"US 2025 National Security Strategy - an overdue reset" Topic

I've been reading through the new US 2025 National Strategy and I don't see it as a dramatic abandonment of decades of American foreign policy, but rather as a re-set away from the assumptions of the Cold War order.

The reaction's I'm reading only makes sense if the last 30 years are treated as the American norm.

They aren't.

Seen over the long arc of U.S. history, the 2025 NSS is not radical. It's a long overdue *correction* away from Cold War assumptions that lingered long after the Cold War itself ended.

For most of its history, the United States did not define security as managing the entire world. It focused on protecting its own territory, maintaining economic strength at home, avoiding unnecessary foreign wars, and preventing hostile powers from gaining leverage close to U.S. shores. Engagement existed, but it was selective, interest-driven, and transactional.

The Cold War was the exception. Facing an existential rival, the U.S. built permanent alliances, stationed forces globally, and fused ideology with security. That posture made sense in a bipolar world.

After 1991, however, that framework hardened into habit and the institutions we built to protect the State from the USSR did not dimish or reform, instead they ran on autopilot. Intervention became routine. Democracy promotion became a security objective. Alliance expansion became an end in itself. Globalization was treated as inherently stabilizing. American power was assumed to be effectively limitless.

The 2025 NSS marks a conscious break from that mindset.

The strategy doesn't change everything—but it **changes what the U.S. is optimizing for**.

**From Ideology to National Interest**
Security is defined in concrete terms: protecting Americans, American territory, and American prosperity. Democracy promotion and social transformation abroad are no longer treated as intrinsic security goals. Engagement is judged by outcomes, not moral alignment.

**From Transnationalism to Nation-State Primacy**
The nation-state is reaffirmed as the core unit of global order. Sovereignty—political, economic, and cultural—is treated as legitimate. International institutions are tools, not authorities, and are expected to serve national interests.

**From Intervention as Default to Intervention as Exception**
Military force remains central, but the bar for using it is much higher. Wars of choice, regime change, and open-ended nation-building are explicitly disfavored. Deterrence and leverage replace transformation as the primary tools of stability.

**From Globalization to Resilience**
Supply chains, energy independence, industrial capacity, and technological leadership are elevated to core security concerns. Economic vulnerability is treated as strategic vulnerability.

The new Strategy also redfines our global security priorities.

**Western Hemisphere First**
The hemisphere is restored as the primary security ring. Migration control, transnational crime, and blocking hostile extra-regional influence are treated as foundational security tasks. That's what we're seeing now with the actions taken against Venezuela.

**Europe: Important, Not Central**
Europe remains culturally and economically significant, but no longer anchors U.S. strategy. The emphasis shifts to burden-sharing, internal resilience, and avoiding escalation rather than permanent U.S. underwriting. The US at the same time is concerned that Europe may not a long-term viable ally – that it is crippling itself with bad economic and social policies. A strong and confident Europe is an asset -- can it be that??

**Middle East: Managed Risk**
Core interests remain—energy flows, sea lanes, counterterrorism, Israel's security—but the region is no longer the centerpiece of U.S. strategy. Large-scale military presence and nation-building are explicitly rejected.

**Indo-Pacific: Decisive Theater**
The Indo-Pacific becomes the primary arena for long-term competition, driven by trade, maritime security, alliance capability, and deterrence.

**China: Systemic Competitor, Not Ideological Enemy**
China is treated as a peer competitor across economic, technological, and military domains—but not as a civilization to be remade. The focus is on reciprocity, resilience, and balance, not conversion.

What This Adds Up To

Taken together, the 2025 NSS points toward a strategy built around **durability over dominance**, **prioritization over ubiquity**, and **cohesion at home over transformation abroad**. Leadership is no longer measured by how many problems the U.S. touches, but by how effectively it protects its core interests without overextending itself.

In that sense, the strategy doesn't represent America turning inward—or abandoning the world. It represents the United States stepping away from a Cold War framework that outlived its moment and returning to a much older American instinct:

**engage the world, but don't let the world consume you.**

Anyways -- that's what I think. You can read it for yourself at the link below.

Agree? Disagree? How does this change global security and relations?

National Security Strategy of the United States of America
November 2025

PDF link

Interesting analysis. How will that new strategy be interpreted by the rest of the world? Will we win, lose, or break even with that change of strategy? When will we begin to practice that new strategy?

SBminiguy,

I agree with you.

Very interesting … I think NATO will continue to be a force in Europe. Even having 2 new members in response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

It seems we are seeing a Cold War 2.0 save for a few exceptions.

NATO is an example of strength thru numbers.

But the difference is in the Cold War islamic terrorism was not aggressive, blatant, etc. when dealing with the West. They will continue to be threat.

Along with the traditional enemies since the end of WWII. The Russians and China are back to being a very big. North Korea and Iran will still be a threat. But they are not as big a threat as Russia and China. So it seems we may be back to MAD. However, I still doubt there will be a nuclear exchange with Russia and China. IMO the first to use nukes would be some islamic terrorist/jihads. But even that is remote.

NATO's Rutte: Prepare for Coming World War

link

Armand

NATO's Rutte seems to be seeking a self-fulfilling prophecy…

aka he speak the truth..
It was clear even before Trump's pro-russian sandbox games.
Do we stop the aggressor or do we encourage him.
Trump chose encouragement and a major global war.
Let us now enjoy the last years of prosperity and peace.

The document is a breath of fresh air. The problem will be scraping out the globalists that dominate, and have dominated, the US foreign affairs establishment since, in reality, the Kennan Telegram. The neutering of USAID was a good first step, but trying to undo almost 80 years of globalist foreign policy and re-aligning to a Western centric view will be tough, especially considering the new left (read: proto-marxists and autocratic liberal elites) have, and continue to dominate Western governments for the last 30-40 years.

It will take several successive US governments/presidencies to solidify this process-thats the hard, and very likely overwhelming, problem this will have.

American foreign "policy" is based on nothing but who was the last person with an agenda to whisper in the ear of POTUS. There is no consistency.
Europe and Taiwan etc would be well advised to take that in mind. They will be on their own for at least the next 4 years.
Definitely China and Russia have noticed.
A brand new policy white paper is meaningless when you have such a mercurial person in charge.
How many and how much of those brightly colored plans sitting in drawers at the Pentagon actually get used when the crap hits the fan? Yeah, they keep majors and colonels (and commanders and captains) occupied while waiting for a command. But are they ever used?

Fine. Blame my cynicism on TDS, but it applies to all politicians who find themselves in charge.
Our only hope is that our future enemies are as corrupt and inexperienced as I hope.

Europe and Taiwan etc would be well advised to take that in mind. They will be on their own for at least the next 4 years.

Then you didn't read the strategy document…

Definitely China and Russia have noticed.

Yes they have -- they have noticed that Trump is challenging them where needed. While trying to end the most bloody, destabilizing and destructive war in Europe since WW2 the Trump admin is also doing an Artic build-up and putting Russia on notice about Arctic security issues -- including the importance of Greenland, positioning more US resources and buying a new fleet of Icebreaker cutters and cruisers from Finland. China is on notice and being challenged as it has not been – ever. The document lays out in length the shift to the "Indo-Pacific" and challenging China as a near peer competitor.

Did you know how much China has increased it's influence in the Western Hemisphere while the US spent lives and wealth in MidEast wars and as global cop wberey wherer except its own backyard?

China's influence in Latin America isn't mostly about troops—it's about scale and stickiness. Two-way trade hit $518.47 USDB in 2024, State policy-bank lending totals $120 USDB+ since 2005, and transaction-level tracking shows $203 USDB in Chinese outward FDI into LAC (Latin America Carribean) from 2000–2024 across 678 deals. Add strategic infrastructure (e.g., Peru's Chancay port, with ~$1.2–$1.3B initial investment reported) plus gray-zone "presence" like Argentina's PLA-operated Neuquén deep space station (hopefully getting down!), and you get leverage that persists regardless of which party wins the next election. Where Beijing's political impact is clearest isn't "installing regimes," but shaping alignment—including a run of Taiwan-to-PRC recognition switches since 2017.

And Russia and Iran are also building influence and power in our backyard. Let's take a look:

China's Footprint in Latin America — Country by Country (High-Level)

Venezuela
Trade/Energy: One of China's largest extra-regional oil suppliers; long-running oil-for-debt arrangements. THIS is one reason why the US siezed the oil tanker -- China buys MILLIONS of barrels of oil from Venezuela every year despite sanctions, and Venezuelan tankers also help tranship Iranian oil in violation of sanctions.

Finance: Tens of billions in Chinese loans since mid-2000s.
Infrastructure/Tech: Power, housing, telecom, surveillance systems.

Security: Limited arms sales/training.

Alignment Effect: Chinese economic support sustains an openly anti-U.S. regime.

Brazil
Trade: China is Brazil's largest trading partner (soy, iron ore, oil).

Investment: Energy, mining, agribusiness, power transmission.

Infrastructure: Ports, grids, logistics.

Security: Minimal military ties.

Alignment Effect: Strategic economic dependence shapes policy options, not ideology.

Argentina
Trade/Finance: Major ag and energy trade; Chinese financing during fiscal stress.

Infrastructure: Rail, energy, dams.

Presence: Neuquén deep-space tracking station (civilian claim, PLA-linked oversight).

Alignment Effect: Long-term leverage via debt and strategic facilities.

Chile
Trade: Copper dominance; China is top buyer.

Investment: Mining, power, ports.

Tech: Telecom presence.

Alignment Effect: Commodity dependence increases sensitivity to Beijing.

Peru
Trade: Copper and minerals.
Infrastructure: Chancay megaport (flagship PRC-backed Pacific gateway).

Investment: Mining and logistics.

Alignment Effect: Port/logistics leverage with regional implications.

Colombia
Trade/Investment: Growing but still secondary to U.S.

Infrastructure: Select projects and bids.

Alignment Effect: Limited; competition rather than dominance.

Ecuador
Finance: Heavy Chinese lending tied to oil and infrastructure.

Infrastructure: Dams, energy projects.

Alignment Effect: Debt dependence constrains policy flexibility.

Bolivia
Investment: Lithium extraction/processing.

Infrastructure: Energy and mining support.

Alignment Effect: Resource leverage in strategic minerals.

Mexico
Trade: Manufacturing and supply-chain intermediation; Chinese inputs.

Investment: Factories/logistics (often indirect via third countries).

Security: Minimal.

Alignment Effect: Economic presence growing, but balanced by U.S. integration.

Panama
Diplomacy: Switched recognition from Taiwan to PRC (2017).

Infrastructure: Ports/logistics interest.

Alignment Effect: Diplomatic pivot paired with economic expectations.

El Salvador
Diplomacy: Switched from Taiwan (2018).

Infrastructure: Stadiums, ports, public works.

Alignment Effect: Visible political realignment tied to projects.

Dominican Republic
Diplomacy: Switched from Taiwan (2018).

Investment: Energy, infrastructure.

Alignment Effect: Recognition change linked to economic engagement.

Nicaragua
Diplomacy: Switched from Taiwan (2021).

Investment: Infrastructure, potential canal/port concepts.

Security: Limited.

Alignment Effect: Strong pro-PRC alignment under authoritarian governance.

Honduras
Diplomacy: Switched from Taiwan (2023).

Investment: Early-stage infrastructure and trade promises.

Alignment Effect: Alignment shift following recognition change.

Cuba
Trade/Finance: Supportive trade and financing.

Tech: Telecom/surveillance cooperation.

Security: Political alignment; intelligence cooperation concerns.

Alignment Effect: Long-standing alignment reinforced by tech/economic ties.

Caribbean (select states)
Infrastructure: Ports, roads, government buildings.

Diplomacy: Some states switched from Taiwan; others courted.

Alignment Effect: Small economies = outsized leverage via projects.

Russia and Iran (Overlay, Not Replacements)
Russia: Arms sales, training, intelligence cooperation, and symbolic deployments in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba—lower economic scale, higher political signaling.

Iran: Energy cooperation, sanctions-evasion channels, limited security ties—primarily Venezuela and select partners; amplifies alignment when paired with PRC backing.

See the picture yet?

+1 John OFM

Wait!!

"including the importance of Greenland"

What!!

But the MSM and others told me we were taking both Greenland and Canada within the first month of the administration. I know there were people on TMP who said exactly that and had themselves in a turmoil. What happened?!?! I'm so confused. 😵‍💫
😉

SB +1

I have said before, I don't believe in peace time alliances. I believe they force you into wars that you are not prepared for nor want. WW1 and WW2 are examples for Europe of this. Especially WW1. We had leeway in both those wars. I was particularly unhappy with the expansions of NATO under the last Presidents, all the way back to the Bush's.

We do not have leeway today in Europe, with NATO. One mistake, and Russia/Ukraine can spiral out of control.

I know others disagree. But I am not a globalist and that is my opinion.

Also globalists exist in al parties.

He's bent on making an enemy of Western Europe, and eventually Europe will accept the fact.

Nah -- truth hurts, I guess. Here's part of what the policy actually says:

Promoting European Greatness
American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to
this, but Europe's real problems are even deeper.
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.

But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. 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.

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. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path.

We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its
failed focus on regulatory suffocation.

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.

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.

Europe has seen enough war thanks, and if another war kicks off, Putin's tanks won't be rolling across your borders. In light of that you might forgive us for having the circumspection America lacks.

Then WHY are European leaders blocking peace deal attempts?!?!?

IF you don't want war, then why do you keep choosing war??!?

Like most Americans you understand nothing. Appeasement doesn't work either.

Was it "appeasement" when we negotiated the armistice that ended the Korean War? Sorry, dude, we've been spending lives and treasure as the "leader" around the world and this strategy says no more blind Global Cop, no more running things on Cold War autopilot assumptions. We have huge reform needs at home and China is pushing its influence across the Western Hemisphere, which we have ignored for the last 20 years.

And please don't lecture Americans on costs and sacrifice.

Across the Cold War period the US suffered around TWO MILLION CASUALTIES fighting the Soviet axis and defending our allies. That includes 150,000 dead and 1.8 million injured in combat, on deployments and accidents. And in adjusted dollar terms the US spent about $27 USD TRILLION on defense during the Cold War.

Since the end of the Cold War in various conflicts and operations from 1991 to today, the US has suffered an additional 63,100 casualties (killed and injured) and spent an additional $25 USD TRILLION.

You think we can sustain this? That the bulk of the American public wants to stay on that old course?

Y'all better figure out what's more important to you -- an imperfect peace in Europe or war.

If you really think it's that critical to keep fighting in Ukraine, then issue your Draft Notice so you can feed your young men and women into the meat grinder and start issuing iodine pills to your citizens. Come on -- ya have 3x the population of Russia and 12x the Economy, so get going with the War stuff already, roll the Panzers! You have enough warm bodies to feed the war pigs until their bellies burst! The war has already consumed 1.4 MILLION Ukrainian and Russian casualties -- plenty of room in Flanders Fields for European boys and girls, eh?

OR get real about peace. A peace that won't be perfect but that can prevent more deaths, allow for reconstruction and improved stability.

You're missing an analysis of your own country's relationship with China… I understand it's the most important partner on this side of the world…

Your information about Argentina is bad… outdated… you're talking about the time of the previous corrupt government… since the new President took office, Chinese Space Station have been inspected five times… two of those inspections were carried out with the presence of North Americans, as ordered by the President… The loan that was used by the previous corrupt officials was repaid during the first semester of this new President's term…

NOT A SINGLE CENT OF CREDIT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM CHINA…

No one is exempt from trading with China, and that doesn't mean being aligned with them… if you have doubts… ask your own President… who also trades with Russia and hasn't yet been subjected them to a single tariff…

Armand

You're missing an analysis of your own country's relationship with China… I understand it's the most important partner on this side of the world…

Your information about Argentina is bad… outdated…

Cool – that's good to know.

No one is exempt from trading with China, and that doesn't mean being aligned with them

It does indicate economic alignment, and the case of Brazil you could also say there's ideological alignment as well.

Of course Brazil is alignment with China as all the BRICS did…

Two other South American countries began to change their aligment too… Paraguay and Bolivia… you have to wait the change of their gobernment… people are tired of the useless and corrupt left-wing politics where the only ones who benefit are the rulers… as we say in my country: "They're leftists with American Express cards, living in Puerto Madero and vacationing at Disney"… fortunately, people have realized this.

I can't wait until y you manage to get rid of that useless, corrupt, murderous Maduro and his cronies.

I hope Cuba stays on the list… of course, there you are going to have a problem with your President Russian friends…

Armand

OVI +1

Maggot +1

SBm +1

Like most Americans you understand nothing. Appeasement doesn't work either.

Europe tried that, and your grandfathers died in their thousands along with thousands of Europeans and millions of Russians as a result.

International diplomacy is more complicated than you think, and so is Europe's history.

Once again your Yankaphobia is showing. IMO you don't know anything about America, our history, and Americans in generally. My father fought the Nazis in Franch in WWII. He was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart. I served over a decade during the Cold War … Again I think you don't know what you are talking about …

E.g.

Trump is in love with Putin.

Again you don't know 💩 about the USA …

A careful reading of the new NSS suggests that Taiwan shouldn't actually feel that secure. The wording is quite ambiguous, deliberately so I suspect. And it will be interesting to see how the refreshed Munroe Doctrine brushes up with BRICS

Appeasement – A peace that TEMPORARILY prevents more deaths.

Your reading comprehension is dreadful.

Maybe your inability to write an effective paragraph is to blame …

My grandfather fought in WWII too. He didn't have to,

My father as well. He was supervisor at a munition factory. And 26 years old. He volunteered to as many of his friends did …

I appreciate your kins' service … as I do all Vets …

The 'peace' brokered by the USA that ended the Korean war was why your and other generations were stationed there.

Really maybe your reading comprehension is substandard ? The war is not over it is only a truce. And I served 22 months with a forward deployed Mech Bn. With 2 tours on the DMZ. I know all about the situation in the ROK and it's DMZ.

But as I said, you don't understand many things about the USA. The threat of the endless supply of Chicom bodies and the threat of Russian nukes were the overriding reasons for the Truce. With hopes it could be workout later.

And the war was pretty much a stalemate. Just a lot of troops, people, etc. being killed for little real gains. Part of the reason the war lasted so long, beside the Chicoms attacking the UN Forces. As they neared the Yalu R. that bordered China. Was Stalin wanted to keep the Western force busy. Not only to have the North, the Chicoms and the Russian "advisors" etc. to inflict as many losses as possible on the West. But also gather as much intel as they could on the West.

Also, MacArthur was not going to drop nukes. But would have nuke material along the North Korean-Chinese Border to shut off any support for the North in both men and material. He knew as many did. You don't want to invade China as they are a huge land mass and have an unlimited supply of bodies. Which the Chicoms were more than willing to feed into a meat grinder. As they did. I.e. most of the Chicom's first wave to cross the Yalu. Never returned to their homeland. Many of with died in combat, the environment, etc.

Korea is still divided, the North is still a threat,

Yes I know … I was schooled there for 22 months. Plus it is still a UN mission. We flew the UN flag on out compound, installations, FOB, etc. Along with the ROK and US flags.

We often wondered if the truce was broken by the North. How many other UN forces would show up. The only UN troops I ever were a platoon of Gurkhas stationed with the UN Honor Guard in Seoul. The only others on the ground in any numbers were the ROKs and the US. However there some UN reps from other militaries in very small numbers. There primarily for liaison, etc. as part of their UN mission. They wouldn't doing any of the fighting. Hopefully their countries would send troops to support the UN mission if the Kimchi hit the fan.

What has been achieved?

The ROK is still not under the North's control. Which for the most part was what we believed that the North would attack the South first …

No one counts it as a win in the West. It was a tie … the outcome is still undetermined …

Again, you don't know 💩 about the US, its history or its people. Or about the Korean War either …

Well, I am back from jail, and reading some of the posts, not sure how I ended up there.

But anyways… I agree with much of what is in this paper, whoever wrote it. Some general common sense. But some, not so much. So much transactional activity. I sure hope there are no bad guys in the world….remember the Abraham Accords?

The Pacific has been high priority for years. We restored trade relations that the current POTUS revoked during his first term, to help strengthen our allies there and the military shifted gears on this a while ago. We have zero in common with China ideologically, and they continue to bear close watching as a growing military threat to America. I understand that elites in both countries have financial interests that help keep the lid on. But will it hold over time? Are we ditching Taiwan? I wasn't sure.

Still annoyed by the Europe bashing – the writer should spend some time studying Reagan for clues on Europe and Russia. Putin is nobody's friend and a menace. Trusting him and conceding to his terms will bring more trouble. There are no "deals" that are not in his favor.

Limited presence and managed risk in the ME seems like a good idea. Is the US doing this?

Again Reagan understood the world in global terms. It is not the 1890s anymore. Every Big Oil corporation is completely global. American business has been global for decades. They won't be following this paper's blueprint.

Since when was the western hemisphere not first? Any incursion by a major power will be defended. Cutting off China from Venezuelan oil sounds global to me.

Central America…failed states in various stages of decay. What to do? Trump threw the Chinese out of Panama, I believe. Cut foreign aid. I guess we will find out soon how this part works.

And the final, closing component: None of this can be "accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children". As the closing statement of a National Security Strategy..not sure how this fits in.

Want to make sure I understand.

We have an Irishman, from historically neutral Ireland, complaining about the United States taking a more neutral stance on Europe and NATO.

Correct?

Oh, and from a country NOT in the NATO alliance.

"No, Ireland is not a member of NATO, maintaining a long-standing policy of military neutrality, but it cooperates with the alliance through programs like Partnership for Peace (PfP) and EU defense initiatives. While Ireland declines full membership, it actively participates in NATO's PfP for interoperability and has developed closer ties, especially regarding undersea infrastructure protection, though debates continue about its neutrality in the current geopolitical climate."

So if the going got rough, Ireland would NOT be committed to take part. Even though they are a country in Europe and we are in North America.

Well hmmmm 🤨

We have an Irishman, from historically neutral Ireland, complaining about the United States taking a more neutral stance on Europe and NATO.

Appears so … but as I said having "fenced" with him here on TMP before. He is "anti-Yank". That being said Ireland takes a lot of UN missions all over the place. Even taking some losses in the past.

Yes they did some ops with NATO in the past. However, I can't remember the last time they did though. AFAIK they did work well with NATO …

And FWIW the US Army had 2 KIAs in Syria near Palmyra. Attacked by ISIS. IIRC the US still has a few hundred troops there. The POTUS stated payback is coming. He has talked with the new leader on Syria. Who at one time was in AQ or ISIS, IIRC. After their long civil war the country is still a failed state IMO. There is a lot of work to be done to get Syria back to being a functioning nation. It has not been for decades. With all the factions, etc. in Syria it will take a long time if ever before it will be like Egypt, Jordan, etc.

I am awaiting to hear about the strikes on Syria to kill the Jihadis, etc. "Payback is a muth'a" …

The war with militant radical moslems is far from over … We are even fighting it in our nation.

Until the Russian in Syria were completely eliminated, no plan for a new country can prosper. Therefore…

Armand

I think the aggregate of polls this year show that a majority of Americans do not approve of the way Trump has been dealing with Putin. There is still a lot of support for Ukraine. Don't confuse the American peoples' views as a whole with the current leadership. We are divided. But majority support for Europe is still the case, with the main concern being that Europe needs to increase defense spending.

"I'm not complaining"

Rightttttt "Denial" is a river in Egypt 😏

"If you read European newspapers, rather than the stuff you have in the States, you'd know this."

Your mistake? Believing ANY of them are unbiased, European or U.S. 😏

In the past, their best use was as a birdcage liner.

But of anyone, you should cheer the loudest. "Evil Trump" is using the foreign commitments of Ireland as a foreign policy example to emulate. 😉

Perhaps it's you and Legion who know 💩 about Europe.

No I may not be in Europe but have been in the past in West Germany with a Mech Bn. I'm going with I know I have a pretty good working knowledge about💩 in Europe, etc.

I also know the Euro media is even more skewed, biased, agenda and narrative driven than many of the media in the US. And that takes some doing …

And again, if anyone thinks the POTUS is a puppet of Putin … Well some in Congress tried to prove that before. When in fact they should have pointed 👉 to the previous POTUS of their party in the WH, etc.

Again anyone believes Trump is BFF with Putin … I have a bridge in Brookland I'd like to sell you/them.

OVI +1

Tort +1

There is still a lot of support for Ukraine. Don't confuse the American peoples' views as a whole with the current leadership. We are divided. But majority support for Europe is still the case, with the main concern being that Europe needs to increase defense spending.

Bingo ! Did you know that guibinu ? Trump's priority is to stop the killing and start to rebuild Ukraine. Get Ukraine back in being a self-supporting nation, with a lot of free trade, etc., contracts from NATO members, etc., etc. That is the reality the way the Western World works.

Plus along with that … build up Ukraine's defensive and even offensive status. To keep Putin or his replacement with at by. As I have said, Putin is going to try to occupy Ukraine regardless of the losses he has suffered and most assuredly will try to invade again. This is the 2d or 3d time he tired … A safe bet is he or another Russian imperialist will attack Ukraine.

And possibly attack some close by NATO. And many of those NATOs have US, UK, etc. forces in them now and will in the future. E.g. the US has at least about 5000 troops in an Armor/Mech TF in Poland all the time. US units are training and there with the Baltic starts, Finland, etc.

FWIW I'd laud any force from Ireland who may support any effort to UN or NATO missions. However, the reality is …they are not that large a force. Albeit so are a number of NATO nations that have smaller militaries. Even including some of the UN P5 for a time. That is one reason why the POTUS wants NATO to increase their defense spending, etc. As they will be a more effective member of NATO. With the realization that Russia is still a real threat to Europe once again …

The move is always to have a coalition of nations to work together, e.g. NATO and even the UN. To present a united front. "Peace thru strength" which includes numbers along with quality. E.g. as in WWI, WWII, Korea, etc.

I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out the realities over here. The European perception is Don is marching in lockstep with Vlad. If you read European newspapers, rather than the stuff you have in the States, you'd know this. Perhaps it's you and Legion who know 💩 about Europe.

The claim that Trump is "marching in lockstep with Putin" collapses once you look at policy instead of tone. Under Trump, Russia faced tougher sanctions, NATO rearmed, U.S. forces moved east, Ukraine received lethal weapons, Nord Stream 2 was sanctioned, Arctic security was strengthened, and Russian leverage over Europe shrank—moves Moscow openly opposed.

Criticism of NATO under-investment and Europe's dependence on Russian energy is falsely reframed as "supporting Russia," when in reality it was the most direct challenge to Moscow's leverage in decades. Questioning alliance complacency or endless War in Ukraine that is destabilizing the world is also not alignment with Putin – it's strategy.

But the perception persists because Trump's style of dorectly challenging Europe is mistaken for disloyalty, and accountability is avoided by turning hard questions into moral accusations. It's easier to attack the one asking the hard questions and demanding needed changes than face up to the issues.

Furthermore, the entire "Trump–Russia" narrative has collapsed under scrutiny. It was a fabrication. It is not reality.

The Durham Investigation confirmed no verified Trump–Russia collusion and documented an investigation built on unsubstantiated, politically sourced claims. Even Mueller found no conspiracy. And we recently learned that a last-minute, Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment elevated those unverified allegations—and they were then used as the justification for Crossfire Hurricane and years of investigations before Trump ever took office.

Meanwhile, Trump has pursued a two-track Russia policy:

Pushed back on Russian power (including 2025):
• Expanded sanctions on Russian banks, energy, and defense sectors
• Approved lethal aid to Ukraine (Javelins) for the first time
• Forced NATO to meet defense spending obligations, unlocking massive European rearmament
• Forward-deployed U.S. forces and equipment to Poland and Eastern Europe
• Increased Arctic security funding, icebreakers, and northern defense posture
• Sanctioned and delayed Nord Stream 2 to blunt Russia's energy leverage
• Continued global pressure on Russian influence through diplomacy, sanctions leverage, and allied defense coordination

Worked to end the Ukraine war:
• Direct diplomacy aimed at stopping a destructive, destabilizing conflict that's killing hundreds of thousands and draining Europe's security

Working to Decouple Russia from China:
• The Ukraine War has forced Russia into China's sphere of influence, which was something all US presidents until Biden tried to prevent.
• The Russia-China axis is a great danger to the US and the West, so ending the Ukraine War and re-engaging Russia could help move Russia away from China.

That's not weakness. That's pressure + diplomacy.

Yet Biden got no credit here for the hundreds of tough sanctions on the Russian economy and individuals right up to his last day in office. But Trump is no slouch on this.

Its not that the Trump admin has done nothing, although Biden was tougher, united NATO as well, before his health issues really began to show. In my lonely opinion. But I think Trump has managed his public statements and the optics with Putin and Zelensky poorly, also IMO.

Trump went to Alaska and legitimized Putin's status as a major power on the world stage rather than an ex-KGB thug. And Trump went into that meeting for a ceasefire. Putin came out with exactly what he needed – no ceasefire and great photos. A bit like Helsinki, where Putin apparently talked Trump into publicly throwing American intel services under the bus using the Russia "hoax". (Never actually resolved one way or the other by Mueller, who declined to exonerate, or Durham, whose long investigation uncovered little. But I don't think it matters much today.)

I don't think China is that close to Putin, who seems to defer to Xi. China does not need Russia, except for the small amount of oil that get through the pipeline, and he is happy to see his two big rivals clashing over Ukraine with no end in sight.

(Never actually resolved one way or the other by Mueller, who declined to exonerate, or Durham, whose long investigation uncovered little. But I don't think it matters much today.)

Incorrect -- I have summarized the Durham findings, it's crystal clear there was no Russia-Trump collusion – and it does matter because it impedes rational discussion.

Xi

is happy to see his two big rivals clashing over Ukraine with no end in sight.

Yeah -- about that…since Ukraine is not realistically going to recoverr territory lost in 2012 and 2014 absent WW3, why are the Europeans so intent prolonging this war?? Why do we keep reading these alarmist articles from European militaries who then pretty much do nothing "We must prepare for WW3!" I've felt for a while that they are trying to manipulate events to create a NATO defense crisis which would force the US to fight Russia directly on their behalf…

"And again, if anyone thinks the POTUS is a puppet of Putin … "

Is there anything that suggests otherwise?

.

"Well some in Congress tried to prove that before."

Yes, and with great success. They gave him a powerful sanction weapon, which he confiscated so it wouldn't be used. Because he's trying to lift the sanctions instead. To give the aggressor time and resources to continue the aggression and start a big war.

"And again, if anyone thinks the POTUS is a puppet of Putin … "

Is there anything that suggests otherwise?

Yep -- all the investigations show otherwise, but you have to be open to having your narrative challenged.

To give the aggressor time and resources to continue the aggression and start a big war.

Come on, man! Get into the fight! The UK Minister of Defense just warned of WW3, and the German defense minister did, too! So get yerself into the fight or buy some iodine pills since the prospect of a managed peace seems too hard for y'all to grasp…

"Yep -- all the investigations show otherwise"

Couple of examples, please. I know only one threat against India.

.

"The UK Minister of Defense just warned of WW3.."

Exactly. Europeans have a memory and can draw logical conclusions from Trump's actions.

btw.. It seems that the latest negotiations between the US, representing Moscow, and the Ukrainians-Europeans finally produced some positive solution.

x.com/nexta_tv/status/2000669015438434407

What do you think, will the Russians agree to this or will they continue their aggression and WW3?

SBm +1

Washington's Deterrence Problem

link

Armand

That article is interesting. It sounds like credibility=willingness to shoot everywhere for however long it takes, or you are a paper tiger. It ends with a vague statement:

Ultimately, however, Americans are more likely to commit themselves to causes abroad if they feel their government delivers at home….American leaders, in essence, have to do an obvious yet perhaps not so simple task: govern.

Which means what exactly? So magically domestic issues and economics will get corrected and then the US is back in the bombing game? Maybe enough years and enough money have turned people off of the global policeman job for not much gain.

Legion, SB, Striker +1

I think Reagan once said "Let no one doubt our purpose" speaking to European leaders. I kind of miss the moral overview he brought to the table, and the backbone of his generation in raising his global principles of freedom and justice as foundations of leadership, not just transactional deals over trade or complaints about partners' financial commitments. I imagine him meeting KGB Lt Col Putin and backing him down, and maybe genuine tough love support for Europe in a relationship of trust and strength. Dreams….

Regan also had the Soviet Union to face vs modern Russia. I know plenty of people who considered him Satan's right hand man.

maybe genuine tough love support for Europe in a relationship of trust and strength.

Huh -- you mean like telling the Europeans they remain valued allies but they can't be free riders anymore? And that our commitment to Europe is also based on shared values it seems they are abandoning? That the US wants a strong and confident Europe partner, but we are concerned they have steered themselves onto a path of civilizational destruction?

Yes, but Ronnie could say that in ways that left people feeling connected and positive. He was clear and concise. He could be eloquent and also folksy, did not berate or judge allies in public. I have no doubt he expressed various concerns in private, but he understood the need for dignity when called for in public. He was very good at this, IMO.

If Reagan might have agreed with this paper, I think he surely would have softened some of the language if he made it public at all.

There are advantages and disadvantages to sending a blueprint for the future of American foreign policy out to the world. Much of this will be a warning to some, insulting to others, and maybe even opportunity for a few. But the world may not respond in ways that this paper anticipates either. We have lost the PR wars for now, IMO, and only time will tell how much this matters.

Yes, but Ronnie could say that in ways that left people feeling connected and positive. He was clear and concise.

I don't agree, you're filtering that through 40 years of time. Remember, even when Western Europe was under the existential threat of doom by the USSR and Warsaw Pact, they were seduced by the prospect of cheap Russian energy and their NATO commitments were starting to slide. Reagan spent lots of time trying to keep them focused and took shattons of flack for it.

1. Reagan worried that the Siberian Gas Pipeline that terminated in Western Europe would make Europeans dangerously dependent on Russian energy AND provide hard cash to their enemy. Sound familiar???

He sanctioned Western companies buying Russian energy, both Germany and France blew it off and kept buying. They blamed him for being provocative and said it was a "pipeline for peace" that would lead to mutual trade and lower tensions…the Reagan Admin sidelined it briefly by having the CIA blow up critical pumping stations but the Europeans HELPED the Russians rebuild it to get their energy fix despite the USSR supposedly being their mortal enemy…

2. Reagan heavily criticized NATO nations for failing to meet their defense commitments – by the mid- to late-1980s most NATO countries' defense spending fell from around 5% GDP to less than 3% of GDP while the US actual increased defense commitments to Europe. Sound familiar?

3. Reagan was savagely attacked by the Left and the Democrats. He was hung in effigy at "Nuclear Freeze" rallies, called Ronald "Raygun" or "Darth Reagan" and blamed for the AIDS outbreak, called racists, homophobic, mocked relentlessly by late night comedy hosts and SNL… AND he was the target of deranged people and even shot by a would be assassin. Sound familiar?

And when the Cold War ended, who got the praise? GORBACHEV! Ol' Gorby did NOT end the Cold War, Reagan's policies did. Reagan pressed them on every front -- he forced them to spend more on defense, he challenged their proxy states and forced them to spend more, he worked with South Africa to depress diamond prices and with the Saudis to depress oil prices to slash hard Soviet export cash. He challenged them morally and politically. In response to their crumbling economy and seeing the US transition to Information War weapons, Gorby launched "Glasnost and Perestroika" to try and revitalize the Soviet Economy. But you can't open a pressure cooker just a little and the whole thing blew up in his face. His last gasp was the fake coup, but that backfired and resulted in the final fall of the USSR.

He tried to keep the USSR together, not end it – and he was rehabilited as the peace maker vs Ronald Raygun the Warmonger. The gave him the Nobel Peace Prize fer fruck's sake! And the Ghandi Peace Prize and others. Then he found a home in the Environmental Movement as the titular head of the International Green Cross and scooped up the greenbacks, something like $20 USD million before he died.

No Nobel Price for Raygun, eh?

At least that's how I remember it…

@SBminisguy

This reads less like a strategic re-assessment and more like an interpretive exercise—treating a signaling document as if it were an operating doctrine.

NSS papers are written to reconcile factions, justify trajectories already in motion, and sound coherent in hindsight. They are not binding constraints, and they rarely survive budgets, allies, or events. Reading this as a clean "reset" rather than a positioning document seems… hopeful.

If this is truly a return to interest-driven restraint, the evidence won't be in prose but in sustained force posture, spending priorities, and what Washington declines to do over time. Until then, this feels less like a correction than a change in tone.

Which may be all it is.

John Simpson: 'I've reported on 40 wars but I've never seen a year like 2025'

link

Armand

A more militarized Greenland could be path to averting US-NATO crisis

link

Armand

A more militarized Greenland could be path to averting US-NATO crisis

That's been the goal…

Goal… en contra…

Armand

Trump Says US Will Start ‘Hitting Land', Targeting Cartels ‘Running Mexico'

link

Armand