|
New U.S. National Security Strategy – Fortify America, Compete China, Strangle Europe, Forget The Rest
The White House has released the new National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS) (pdf, 33 pages).
It is quite different from the last one released in 2022 under the Biden administration.
The new NSS marks the end of the rather infamous Wolfowitz doctrine:
The “Wolfowitz Doctrine” is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992). As the first post-Cold War DPG, it asserted that the United States had become the world’s sole remaining superpower following the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, and declared that its principal objective was to preserve that status.
The memorandum, drafted under the direction of Under Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, generated considerable controversy and was subsequently revised in response to public criticism.
In contrast to the Wolfowitz doctrine the introduction to the new NSS asserts:
After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.
The NSS is based on different consideration:
The questions before us now are: 1) What should the United States want? 2) What are our available means to get it? and 3) How can we connect ends and means into a viable National Security Strategy?
It next lays out principals, priorities and global regions.
The most remarkable point in the new NSS is, in my view, the acceptance of China as a (near) equal competitor.
As Twitter commentator summarized the paper:
- “Trump Corollary” to Monroe Doctrine is now the core pillar.
- China downgraded from existential threat to economic competitor.
- Taiwan deterrence = “ideal” but conditional on allies paying up.
- Indo-Pacific secondary, Western Hemisphere + homeland first.
- No more democracy crusades, no value imposition abroad.
- Tariffs quietly admitted as failure, focus shifts to multilateral pressure.
- Biggest shift since 1945: from global cop to fortified hemisphere power.
- Allies will be asked to foot the bill while US rebuilds at home.
- Fortress America is back.
The reviving of the Monroe doctrine, which implies to counter all foreign influence in North and South America, is bad news for the countries in that region. They will have to fend off U.S. interventions and invasions. For the rest of the world it is good news as the U.S. will be decreasing its capabilities for global interventions.
Asia is seen important with regards to the economy. The military aspect is reduced to deterrence. The U.S. will try to recruit its allies – Japan, South-Korea, Europe – to compete with China economically as well as to ‘ideally’ upkeep the status quo around Taiwan.
With regards to Europe the NSS is contradicting itself. Its Principals say:
We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. We recognize and affirm that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in acting according to such a realistic assessment or in maintaining good relations with countries whose governing systems and societies differ from ours even as we push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms, furthering our interests as we do so.
But in its chapter on Europe the NSS is promoting U.S. intervention against the European Union:
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.
…
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. 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.
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.
The remarks on the war in Ukraine demonstrates the U.S. hostility towards the current crop of warmongering west-European leaders:
It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.
The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. 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. 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. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.
The bureaucrats in Brussels will not like these priorities which sum up to heavy interventions in internal EU processes:
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.
The Middle East, with less than 1 1/2 pages in the NSS, is no longer seen as priority:
[T]he days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over—not because the Middle East no longer matters, but because it is no longer the constant irritant, and potential source of imminent catastrophe, that it once was. It is rather emerging as a place of partnership, friendship, and investment—a trend that should be welcomed and encouraged.
Africa, which is covered in a mere 1/2 page, is only mentioned under economic aspects.
The new National Security Strategy is a stark break from the last 30 years of U.S. policies dominated by neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists. It is moving from ideological intervention and competition towards the prioritization of economic relations.
The U.S. is concentrating on the ‘western hemisphere’, de-emphasizing military hostility towards Chine to economic competition. It foresees intervention in the internal affairs of Europe while the Middle East and Africa are downgraded to mere side shows.
Some people, especially European Atlanticists, will hope that a future U.S. government will rescind the new NSS and help Europe’s aggressive efforts against Russia.
But that view ignores the bi-partisanship of U.S. policies. The Wolfowitz doctrine was followed by Republicans as much as by Democrats. The new National Security Strategy will likewise be furthered by both parties.
I note the timing of the NSS’ release. If Russia was looking for some policy-change showing up in US internal policy-making, well, this is a good step in the right direction.
I also noted this paragraph in the NSS, page 10:
The United States will unapologetically protect our own sovereignty. This includes preventing its erosion by transnationaland international organizations, attempts by foreign powers or entities to censor our discourse or curtail our citizens’ free speech rights, lobbying and influence operations that seek to steer our policies or involve us in foreignconflicts, and the cynical manipulation of our immigration system to build up voting blocs loyal to foreign interests within our country. The United States will chart our own course in the world and determine our own destiny, free of outside interference.
Well, well, well. Isn’t that interesting. Who do you suppose that paragraph is aimed at? UK? Israel? Empty words or policy shift, what is your guess? This paragraph has the potential to be one of the most significant in the policy.
I note also that the re-industrialization “interest” frequently expressed in the policy isn’t yet backed up with actual investment, and what little investment is occurring is centered on data centers and a few induced-investments from other countries like Taiwan and Japan. I’m not yet seeing a major groundswell of investment in US industrial capacity of the massive capital pools that are controlled by Wall Street.
Finally, we’re seeing in writing what so many of us predicted a year ago: US wings clipped in its attempts to steal Russia’s assets, can’t rein in China, so it’s time to circle the wagons and try to control what’s left, which includes Central and South America. As B noted, too bad for Central and South America. They are now “on the menu”.
Another key point left unsaid in the NSS is the nature of the emergent agreement with Russia, and why, for example, someone like Kushner is part of that negotiating activity. Many have speculated as to why Russia is so soft on Israel. Russia has made such an extraordinarily, surprisingly disciplined effort to avoid calling out Israel’s – and Zionists in general’s – obvious role in destroying Ukraine (battering ram .vs. Russia) and inflicting enormous hardship on Russia.
Can Russia have some exploitable weakness that is causing this self-harm?
Harking back to the presence of Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Kirill Dmitriev at the Alaska summit, we can infer that a large dossier of potential investment opportunities were set out, and subsequently mulled over by some very wealthy people here in the West. Do you wonder what the actual text of the current “peace negotiation” really is, .vs. what’s presented to the public? I do. Apparently Israel and U.S. Jewish oligarchs have something Putin wants, or why would he be entertaining them at this juncture of the negotiation? More pointedly, how is it that the two appointed US representatives of the entire US in this critical negotiation happen to be Jewish?
My expectation is that Putin thinks the Jewish control of the US can be used to get the US off Russia’s back, and what’s required to gain the Jewish leadership on-side is some spoils. I think once the pile of spoils is large enough, rapprochement with Russia will become policy.
The US-Russia negotiation is about spheres of influence, and financial participation (access to profits from) in the build-out of Russia. China has thwarted the Western oligarchs attempt to participate in its build-out, but Russia appears to be more vulnerable at the moment.
I continue to wonder what control the many Jewish oligarchs within Russia have over its economy. That may well tell the rest of the story about Putin’s reluctance to take on Israel.
I also wonder why the enormous pools of capital in the hands of Wall Street are not being used to rebuild the US. There should be a flood of industrial and R&D expenditures being made right now, and a mad-rush to evolve a viable industrial policy. Both are _conspicuously_ absent.
Could it be that the wealth that’s been extracted from the US over the past few decades will be, instead, invested in Russia, or elsewhere? Are the holders of this enormous wealth simply waiting for the toll-gates to the East to open, and then they’ll pile in?
I’d say there’s a pretty good chance that’s exactly what’s afoot.
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Dec 5 2025 16:50 utc | 25
RE: Posted by b on December 5, 2025 at 15:51 UTC | Permalink
“Some people, especially European Atlanticists, will hope that a future U.S. government will rescind the new NSS and help Europe’s aggressive efforts against Russia.
But that view ignores the bi-partisanship of U.S. policies….”
&
RE: Posted by: Savonarole | Dec 5 2025 16:14 utc | 8
“Those kind of memo are mostly for the show. The US doctrine is the same as ever : pillage what you can take , destroy what you can’t take.”
_________________
B, you got it wrong there!
Savonarole’s take is spot on!
Even the least informed geopolitical watcher knows that this new NSS document is a symbol of the US foreign policy of STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY which is essentially aimed at deceiving the world it intends to dominate.
Take it or leave it, all those ‘U-turns’ observable in that document WILL ONLY OPERATE IN PRINCIPLE NOT IN PRACTICE. The objective (strategic ambiguity) is to fool other nations to ‘drop their guards’.
In practice, the US remains an avowed hegemon (at least to the extent Russia and China will allow them space now). Donald Trump or anyone else (Democrat or Republican) at the Whitehouse does not matter. It is as easy and elementary as ABCD to predict that this new NSS will be swiftly revised as soon as Trump leaves office. Even Trump himself will not adhere strictly to it: you have to watch out for the substance of his actions around the world rather than his words (or better, the new NSS content) for proof.
The US Legislature have historically been a uni-party institution with bipartisan unison on foreign warmongering issues while the occupant of the Oval Office cannot act against entrenched pattern on same issue without being actually (or threatened) with impeachment.
SO, DON’T CELEBRATE THEORY. RATHER, BRACE UP FOR REALITY AS IT UNVEILS!
Posted by: cegnoveltyesq | Dec 5 2025 17:04 utc | 34
It is unclear to me how important such a document is in the formulation of policy, particularly under Trump, who doesn’t seem capable of assembling a functional staff. Near as I can tell from history, such things can have a significant influence in the long run on the bureaucracy. New manuals of doctrine for military forces seem to work like that. In the possibility it may have some effect someday?
Our host says
The reviving of the Monroe doctrine, which implies to counter all foreign influence in North and South America, is bad news for the countries in that region. They will have to fend off U.S. interventions and invasions. For the rest of the world it is good news as the U.S. will be decreasing its capabilities for global interventions.
I do not believe this is at all correct. I think that in fact the US doesn’t have that much capability for massive military intervention anywhere. It can’t conquer Cuba that easily, nor can it massively intervene in Venezuela or Mexico or Nicaragua with the kind of resource consuming commitment that would prevent it from its hybrid interventions elsewhere all over the world. For one thing, the real Gulag Archipelago, the chain of US bases over most of the planet will stay. For another, the sale of weapons, especially advanced weapons systems that require ongoing US military advice for upkeep, will continue. Indeed, being itself a form of control over other nations’ militaries as well as a source of profit for some, Trump and his minions trumpet their successes in making arms deals.
Despite the ongoing efforts to turn the officer corps into a vehicle for personal dictatorship, or at a minimum a partisan organization, the officer corps has to deal with the rank-and-file. Trumpery is not very popular with ordinary people, not when they get an up close and personal look. The efforts to forge the armed forces into essentially a band of mercenaries forgets two things: You have to pay them, a lot, and they still aren’t committed fighters, much less soldiers. The embody the warrior ethos, which sees themselves as the masters, not the servants of the people. Any efforts to turn the bulk into a kind of Janissary corps, not Muslim but Christian nationalists above the decadent civilian rabble poisoned by mudbloods or atheism or cultural Marxism, has the problem that Christianity is waning. No doubt severe repression can bring it back, at least superficially…but that is not turning the military’s fire on the western hemisphere, it’s turning the army against the people with the US itself. That may be the goal, but it can’t be done without a counterrevolution against bourgeois democracy as it is practiced. (Forget the ideological versions suited to grade schools.) Bourgeois democracy can be compromised so that Jefferson can own slaves but it can’t reverse the Civil War. Given Trump’s boasting of peace through strength, it is not at all clear that the US military is to be cut to the levels needed to fortify the western hemisphere.
(Make no mistake, oceans still matter and the Atlantic and Pacific are still ramparts and the US does not need an army of this size to protect the western hemisphere. Obviously protect is a euphemism. Trump is no Gorbachev or even a Yeltsin. When he steps away from Europe, it’s leaving orders to them to pay 5% of GDP into their military budgets, which is to save the US government money.)
As to the analysis that multilateral pressure concedes that tariffs are a failure for building empire? Given that tariffs are first of all regressive taxes, this seems to be irrelevant. Also, given that things like the World Bank and IMF are multilateral I’m not at all sure this is a genuine shift away from US financial empire, especially given Trump’s explicit determination to preserve dollar hegemony.
There are more objections to the X analysis. I suppose the real lesson is not to take X threads as contributions to useful debate. I am a little puzzled as to why our host publicizes this one. He is quite correct to point out how the comment’s claim that the strategy eschews interference in foreign nations is directly contradicted in its comments on Europe. I attribute this to propagandistic duplicity on the part of the authors of the strategy. I will point out that the rather authoritarian reactionary governments favored are ideologically compatible with Trumpery. I not clear on why our host is affronted that Trump and his minions like Vance want AfD politics in Germany, FIDESZ, PiS, the whole crew in power. (I wouldn’t want them and would be angry at foreign interference on their behalf, but that’s me.)
Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 5 2025 17:22 utc | 45
|
