The Trump administration has enshrined the main principles of his \u201cAmerica First\u201d concept in a new National Security Strategy, which defines the country\u2019s policy for the future. The content of the document directly affects the interests of other countries, including Ukraine, in both positive and negative ways, which shows how controversial the current US administration\u2019s policies are. All this causes ambiguous perceptions of the Strategy both in the USA and around the world, and also affects our country. Therefore, this article is an attempt to analyze the Strategy in order to find out the USA\u2019s real intentions.<\/em><\/p>\n The main factor influencing the situation in the world is the policy of the USA, which remains the most powerful center of global power.<\/strong> Therefore, the new US National Security Strategy, which was released in early December this year and caused a large and extremely controversial political reaction, is important. This perception of the document is objective in nature, as it actually outlines and consolidates the current US President Donald Trump\u2019s course, which is perceived ambiguously both in America itself and in most other countries, including Ukraine. This refers primarily to the White House\u2019s geopolitical priorities and how they are implemented.<\/p>\n The content of the Strategy is well known and widely commented on in the media. However, it is worth recalling it once again in a condensed form, which will provide a better understanding of US policy in the context of Ukraine\u2019s interests.<\/strong><\/p>\n The document presents Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d concept more clearly than it did in his previous Strategy in 2017. According to this approach, the USA\u2019s interests come first and will be vigorously defended.<\/p>\n At the same time, America will try to do its best to maintain the existing balance of power in the world and prevent the global, and in some cases regional, domination of any state that could pose a threat to American interests. To this end, the USA will work closely with allies and partners, particularly Europe.<\/p>\n Washington\u2019s policy toward other countries will be realistic in nature and shaped by their importance to America. The USA is interested in positive relations and trade cooperation with them, but will not impose democratic or other social changes that are significantly at odds with their traditions and history. The White House will only exert influence on other states when it concerns American interests.<\/p>\n The USA will continue trade and economic cooperation with China. However, such trade in critical areas will be limited, allowing America to strengthen its economic security and have greater freedom of action. Besides, the USA will continue to defend Taiwan.<\/p>\n Europe will remain the main partner, playing a special role for America. The USA is interested in a strong Europe and will provide assistance in strengthening it, contributing to the restoration of strategic stability in Eurasia. In this regard, Washington will use diplomacy to promote relations between Europe and Russia, which Europeans currently consider a real threat to their security.<\/p>\n However, the need to strengthen the defense of American interests in the Indo-Pacific (Asia-Pacific) region, which is emerging as the main arena of global competition in the 21st<\/sup> century, is forcing the USA to change its priorities. Therefore, Washington will reduce its activity in ensuring Europe\u2019s security. However, the USA is convinced that this will not have critical consequences for Europe, as it significantly outmatches Russia in military terms.<\/p>\n At the same time, the White House is concerned about the course of the European Union, which allegedly leads it to economic and civilizational decline due to the EU leaderships\u2019 excessive interference in the European economy, as well as problems with demographics and national identity due to destructive migration policies. It condemns European officials who \u201chave unrealistic expectations about the war in Ukraine\u201d, as well as those who \u201crely on unstable minority governments\u201d (obviously referring to their lack of support from the majority of the population) and \u201cdisregard the basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition\u201d.<\/p>\n Based on these statements, the doubt is expressed that Europe will be able to remain a reliable ally of the USA. Therefore, the goal is set: \u201cto help Europe correct its current trajectory\u201d. In particular, it is planned to: \u201csupport opponents of Europe\u2019s current development within European countries\u201d; \u201ccontinue working to keep European markets open to American goods and services\u201d; \u201cpromote healthy nations in Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe that could cooperate with the USA and trade, including in weapons\u201d; \u201cencourage Europe to counter technology theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices\u201d.<\/p>\n Particular emphasis is placed on defending the USA\u2019s interests in the Western Hemisphere. Washington intends to maintain a significant military presence in the region to control sea lanes, prevent illegal and other undesirable migration, and combat human and drug trafficking.<\/p>\n The most important priority for the USA is to end military operations in Ukraine as soon as possible in order to stabilize the economies of European countries, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, restore strategic stability in relations with Russia, and ensure Ukraine\u2019s post-war recovery for its survival as a sovereign and viable state.<\/p>\n However, Russia\u2019s role as an adversary of the USA and the Western world and a source of threats to their security in the context of its aggressive foreign policy and war against Ukraine is not mentioned.<\/p>\n As already pointed out, the new US National Security Strategy has received mixed reactions both in America itself and around the world.<\/strong> Some American and most European and Ukrainian politicians and experts have reacted negatively to it, believing that it contradicts the interests of America, Europe, and Ukraine.<\/p>\n First of all, in this regard, it should be noted that:<\/p>\n All this is seen as the US leadership\u2019s betrayal of Europe and Ukraine, as well as its shift towards Moscow.<\/p>\n On the other hand, Russia approves of the new US strategy. According to the Kremlin representatives, it demonstrates Trump\u2019s sympathy for the Russian Federation and his break with Europe, as well as his willingness to resolve the situation around Ukraine in Moscow\u2019s favor. In other words, the USA\u2019s policy coincides with Russia\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n However, some experts have a different opinion, believing that the new US Strategy generally corresponds to the situation and is based on decisions already made regarding the transformation of the Euro-Atlantic and European security system. At this, the document does not enshrine the pro-Russian position of the USA, it just masks Trump\u2019s true attitude to Russia.<\/p>\n According to supporters of this concept, everything remains unchanged and involves the maximum weakening of the Russian Federation as the main military adversary of the United States and competitor in the global energy market. This is evidenced by Trump\u2019s actions, which in just one year of his presidency have caused Russia more damage than all the sanctions and other measures of pressure on it since 2014 taken together.<\/p>\n According to the estimates of the aforementioned category of experts, Trump is interested in Ukraine and the war as additional tools for implementing his plans regarding Russia, which make it possible to speed up the process of depleting its resources. However, they acknowledge that the US President is unaware of the real interests of Ukraine and Europe, and that his policies are inconsistent and dependent on external influences.<\/p>\n Most likely, the real state of affairs contains elements of all of the above assessments of the new US National Security Strategy. A more detailed analysis of its main provisions confirms this.<\/strong><\/p>\n Indeed, Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d concept does envisage the preservation of US unilateral dominance and the ability to dictate its position to other countries. After his return to power in January 2025, he began to implement those plans in practice. That was named as one of the main goals of Trump\u2019s tariff wars.<\/p>\n To one degree or another, he achieved what he wanted, as demonstrated by the agreement of most countries to his demands. They were actually forced to \u201cbow down\u201d to the USA. At the moment, no one dares to oppose the USA at the strategic level. Even Russia is trying to reconcile with it, although it continues to present itself as an equal power center.<\/p>\n The exception to this is China, but even it is forced to reckon with the USA. For example, China compromised with the USA during trade negotiations and also reduced its oil purchases from Russia after the USA had imposed sanctions on it.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Strategy merely formalized these US actions in an official document. They do indeed contradict the interests of most other countries, but they are nothing new in Trump\u2019s policy, which was the same during his first presidential term.<\/p>\n There is nothing new in the USA\u2019s intentions to reduce its involvement in ensuring European security and to redirect some of its military resources to the Indo-Pacific region (IPR) either. These intentions are also well known, objective in nature, and related to the increasing threats to the USA from China, both globally and in the IPR.<\/p>\n These US plans have been agreed with Europe within the framework of NATO and the EU and are set out in the principles for building a new Euro-Atlantic and European security system. They were adopted at the NATO and EU summits at the highest level in June this year and stipulate that the USA will focus on containing China, while Europe will focus on countering Russia. At this, the USA will remain the main guarantor of Europe\u2019s strategic security and will provide assistance in its confrontation with Russia in the European theater of operations.<\/p>\n These issues were raised by the US leadership as early as the beginning of the 2010s and were brought to the fore by Donald Trump during his first presidential term in 2017-2018. At that time, the USA began to increase its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. This mainly involved strengthening its Navy and Air Force and partially regrouping its Marine Corps forces in the region, which is quite understandable.<\/p>\n A potential war between the USA and China can only be fought at sea and in the air, as they do not share a land border. And landing marines today, when the forces of the parties are roughly equal, is practically impossible. Transport and landing ships would be destroyed on approach. And even if the landing were successful, the enemy would not allow it to be logistically supported and would eliminate it with superior forces on land.<\/p>\n The Russian-Ukrainian war clearly demonstrated the practical impossibility of conducting amphibious operations. Russia was unable to do so even with its absolute superiority over Ukraine in the Black Sea region. The USA is taking this experience into consideration and plans to redeploy only part of its Navy and Air Force and some Marine Corps units from the European to the Indo-Pacific theater of operations.<\/p>\n At the same time, they are mobile and can quickly return if necessary. The entire system of operational redeployment of US troops from the continental United States to Europe will remain unchanged. In other words, the USA will by no means abandon Europe and leave it on its own with Russia.<\/p>\n But even if the USA leaves Europe, it would not be a disaster for it. This issue was studied by European experts at the beginning of this year, when Donald Trump first began to talk about the possibility of reducing the American military presence in Europe. According to their estimates, the USA\u2019s contribution to NATO\u2019s potential is about 16 %. Therefore, the possible withdrawal of US forces from Europe would cause problems, but Europe would be able to cope with them.<\/p>\n In particular, the basis of the US Armed Forces in Europe in peacetime is the 5th<\/sup> Army Corps (AC) in Poland, consisting of two mechanized divisions and one brigade. In addition, there is a US airborne brigade in Italy. For comparison, the Polish Armed Forces alone, as NATO\u2019s first echelon, have six mechanized divisions and an airborne brigade. In wartime, the USA could redeploy another AC to Europe. However, European countries would also increase their armed forces. Therefore, the overall ratio would remain unchanged.<\/p>\n Currently, NATO outnumbers Russia 4.5 times in terms of conventional weapons, which even Russian experts acknowledge. Without the USA, this ratio would decrease to at least 4 times, which would still be quite significant. An approximate calculation of the balance of power was presented in our article \u201cThe North Atlantic Alliance: Distorted Views and the True Nature of NATO\u201d,<\/u> <\/strong>which confirms the figures given above.<\/p>\n The problem with the USA\u2019s attitude to Europe, which stems from the American Strategy, is quite different. The USA intends to subjugate Europe to its will and change its independent course, which it is currently pursuing. An example of such a position of Europe is its support for Ukraine in countering the USA\u2019s attempts to impose unfavorable terms of a peace plan on it. Europe has a similar position on many other issues.<\/p>\n It does not coincide with the interests of Donald Trump, who is trying to break Europe by putting pressure on it. In particular, this became the main goal of the US tariff war against the European Union, which forced it to make concessions in the economic sphere. However, the EU\u2019s position remains unchanged. Therefore, the USA plans to resort to other methods of influence.<\/p>\n Judging by the Strategy, Washington will try to weaken European unity by supporting right-wing forces in its political environment and pulling the weakest European countries to its side. This is how we can interpret the provisions of the document that provide for assistance to Europe in changing its trajectory by \u201csupporting opponents of the current development of the EU within European countries\u201d and \u201cpromoting healthy nations in Central and Eastern Europe and South-Eastern Europe that could cooperate with the USA\u201d.<\/p>\n In fact, the USA intends to follow Russia\u2019s example, which sharply increases the level of threat to Europe. Moreover, the ties between Trump\u2019s environment and Putin\u2019s people do not rule out the possibility of coordinated action by Washington and Moscow against Europe.<\/p>\n Overall, the Strategy demonstrates that the USa has a positive attitude to a sovereign and viable Ukraine, which can be considered one of America\u2019s most important interests. In other words, the importance of Ukraine for the USA is recognized, which obviously concerns its role in Washington\u2019s plans to contain Russia and deplete its resources. Based on this, the USA is not indifferent to Ukraine and will continue to help it in any case and will not allow it to disappear as an independent state. Moreover, unlike Donald Trump, level-headed American politicians are aware of Ukraine\u2019s role in the Western world. The majority of American citizens are also on Ukraine\u2019s side, which Donald Trump cannot ignore.<\/p>\n The absence of any mention of Russia as an adversary of the USA in the Strategy does not necessarily mean that Trump and America have definitively shifted to pro-Russian positions and intend to \u201creset\u201d relations with Moscow in the near future. Most likely, this is also related to the peace talks, in which Trump does not want to irritate the Russian leadership. Such assumptions are again supported by Trump\u2019s practical actions, who, on the one hand, seems to demonstrate his affection for Russia, and on the other, continues to make efforts to undermine its oil and gas industry and sells weapons for Ukraine\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n However, the new US National Security Strategy regarding Russia may be designed for the long term, namely, to change its course, which would allow Washington to normalize bilateral relations. In fact, this is the aim of Donald Trump\u2019s policy towards the Russian Federation. The preconditions for Moscow\u2019s refusal to continue its aggressive expansion should be created by a radical weakening of Russia as a result of falling world energy prices and Western sanctions.<\/p>\n The USA\u2019s desire to strengthen its influence in the Western Hemisphere is also indicative. This has been Washington\u2019s traditional goal under all US Presidents. Trump has only actualized it in the context of his encroachment on Canada\u2019s sovereignty and geographical renaming. Currently, the provisions of the Strategy for the Western Hemisphere and the Caribbean Basin provide a basis for US actions to change the regimes of those countries that do not meet American interests. Right now, this applies to Venezuela, and after that, the USA may turn its attention to Cuba.<\/p>\n Thus:<\/strong><\/p>\n The new US Strategic Concept fully reflects Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d concept. For example, it provides for the actual preservation of US dominance in the world with the support of its partners, primarily Europe; containment of China and Russia without directly recognizing them as America\u2019s adversaries; subordination of all other countries and regions, including the European Union, to American interests.<\/strong><\/p>\n Washington\u2019s intentions have been met with mixed reactions both in the USA and around the world. They are viewed negatively by some American and most European politicians and experts, who consider them contrary to the interests of America, Europe, and Ukraine. It is perceived similarly in Ukraine. In contrast, Russia generally approves of the Strategy;<\/strong><\/p>\n However, according to some experts, the new US Strategy generally corresponds to the situation and is based on decisions already taken on the transformation of the Euro-Atlantic and European security system. At this, the document does not strengthen the pro-Russian position of the USA, it just masks D. Trump\u2019s real goals regarding Russia;<\/strong><\/p>\n In principle, the Strategy contains elements of all options, which is precisely what determines its controversial nature. However, this is precisely D. Trump\u2019s policy, which is constantly changing under the influence of various factors. Russia is exploiting this situation to promote its interests through Trump\u2019s environment. However, Ukraine and its European partners also have the opportunity to influence him.<\/strong><\/p>\n The Strategy confirms the importance of Ukraine as an independent and sovereign state for the USA. With this in mind, the USA will support it no matter what. At the same time, D. Trump does not understand Ukraine\u2019s true interests and is therefore imposing unfavorable terms on it in an agreement that is called peaceful.<\/strong><\/p>\n Yurii Mykhailenko, Yurii Ilchenko, Yurii Mykhailenko, Yurii Ilchenko<\/p>\n The main factor influencing the situation in the world is the policy of the USA, which remains the most powerful center of global power<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":32322,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[261,260],"tags":[268,272],"class_list":["post-32321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analitika","category-publikacii","tag-ilchenko","tag-mixajlenko","wp-image-borders"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"en","enabled_languages":["uk","en","ru","fr","ar"],"languages":{"uk":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":true},"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":true},"ru":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":true},"fr":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":true},"ar":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"gutentor_comment":0,"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n<\/strong>Institute for Global Politics<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"