main difference between the old and the new national security strategy is the fact that the old national strategy still maintains the international balance between China and Taiwan, mentioning the “One China Policy”: “We will maintain our strong ties with Taiwan in accordance with our “One China” policy, including our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for Taiwan’s legitimate defense needs and deter coercion”[42]. While Taiwan is mentioned 8 times in the new national security strategy, which has 33 pages, Taiwan is mentioned in the old strategy only 3 times in a 68-page strategy.
C. Europe
Because this will represent a long chapter, I decided to cut the chapter in two. The first one will cover the new national security strategy. The second part will cover the national security strategy from 2017.
US NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY (2025):
This chapter is the most controversial chapter within the new national security strategy. This chapter will become the most disputed point within the whole strategy, maybe the baseline for a future powerful dispute between the United States and the European Union. Until now, we could see that the strategy started from how the United States views the writing process of a strategy until the point of maximum attention, meaning how the United States will handle the Chinese problem. We now turn to what I hope not to be the basis for a split between the European Union and the United States. In the manner of how it is written now, this could bring the complete break of the strategic relations between the EU and the United States. I will try to view this chapter from all angles and identify the most vulnerable chapter within this strategy. Because of this chapter, the strategy contains a very powerful paradox, which is extremely problematic for the credibility of the whole strategy and which questions even the credibility of the powerful points made against communist China.
The chapter opens with a statement: “Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness”[43]. Unfortunately, we cannot run from this statement. Because of a hard business environment, because of many laws, rules, and regulations within the EU financial system, there is a negative environment for entrepreneurship and creativity. The “Draghi” Report also has the same conclusion: in order for the renewal of EU competitiveness at the global level, the EU should fundamentally change the barriers formed by hundreds and thousands of rules and regulations: “Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure with few new companies rising up to disrupt existing industries or develop new growth engines. In fact, there is no EU company with a market capitalisation over EUR 100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years, while all six US companies with a valuation above EUR 1 trillion have been created in this period”[44].
The next sentence includes a very problematic word: “But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of CIVILIZATIONAL ERASURE”[45]. I believe this is the expression that will boil the relationship between the European Union and the United States of America. It is a painful word, taking into consideration the closeness of the relationship between the 2 historical friends. In other words, the strategy is saying that, because of some elements (which will be mentioned in the next sentence), continental Europe is sick, is the new “Sick Man”. If the Ottoman Empire was the “Sick Man of Europe” in the 18th and 19th centuries, Europe, which is considered DIFFERENT from the European Union, is sick because of the European Union. If we count how many times “Europe”/ “European” is mentioned in the strategy, it is mentioned 48 times. If we look at how many times the “European Union” is mentioned, we will see that it is mentioned only ONE TIME. And the explanations come in the next sentence: “The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence”[46]. The Trump administration is practically saying that the United States has fewer political characteristics in common with what the European Union means at this moment.
So even if the European Union is weakened as we speak by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; by the extremist-putinist parties within the EU (a very powerful destabilization force); by how China is behaving towards Europe and how it’s trying to kill any European initiative, any European military or economic strategic point, any economic development, but also to profit from the vulnerabilities and the economic state of paralysis; by its own economic policies which are endangering the economic competitiveness, the US have chosen to be also a powerful actor that contests the actual state of the European Union. Dark clouds are already in place, and the US lightning has struck in a very shocking manner: “Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies”[47].
The next sentence challenges the core idea of globalization, a phenomenon that has characterized the US and the EU since 1990: “We want Europe to remain European”[48]. I agree with this statement, but only in two interpretations (I am sure that it has many more).
1. Yes, Europe should be free of Russian puppets, Chinese puppets, Pro-Russia and Pro-China extremist parties; it should be free of manipulation, propaganda, disinformation, misinformation and fake news coming from other parts of the world (China, Iran); it should powerfully oppose the Chinese economic war against the West, namely the “Belt and Road Initiative”;
2. Yes, Europe should be free of the terrorist phenomenon. Europe has to take all measures so that terrorism is not part of Europe anymore. And, for this to happen, EUROPE SHOULD BE FREE OF ILLEGAL MIGRATION. The EU should impose a clear set of laws, rules and regulation of the migration phenomenon. Not the phenomenon of migration in itself is the problem (many rational people are coming from different places of the world who are looking for a country that does not persecute them. The problem is illegal migration, which happens, and, unfortunately, it is still tolerated in Europe. If we do not act now, this will also accelerate the European decline in international relations. The integration should be a must for the newcomers: to exist some basic rules that have to be respected.
I will make an ‘arch in time,’ and I will link this paragraph with what comes after a while in the strategy, at page 27: “Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European”[49].
The next paragraph is also very important because it describes how the United States views the relationship between Europe and Russia at this moment: “This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states”[50]. The United States does not regard Russia anymore as a strategic threat to Europe, but the United States wants to become the middleman between the European Union and the Russian Federation in order to mitigate the risk of war between the two blocks to be mitigated. This is a POWERFUL SHIFT in how the relationship between the US and Russia has been drawn since the beginning of the Cold War. Since 1945, there has been a ‘traditional’ confrontation between the Soviet Union/ the Russian Federation and the United States. Between 1945 and 2025, for 80 years, there was this absolute antagonism between Russia and the United States. Europe and, after a while, the European Union stood under the protection of the security umbrella of the United States. This security umbrella was called the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, the situation has deeply changed because Russia is not seen as a threat or enemy by the United States. Moreover, the US does not see Russia as an enemy of Europe. The US is saying that, because of the war in Ukraine, the relationship between the 2 block is broken. This is both TRUE and FALSE.
The relationship between Europe and Russia has always been like that because of the existence of the Russian Empire (from 16-17th centuries onwards), which has been threatening every day since the prosperity, values, and even the survival of Europe. Russia is a natural enemy of Europe, not because this is how it should be, but because history proves it to be so. Russia is and will always be the enemy of Europe or, at least, an adversary. If we say that tomorrow, Putin will die and a democratic leadership will be elected, Europe will never recover after 400 years of history. Europe will never recover from persecution, torture, and crimes committed by the Russian Empire, by the Soviet Union, and, now, by the Russian Federation.
Why did I say that this statement is also FALSE? Because I described the traditional rivalry between Europe and Russia in a historic and political sense. When we come to the economic sense, this is where the statement becomes FALSE. After the year 2000, the European Union became more and more dependent on Russian oil and gas, which is a powerful economic weapon. The more dependent you become, the more vulnerable you are in the case of a conflict. What did the EU say: we will not have any war with Russia, and Russia will not challenge the current economic state of affairs because Russia needs our money, and we need their gas. This is the NEOLIBERAL theory of international relations: if you become dependent enough on each other in terms of trade, you will never fight amongst yourselves. AND YES, WE SAW ON 24TH FEBRUARY 2022 THAT THIS THEORY COMPLETELY FAILED. We had a hint in the past: the secession of Crimea from Ukraine was the first sign of the complete nonsense of neoliberal theory. The EU did not take into consideration a probable alliance between Russia and China. Whether the EU was really blind or not, only history will tell, but the sign, now, on the field, is that the EU did not see a close relationship between Russia and China. The war in Ukraine proved that China became the king and Russia the vassal. It proved that China does not want its vassal to lose the war in Ukraine, but to support it and to take over the gas and oil that will not be delivered anymore in Europe. On 2nd of December 2025, the EU agreed to stop the Russian gas and oil by 2027 with some exceptions: “Today’s agreement ensures a gradual but permanent end of Russian gas imports with LNG imports phased out by 31 December 2026 and pipeline gas by 30 September 2027”[51].
However, this does not erase the relationship from the past, and not even the moral problem of the EU today: Europe has spent more money on Russian oil and gas between 2022 and 2024 in comparison with the money that the EU gave to Russia during this time. This is a very powerful setback for the narrative that the EU supports Ukraine in every way. Yes, the EU is the biggest contributor to Ukraine, but also the EU is the biggest contributor to the Russian war, and this is on the side of Russia. According to Maria Malmer Stenergard, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the EU spent much more on Russian gas and oil than on aid to Ukraine. According to the figure presented in a post on X, the EU support for Ukraine is 187 billion Euros in comparison to 311 billion Euros that Europe has spent on Russian oil and gas. The difference between the 2 figures is 124 billion Euros in favor of Russia[52]. This is a shocking statement, but, unfortunately, these are the facts: because of its dependency, Europe was the main contributor to the war on both sides, but the figures favor Russia. This is the strongest argument in favor of what Trump says against Europe. The EU does not have economic proof that Ukraine is more important than the relationship with Russia. Why? Because there was more money spent on Russian gas and oil than on the help for Ukraine. And here I do not want to say that the leaders wanted this to happen. I am saying that this is the cruel and terrible result of more than 25 years of cowardice of the EU leaders, and the Gold Rush of Europe. This is the main reason why Europe matters so little to the Trump administration. Donald Trump, in his first mandate, warned Europe that it has a powerful dependency on Russia, including Germany. What did the German leaders at that point in time? They laughed. THIS IS THE RESULT: THE EU IS NOT EVEN EQUAL IN TERMS OF BARGAINING POWERS WITH THAT OF THE UNITED STATES. Even if the US did contribute less to Ukraine in terms of financial and military aid, until now, they have important trade relations with Russia. And not Trump laughs again: many of the EU leaders and many of the EU states are accusing Trump of wanting to make deals with Russia. And yes, this disturbs me as well if this happens. But what did the EU for more than 25 years with Russia? Deals. Deals for money. Deals for profit. Deals. Deals. Deals. Even though no one can say that it did not know who and what Russia practically is. Now, the EU leaders have no credibility when accusing Trump of anything, and this is why what they say does not matter. BECAUSE THEY DID THE SAME.
These are the chief of states that supported the relationship with Russia after 2000:
1. Gerhard Schröder, Angela Merkel, Frank-Walter Steinmeier until 2021 (Germany);
2. Nicolas Sarkozy, Francois Hollande, Emmanuel Macron until 2020 (France);
3. Viktor Orban (Hungary);
4. Wolfgang Schlüssel, Werner Faymann, Christian Kern, Sebastian Kurz (Austria);
5. MARK RUTTE (Netherlands);
6. Silvio Berlusconi, Romano Prodi (Italy);
7. Alexis Tsipras (Greece);
8. Nicos Anastasiades (Ciprus);
9. Boiko Borisov (Bulgaria);
10. Robert Fico (Slovakia).
These are the EU leaders who supported relations between the EU and Russia between 2000 and 2022:
1. Romano Prodi (President of the European Commission: 1999-2004);
2. Jose Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission: 2004-2014);
3. Federica Mogherini (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission between 2014 and 2019);
4. Ursula von der Leyen (when she was the Defense Minister of Germany, by ignoring the geopolitical reality).
If we go to those who support the relationship between the EU and China, the list goes on and on. Also, the actual leaders of the EU are supporting the relationship between the EU and China, so the history of this relationship is being written as we speak.
And yes, the strategy also offers some details about the EU dependency on China, which is a historic one. And yes, Germany is one of the most dependent countries on China or, in other words, on the Chinese Communist Party: “Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home”[53].
The next phrase, however, is practically the most problematic in the whole strategy, the most vulnerable and most controversial statement within the strategy, one that can destroy any argument made by the United States against Russia and China. This next phrase can annihilate the entire text that I have written before in terms of what the US is trying to make to combat the Chinese economic war against the West. The strategy is saying: “The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes”[54].
Why is this THE MAIN VULNERABILITY of this strategy? Because it is practically saying that the US combats what the EU is trying to make in order to isolate the extremist parties within the European parliament and within the national parliaments of the member states. Why does Europe do this? In order to maintain its stability and to practically survive on the international arena. What does it mean “The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition”[55]. It practically means the fact that the US will support the European parties who are against how the EU is built at this moment. Ok, so far so good. BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? IT MEANS SUPPORTING THE SO-CALLED “PATRIOTIC PARTIES” WHO ARE PRO-PUTINIST AND PRO-CHINESE. SO how do you want to combat China, if you are supporting the parties that are Pro-China? How do you want to succeed in isolating China in the international arena, when you are saying that you support the parties that are practically empowering China in the international arena? How do you strategically combat China if you support parties that want to be within the “Belt and Road Initiative”, so on the side of the Chinese Communist Party? Are you so blind as not to see that China and Russia are behind all these parties? Are you so blind as not to see that supporting these parties, you are practically SUPPORTING CHINA, which is building an entire alliance to destroy YOU, AMERICA?
If AMERICA WILL DO THIS IN THE FUTURE, IT WILL KILL ITS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY. Why? Because, on the one hand, you build weapons, strategic points, and military bases in order to deter Chinese influence and, on the other hand, you support it! This could be THE ONLY POINT OF THE STRATEGY THAT COULD KILL THE STRATEGY!
Moreover, Donald Trump accused Europe of making deals with Russia. Yes, you are right, Europe made deals with Russia. But why do you want to follow the same practice if you combat this? Don’t you want to prove that you are better than this? Don’t you want to remain in history as the President who not only stopped the war but also remained moral in the face of time? THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION THAT I CANNOT ANSWER MYSELF.
And the strategy shoots its leg with another phrase which is directly linked to the first one: “A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes”[56]. How is this helping? The Trump Administration is saying that a large European majority wants peace, it talks about subversion, but this ‘peace’ discourse is nothing more than dust in the face. The parties that want ‘peace’ are the parties that have the closest ties with Russia and China at the moment. So, in other words, you are legitimizing what Europe has done so wrong in the past? You are not supporting the parties that made this political and economic miracle possible, that Europe should become independent of Russian gas and oil? You are supporting the parties that want more ties with Russia and more ties with China?
THIS REPRESENTS THE VULNERABILITY OF THIS STRATEGY, AND THIS WILL HUNT THIS ADMINISTRATION UNTIL ITS END IN 2029.
After making these affirmations, the United States still says that it does not want a broken relationship with Europe, that Europe “remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States”[57]. It also says that “European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve”[58]. Here I am contradicting the strategy: if you support what you are saying that you will support, you could bring the end of the European Union closer. You will directly sabotage what Europe is trying to repair. And then it comes more: “America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism”[59].
AND THEN MORE: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe”[60]. If Trump supports these parties, AMERICA WILL LOSE! You know why? Because these will be the parties who will open the door to China and Russia in Europe, you will be surrounded by China on all fronts. Even if you combat them in the Western Hemisphere, even if you combat them in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and in the Pacific, you leave a gap open for the Chinese to enter through Europe. It is true that this strategy describes the facts as they are in terms of the current situation in Europe in terms of its economic dependency on China, but the cooperation between Europe and Russia will not be possible in the short and medium term.
Coming to some possible reasons for which America is considering reopening its relationship with Russia, but also trying to make a deal with China, and at the same time countering its influence, I see here that America is playing a risky game. During the Cold War, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon wanted to contain the Soviet Union, also with the help of China. They created a strategy that threw Taiwan out of the picture and recognized the status of China as a legitimate power in the Security Council in order to isolate the Soviet Union between the Western Bloc and China. This was called the Nixon Doctrine. In my opinion, isolating the Soviet Union could have also worked without throwing Taiwan out of the Security Council and recognizing a communist dictatorship because the economic collapse of the Soviet Union came from the interior and not as much from cutting the ties between China and Russia. Now, the implications of playing this game with Europe could have 3 components:
1. The pursue of the “reversed Nixon doctrine”, meaning the fact that the US is trying to pull out the Russian Federation from China in order to isolate China on the international arena and to diminish its influence not only in the Western Hemisphere and at home, but also in Central Asia, in the Indo-Pacific Area, in Africa and the Russian Federation. In other words, maybe the US is trying to keep Russia out of a serious military agreement with China. I am pessimistic when it comes to this strategy because China and Russia have, at the moment, very close ties and have never really succeeded in keeping the United States from keeping Russia and China in check by keeping them apart.
2. The United States tries to keep in check both powers, both China and Russia, making sure that there will never be a strong military alliance between the 2 countries. How? Through dialogue and cooperation, but also by diminishing their influence. In other words, it means bouncing back the influence of China and Russia in the Western Hemisphere, in Central Asia, in Africa and in the Indo-Pacific, but also creating a landscape to cooperate with both powers in order to make them distrust each-other because, if the US is making deals with both of them, each may think of the other as creating some sort of alliance and stab the other’s back;
3. The profit-oriented component. Trump already made a deal with Ukraine regarding its rare earths and rare minerals, which will diminish the dependency that the US has on China in terms of the rare earth trade. If Trump agrees to reestablish economic relations with Russia and Russia will open its access to rare earth to the United States, this will diminish even more the dependency of America on China.
Afterwards, we have the priorities of the US in Europe, which means some sort of conclusions regarding the relationship between Europe and the United States:
“Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:
• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia;
• Enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power;
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations;
• Opening European markets to U.S. goods and services and ensuring fair treatment of U.S. workers and businesses;
• Building up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges;
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance; and
• Encouraging Europe to take action to combat mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices”[61].
And here the strategy contradicts itself again. Compare the priority no. 1, priority no. 2, and priority no. 7. There are two actions that are in contradiction: on the one hand, you want Europe to have a relationship of stability with Russia, and, on the other hand, you want Europe to stand on its feet and not to be dominated by any adversarial power. Moreover, you want Europe to combat technological theft, cyber espionage, and hostile economic practices [62]. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT IF YOU SUPPORT THE PARTIES THAT ARE SUPPORTING RUSSIA AND CHINA! THIS IS A MAJOR CONTRADICTION! Priority nr. 5 gives some hints that the US will develop its economic and military ties with Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe. The best examples are Poland, with which the US has a special relationship, and also Greece, where the US ambassador said that maybe the Piraeus port of Greece can be for sale.
Priority no. 6 is extremely problematic, and I will write it again: “Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance”[63]. This is the theory of no other than John J. Mearsheimer, one of the most controversial American scholars, who came with a powerful speech in 2014, called “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”, after Russia occupied Crimea, saying bluntly: THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE WEST. I said earlier in the article that John J Mearsheimer is also the theoretician of offensive realism. What are the main elements that Mearsheimer was mentioning and describing regarding Ukraine?
1. The Ukraine crisis is the fault of the West, not Putin’s. Putin is behaving like a leader who is protecting his country from another great power that tries to turn a neighboring country into a Western ally.
2. The root of the problem lies in the process of NATO enlargement. After the Cold War, the West has made 5 decisions that would turn the peace into a state of conflict:
a. NATO repeated expansion in 1999, 2004, and 2008;
b. The EU expansion also in the former communist countries, over and over again;
c. NATO and EU expansions were seen by the Russian Federation as an existential threat;
d. Russia has mentioned its ‘red lines’, but the West did not care. It pushed forward.
In 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia would become
members in the future;
e. The protests that happened in Ukraine, called the Maidan Revolution of 2014, were perceived
by Russia as a coup orchestrated by the West;
Therefore, according to Mearsheimer, the West has created the perfect conditions for Russia to take Crimea and to attack Ukraine by provoking the war in Donbas.
This is the grand theory that he is also using in order to justify this war. NATO was too close to Russia, and the EU represents a failed organization when we are speaking to foreign policy and great-power politics.
I must say it from the beginning, this is the perfect recipe for a ‘grand theory of disinformation’: combining truth with false information:
1. YES, NATO did expand further;
2. YES, the EU did expand further;
3. YES, the EU has a weak foreign policy;
4. YES, the EU has a very weak army at the moment;
5. YES, there were protests in Ukraine in 2014;
6. YES, Putin said that these were ‘red lines’ for him.
BUT I HAVE A QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW THAT A COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO JOIN ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION IT CONSIDERS?
Of course, under certain conditions. Of course, respecting the member states and having no conflict with your neighbors. But it has that right. Even though the EU has not reached the power of the United States yet and will not do so for some period of time (it depends on the member states), this does not mean that PUTIN IS RIGHT. NO, PUTIN IS WRONG! Putin has no power to decide what he wants, when he wants it. Because Ukraine is not Russia. It has its own institutions and its own system of government.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FROM 2017
The national security strategy from 2017 has a clearer stance on Russia. The national security strategy from 2017 does have a very powerful stance against the Russian Federation and against the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin. In this part, I will analyze the most important paragraphs related to how Russia is viewed by the United States in 2017. In a few words, Russia is viewed as the second negative power, after China. But when it comes to the political regime, Russia is also an authoritarian regime: “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence” [64]. Even though I cited this before, this represents the quintessence of how the United States viewed Russia in the first Trump administration.
In the first pillar of the strategy, Russia is viewed as an actor that is trying to undermine the stability of democracy. So, in the eyes of the United States, Russia was an enemy of democracy: “Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data”[65]. In the third pillar of the strategy, Russia and China are seen as creating a world which represents an antithesis to what the United States has done in the past: “China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests”[66].
The most significant pillar for criticizing what Russia is doing on the international arena is pillar nr. 3, where China and Russia are characterized as having opposite values from the American ones. It also says that Russia seeks to sow discord between the United States and its European partners. For Russia, NATO and the EU are simply threats: “Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners. Russia views the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU) as threats.”[67]. Moreover, the US is seeing Russia as wanting to invest in new military capabilities, and it launches disinformation campaigns in order to interfere in the domestic politics of other states: “Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries around the world”[68]. “Russia uses information operations as part of its offensive cyber efforts to influence public opinion across the globe. Its influence campaigns blend covert intelligence operations and false online personas with state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or <<trolls>>”[69].
When it comes to the relationship between Europe, the United States, and Russia, there is a fundamental difference between the US national strategy from 2025 and the US national strategy 2017. While the present national strategy speaks about restoring strategic stability between Russia and Europe, the national strategy from 2017 speaks of the fact that Russia is doing everything to diminish the credibility that the US has in Europe and to destroy the transatlantic unity: “Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America’s commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments”[70]. So, the United States is recognizing that Russia has some kind of instruments that it uses to destroy the credibility of the European institutions. At the same time, the TRANSATLANTIC UNITY is of significant importance in the previous strategy, while now the strategy talks of only “TRANSATLANTIC TRADE”[71].
The subject of Ukraine is also mentioned: the United States is recognizing that Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia, and it wants to violate the SOVEREIGNITY of other states in the region: “With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region”[72]. This differs very much with the present discourse at the White House. In the present strategy, we can only speak of the ‘Ukrainian War,’ and it does not mention who is at fault.
[1] Ibidem, p. 15
[2] Ibidem, p. 15
[3] Ibidem, p. 16
[4] Ibidem, p. 16
[5] Ibidem, p. 17
[6] Ibidem, p. 17
[7] Nektaria STAMOULI, “Trump envoy warns Greece that US wants China out of Piraeus port”, Politico, 14th November 2025, accessed at https://www.politico.eu/article/america-wants-china-out-of-greece-piraeus-port-us-ambassador-kimberly-guilfoyle-says/ on 07.12.2025
[8] Nektaria STAMOULI, “China lashes out against US’s Greece ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle”, 19th November 2025, accessed at https://www.politico.eu/article/china-us-ambassador-greece-kimberly-guilfoyle-port-of-piraeus/ on 07.12.2025
[9] Ibidem, p. 19
[10] Ibidem, p. 51
[11] Ibidem, p. 51
[12] Ibidem, p. 51
[13] Ibidem, p. 19
[14] Ibidem, p. 20
[15] Ibidem, p. 20
[16] Ibidem, p. 21
[17] Ibidem, p. 21
[18] Ibidem, p. 22
[19] Ibidem, p. 22
[20] “Pax Silica Summit“, US Department of State, 11th December 2025, accessed at https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/12/pax-silica-initiative on 14.12.2025
[21] “Pax SIlica”, US Department of State, accessed at https://www.state.gov/pax-silica on 14.12.2025
[22] Ibidem
[23] Ibidem
[24] Ibidem
[25] Ibidem
[26] Ibidem
[27] Ibidem
[28] Ibidem
[29] Ibidem
[30] Ibidem
[31] Ibidem
[32] Ibidem
[33] Ibidem, p. 23
[34] Ibidem, p. 24
[35] Ibidem, p. 24
[36] Ibidem, p. 2
[37] Ibidem, p. 12
[38] Ibidem, p. 21
[39] Ibidem, p. 25
[40] Ibidem, p. 25
[41] Ibidem, p. 46
[42] Ibidem, p. 47
[43] Ibidem, p. 25
[44] “The future of European competitiveness Part A | A competitiveness strategy for Europe”, The European Commission, September 2024, 2025, p. 06, accessed at https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en on 11.12.2025
[45] Ibidem, p. 25
[46] Ibidem, p. 25
[47] Ibidem. p. 25
[48] Ibidem, p. 25
[49] Ibidem, p. 27
[50] Ibidem, p. 25
[51] “EU agrees to permanently stop Russian gas imports and phase out Russian oil”, The European Commission, accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2860 on 11.12.2025
[52] Maria M Stenergard, X, accessed at https://x.com/MariaStenergard/status/1991465929780162637 on 11.12.2025
[53] Ibidem, p. 26
[54] Ibidem, p. 26
[55] Ibidem, p. 26
[56] Ibidem, p. 26
[57] Ibidem, p. 26
[58] Ibidem, p. 26
[59] Ibidem, p. 26
[60] Ibidem, p. 27
[61] Ibidem, p. 27
[62] Ibidem, p. 27
[63] Ibidem, p. 27
[64] Ibidem, p. 2
[65] Ibidem, p. 14
[66] Ibidem, p. 25
[67] Ibidem, p. 25
[68] Ibidem, p. 26
[69] Ibidem, p. 35
[70] Ibidem, p. 47
[71] Ibidem, p. 26
[72] Ibidem, p. 47
