US updated national security strategy changes a lot for Ukraine and Europe. It will be difficult, but not hopeless

Washington chooses isolation, harshly criticizes allies and seeks “strategic stability” with Moscow. What does this mean for Kyiv?

On December 5, Donald Trump’s administration published an updated National Security Strategy. This 33-page document has become more than just a formal bureaucratic creation, which is usually of interest only to a narrow circle of specialists. It is, in fact, a manifesto of a new era - an era in which the United States officially abandons the role of Atlas that holds up global security on its shoulders, and returns to the concept of “Fortress America”.

The document, which sets the tone for Washington’s foreign policy for the coming years, has already caused shock in European capitals and, probably, restrained hopes in Moscow and Beijing. It breaks fundamentally with the traditions not only of Democratic administrations, but also of classical republicanism of the Reagan era. It replaces democracy with pragmatic bargaining, the expansion of alliances with a demand to “pay the bills” and threats to reconsider the partnership. Instead of unconditional support for Ukraine, there is talk of “viability” and “realism.”

“AMERICA FIRST” RAISES TO THE ABSOLUTE: THE END OF THE ERA OF GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY

The main leitmotif behind the Strategy is demonstrative, undisguised state egoism. Whereas previously, American doctrines were built around the idea that US security is impossible without global stability and the prosperity of democracies, the Trump’s administration is now turning this pyramid upside down. From now on, Washington will be interested in the world only to the extent that benefits the US wallet or directly threatens the American border security.

The document sets out clear priorities: protection of the US external borders, control over the Western Hemisphere, and economic autonomy. America no longer wants to waste resources on “endless wars,” supporting the liberal world order, or nurturing democracies in other countries.

Diplomat Vadym Tryukhan notes that the very fact that such a document has showed up has come as no surprise, since the US legislation requires regular strategy updates. However, the content is revolutionary in its retrograde.

“As a matter of fact, the Trump administration has brought together in one document all those disparate, often contradictory ideas that were voiced during the last ten months of his tenure and even during the election campaign. And here we see several key signals. The first and loudest: America is returning to its inner circle. It has actually rewound the tape two hundred years back and no longer wants to actively engage with the world – neither Europe, nor Russia, nor China,” explains Tryukhan.

The map of US interests has narrowed to the extent that may seem catastrophic to supporters of globalism: “Washington is focusing on itself. American interests are no longer in Syria, not in Ukraine, not in Saudi Arabia. They are confined between the border with Mexico and the border with Canada. That's it. Period. That is to say, America has very quickly transformed from "great again" into “America in itself". And for the rest of the world, especially for the democratic countries that really need US support, this means practically zero involvement of Washington. This is the main and rather alarming conclusion that follows from the new strategy, the expert says.

This isolationism also has a deep economic subtext. The new strategy views international relations not as a chessboard of values, but as a huge bazaar where everyone has to pay for their place in the sun. The style of the document also raises questions among experts.

"This document doesn’t seem to have been authored by experts, civil servants, or professionals with the appropriate experience, but rather by some consulting company that has little idea of ​​how the modern world is organized. There is no place for values ​​or ideology in the text. Instead, it is only focused on money, money and more money,” Vadym Tryukhan ironically remarks.

He adds that such frank commercialism could only evoke positive emotions among the US opponents. “To be honest, I am almost certain that both Russia and China had a good laugh when they read this. The Kremlin could have rubbed their hands with satisfaction, while Beijing probably calmly noted: problems with competition are looming again.”

This position creates a dangerous power void. The United States’ voluntary rejection of its role as a global arbiter and “policeman” will inevitably cause other players with completely different ideas about justice to try and to take this place. Political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko warns of the systemic consequences such “voluntary withdrawal” can bring about.

“The key is that the United States is actually, albeit figuratively, declaring its rejection of the role of a state that claims global leadership, advocates for democratic values and the maintenance of international order. The document states in no uncertain terms: the US will no longer carry the burden of this “Atlas’ mission”, will not hold up the “sky” on its shoulders. And this is precisely where a significant danger lies – both for the world order and for the United States itself,” Fesenko believes.

The expert emphasizes that a voluntary abandonment of leadership role can cost Washington much more than the cost of supporting allies. Because trust is something that takes decades to establish. However, it can be destroyed very quickly by a single significant mistake: “When a country voluntarily abandons its leadership status, the world responds accordingly. The attitude towards the United States will change and, most likely, not in its favor. As a result, this will create problems not only for Washington’s allies…”

Vira Kostyantynova, the Board Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies, agrees, seeing in such a strategy the risk of strengthening the main US competitor – China, which may take advantage of the US disengagement.

“It is worrying that the US is de facto declaring that it is ceasing to be a “global policeman”. Such a position may have long-term consequences. The US risks turning into a regional country, and thereby giving way to China as the new “Atlas that holds up the whole world”. For China this will basically mean facilitation in achieving the foreign policy goals that it has set for itself, so to speak, with “small efforts,” Kostyantynova explains.

She recalls a simple truth of geopolitics: a superpower is strong not only with its army, but also with its alliances.

“It is essential to understand that the power of global actors rests on partnerships with medium-sized and small countries. And that country becomes or remains a superpower that skillfully builds alliances for the long term, and on which it relies. Whether the US will be able to win in a potential “head-on” clash with China without support from its partners in Europe, Ukraine, and other regions remains an open question,” the expert emphasizes.

EUROPE AS A “BAD ASSET”: ULTIMATUMS, MIGRATION, AND THE END TO NATO ENLARGEMENT

The most paradoxical and “Trump-styled” part of the Strategy is perhaps that the sharpest arrows of criticism and undisguised annoyance are aimed not at autocracies (Russia, Iran, or North Korea) but at the closest historical allies – the European countries. The text of the document is replete with accusations against European governments that they are “undermining the democratic process,” have “unrealistic expectations” about the war in Ukraine, and are losing their identity because of migration.

This is an unprecedented case where an official US national security document actually interferes in the internal politics of the EU, siding with eurosceptics and right-wing populist forces.

“The second important negative aspect to this document is that the main object of criticism or, I would even say, teenage irritation, are America’s closest allies, European countries. And here the internal contradiction of the entire text is manifested. On the one hand, the document formally preserves the presence of the United States in NATO and other international organizations... But on the other hand, it destroys the very ideological foundation of Euro-Atlantic unity and solidarity,” notes Volodymyr Fesenko.

According to the political scientist, the Trump administration is seeking to reformat Europe according to its own standards, shifting the focus from external threats to internal cultural wars.

“In the document, the criticism is notably targeted not at Russia or even China, but Europe. And the goal, albeit veiled, is outlined quite clearly: the United States would like to see a Trumpist Europe. The main challenge for the US, according to this document, comes out not from authoritarian regimes like Putin’s regime, which are destroying international law... Instead, the emphasis is on migration.”

Fesenko warns that the substitution of concepts, where migration becomes a greater evil than military aggression, undermines the foundations of the Alliance: “It is this, in the interpretation of the document, that appears as a key global problem, in particular for Europe. And here lies one of the main dangers: the risk of destroying Euro-Atlantic solidarity. After all, when the US shifts the focus from authoritarian threats to domestic political fears, this undermines the very logic of partnership, on which the transatlantic community has rested for decades.”

In addition to ideological pressure, there is also a very explicit financial ultimatum. The requirement for NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defense (instead of the current 2%) is, according to experts, both rational and one that can be used as an excuse to renege on commitments to those who will not meet this threshold.

“In fact, this document fixes: the main responsibility for the security of Europe must be taken on by the European countries themselves. It is they who are supposed to gradually take on the burden of guaranteeing European security,” comments Volodymyr Fesenko.

For Ukraine, this has direct, tectonic consequences. If the US disengages, Europe must become not just solvent, but also strong militarily. Vadym Tryukhan sees in this the only possible positive consequence for the Old World – shock therapy.

“In terms of potential advantages, there is, in fact, is only one such: Trump is abandoning not only Ukraine, but Europe as well. And this creates a harsh but useful point of insight for Europeans. They must finally come to their senses, review their own national security strategies and direct more resources not to populist programs – famously saying, subsidies to farmers or other domestic political “perks” -- but to rearmament and strengthening of the security and defense sector,” the diplomat believes.

Tryukhan emphasizes that the fate of Europe now directly depends on its ability to protect Ukraine without the American umbrella: “Most importantly, Europe must increase support for Ukraine. Because if Ukraine falls, they will be the next. Putin feels extremely confident today: he has spread his wings, seeing that there is no longer a threat to him from the United States.”

The diplomat calls for the creation of new security formats that would not depend on Washington’s whims: “Therefore, for us, the current moment is a chance to wake up Europe. A chance to build, together with those states that are really aware of the scale of the Russian threat, something like a “European NATO”. Europe will have to build a collective security architecture of its own, the one that can protect both against Russian aggression and, paradoxically as it may seem, against potential American pressure.”

However, the most alarming signal for Kyiv and the Alliance’s eastern flank is the clause on NATO expansion. The Strategy calls for “ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance”. This effectively puts an end to NATO’s Open Door Policy, which is a cornerstone of the Washington Treaty and has contributed to stability in Europe after the Cold War by encouraging democratic reforms and peaceful relations among members.

“In addition, the US intends to “put an end to the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance”. For us and for our European partners, this could be a real security challenge that jeopardizes NATO’s ability as a defense alliance to achieve its objectives,” warns Vira Kostyantynova.

The expert emphasizes that this signal will be clearly read in the Kremlin as an invitation to invasion of “gray zones”: “Although there is a focus on 5% of GDP on defense as a very rational requirement, such a US position on freezing NATO expansion could be read by its opponents as a sign of weakness, and by allies as a sign of unreliability as a security partner. And this is already being actively exploited by Russia against the US for propaganda purposes. For us, such a position on non-expansion of NATO puts on hold the prospects of Ukraine’s accession to this Organization.”

UKRAINE AND RUSSIA: BETWEEN “SURVIVAL” AND “STRATEGIC STABILITY”

The most important and painful part of the analysis concerns Ukraine directly. What does the Strategy offer Kyiv?

“Plus”: survival is guaranteed, victory is not

A positive aspect, if I may say so, is that the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state dovetails with the interests of the United States. The document specifies the need to ensure the conditions for Ukraine to exist as a “viable state.”

“Positive aspect – Ukraine’s statehood is beyond doubt. That is, Russia’s key goal of dismantling Ukraine as an independent state and destroying the Ukrainian nation is unattainable, and American diplomatic effort will be aimed at ensuring that the reconstruction of Ukraine brings economic benefits to American companies,” Vira Kostyantynova notes.

It is the economic aspect – reconstruction, orders, resources – that can become the anchor that will keep America interested in Ukraine, the expert goes on to note: “This is a major economic interest for the American side. Another positive aspect is that there is a strong willingness to revive the US defense-industrial base and, for allies, to revive the defense-industrial base of their own... Ukraine is positioning itself as a partner in the production of affordable systems. But procurement priorities will be determined by the US competition with China, and not by the needs of the Ukrainian battlefield.”

Volodymyr Fesenko also finds a faint ray of hope in this formulation, but immediately points to its limitations: “US interests are written out in a contradictory, eclectic way and not as clearly as the situation would require. On the one hand, it is positive that Washington explicitly calls ending the war in Ukraine its main interest. This also corresponds to our interests. But the key question arises: in what way and on what terms?”

“Negative aspects”: peace on Putin’s terms and curtseys to Moscow

This is where the relatively good news ends. The strategy proclaims “achieving agreements on a ceasefire in Ukraine” and “reducing the risk of armed confrontation between Russia and European countries” as the key US interest. This is where the main trap lies. The document contains virtually no criticism of Russia as an aggressor. Instead, the term “restoring strategic stability” in relations with Moscow shows up.

“The logic of the document regarding Russia looks very bizarre. The key word here is “strategic stability”. In fact, this is a euphemism that camouflages an attempt to move on to a new phase in the relationship with the Russian Federation. Russia is no longer viewed as a challenge, strategic adversary, or geopolitical rival of the United States, as it was before,” Volodymyr Fesenko says.

He asks a rhetorical, but extremely disturbing question: what is behind this “stability”?

“Redistribution of spheres of influence? New backroom deals? And, most importantly, at whose expense? There is no answer... This uncertainty in the attitude towards Russia is a serious problem. After all, instead of containing its competitors and rivals – China, Russia – the document actually suggests seeking a “balance of interests” with them. And this can be perceived as weakness. Where the US retreats, these regimes inevitably advance.”

Fesenko draws attention to the blatant “selective blindness” of the document: “The most regrettable thing is that the strategic disagreements between Washington and Moscow are simply hushed up. I will give just one example – Venezuela. This is a de facto ally of Russia... and this is just one of many episodes where the interests of the US and Russia diverge fundamentally, but about which the document does not say a word.”

In respect to Ukraine, the document makes no reference to either the 1991 borders or justice.

“The downside is that, while there is a cessation of hostilities and declared aspirations to restore “strategic stability” with Russia, there is no emphasis put on territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, or a punishment for war, that is, everything on which the core of international law is built, which makes the foundation for peaceful coexistence of nations,” emphasizes Vira Kostyantynova.

She warns of the risk of Ukraine turning into a “gray zone” without real security guarantees: “We understand perfectly well that our integration into the EU, which is not a security alliance, will not be a response to the security dilemma... Without legally binding security guarantees, there is no point in talking about an end to the war. Instead, we will only get uncertainty, and in the worst-case scenario, a return to the perception of Ukraine as a “buffer zone” between the West and Russia, and a pause before the next round of confrontation.”

Vadym Tryukhan assesses the situation even more pessimistically. He believes that the illusions of the Biden era have finally dispelled, and Kyiv should prepare for the worst-case scenario in relations with Washington.

“To be frank, this strategy does not give us anything good. In Kyiv, very cautious hopes still persist that Trump would sooner or later return to the basic understanding: there is an aggressor, there is a victim, Russia must be punished, and Ukraine must be supported. Now it is obvious that this will not happen. Trump’s key goal is to end the war as soon as possible. And in what way – he doesn’t seem to care. Even at the expense of all of Ukraine, even at the expense of part of its territory,” the diplomat says.

He warns that the era of “free” aid is irrevocably over.

“We must prepare for the reality where the United States will gradually refuse not only to participate in the peace settlement process, but also to provide any substantial support to Ukraine in general. Perhaps intelligence will continue to be provided, but to a limited extent. Particular types of weapons will, perhaps, be sold through intermediaries... But the direct large-scale support that we had under Biden administration will no longer be there... There will be no free weapons supplies anymore. There will be no financial assistance. There will be no political support – the most painful thing – either.”

Global context: a world without rules

Experts are unanimous in holding that the Strategy actually hallmarks a transition to a world where the interests of large actors prevail over the rights of smaller nations, and the concept of international law gives way to the law of force.

“If we talk about the global dimension, there is a kind of unspoken consensus - to preserve the existing world order where the so-called global actors hold a special place, leveling the interests of other countries, I would even say, at the expense of the security of other countries,” notes Vira Kostyantynova.

She draws terrible parallels with the worst chapters of 20th century history, warning against repeating the mistakes of the past: “Relatedly, such thinking, in which there are “regions of responsibility” (reminiscent of “regions of special interest for Russia”), promoting the fragmentation of international relations... has already led to world wars in the past, when the world was redistributed between global players at the expense of the manpower and resources of medium-sized and smaller countries.”

Vadym Tryukhan adds that this is all entails from the US withdrawal from certain regions, which is confirmed not only by words, but also by the actions of officials of the current US administration.

“What is worth paying attention to? Above all else, this is the fact that we can no longer expect any U-turns from Washington... And it is not without reason that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for the first time in history ever, missed the traditional autumn meeting of NATO foreign ministers... This is no coincidence. The US is effectively withdrawing from those regions and formats that Washington now considers burdensome for itself.”

CONCLUSION NOTE: AN ADULTHOOD TEST FOR KYIV AND BRUSSELS

The updated US National Security Strategy is not just another piece of paper authored by Washington. It is a diagnosis of the current state of the Western world and, perhaps, an epitaph to the era of American dominance. Washington, tired of global responsibility, has chosen to “retire” from its role as “world policeman” and take up to repair itself, leaving the world to deal with its problems on its own.

For Ukraine, this means the final end to the era of romantic hopes for a “good American uncle” who will come and solve all problems. As Volodymyr Fesenko aptly noted, “it is time to be responsible for ourselves.”

Despite the gloomy forecasts, the situation is not hopeless, but it requires radically different approaches. America remains a powerful player, and it is in its best interests (in particular, economic) to keep Ukraine on the world map, albeit for mercantile reasons only. Vadym Tryukhan also points to the factor of the American voter, which may play a role in the future: “The level of support for Ukraine among Americans is now record high at 75% to 85%... Trump discards these sentiments and moves in the opposite direction. I sincerely doubt that the voters will forgive him for this.”

But the main lesson of this Strategy is different. The security void the United States leaves behind in Europe must be filled up. And only the Europeans themselves, together with the Ukrainians, can do so. If NATO is “closing its doors,” perhaps it is time to build a new security architecture, where political subjectivity is determined not by an article in a treaty, but by the actual ability to defend itself and its partners. For Kyiv, this means the need for an even more pragmatic, mature, and independent game on the world stage. The rules have changed, and the one who is the fastest to adapt will survive.

Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv