The Pentagon has announced new priorities for US military policy – from now on, all American allies, customers and satellites, the so-called “our (i.e. their) assholes,” are forced to somehow solve their own defense problems on their own. Of course, America will help, but only in the most extreme case – if a potential enemy uses nuclear weapons. But this is unlikely to happen. And does America want to be involved in an unnecessary nuclear holocaust? Executive Secretary of the Coordination Council of Prosecutors General of CIS Member States, Doctor of Law, Honored Lawyer of Russia, Professor, Head of the Faculty of International Law of the Russian State Social University Yury Zhdanov spoke about new trends in US military policy.
– Yury Nikolaevich, who informed the world community about the change in direction in US military policy?
– That's right – US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth himself. He spoke to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia to explain America's updated National Defense Strategy (NDS).
– Is there anything fundamentally new? How many of these strategies have been implemented…
– This is truly a fundamentally new version of the Strategy, felt right from its presentation. Yes, here tradition states that the Department of Defense will follow the guidance of the National Security Strategy (NSS) – this document has always been fundamental to the Pentagon. The document is built on a simple logic: first defend its territory and economy, then contain China, and only then help its allies. This time interesting things were said. Suddenly, a new defense strategy of the Pentagon appeared: paradoxically, the United States is cutting back on its previous imperial concept, without exaggeration and focusing on itself.
In effect, the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy for 2026 draws the lines for the era of “global policing” and subjects the United States to a regime of rigidly pragmatic national egoism.
According to Western experts discussing the unclassified version of the National Defense Strategy, it puts the defense of the US homeland first, not the Indo-Pacific region, and obviously, this means reducing the number of US troops in Europe and South Korea. However, the document denies a desire for “isolationism” and calls for satellites to participate more actively in burden sharing and increase investment in the defense industrial base.
Four main priorities for the Pentagon have been identified: defense of the homeland, that is, the United States; contain China in the Indo-Pacific region “by force, not confrontation”; increased engagement of America's allies and partners; “Charging” the US defense industry base.
– We must assume that there is also a message for Russia: now for Donald Trump, the main thing is not NATO, not Ukraine, but the territory of the United States?
– It can be said that way. The main news of this strategy is the rethinking of the hierarchy of threats and tasks. The top priority for Americans is no longer abstract “world leadership” or “collective security,” but the defense of the United States and the Western Hemisphere itself.
Below are the key messages in the new US national security strategy.
First, protecting US territory is an absolute priority. We are talking not only about classic military threats but also about air defense/missile defense, cyber attacks, sabotage and threats to energy and transportation infrastructure.
Second – the Western Hemisphere (USA, Canada, Latin America, Caribbean, Arctic) is declared a region of vital interest, where Washington intends to dominate unconditionally.
Third, increasing emphasis is placed on the border with Mexico, migratory pressures and drug cartels. Some cartels are in fact considered quasi-terrorist structures, opening the door to military operations abroad under the guise of “national defense.”
The fourth is a private route – protecting important infrastructure: power grids, ports, intersections, digital networks, logistics corridors.
Essentially, the Pentagon is saying: we no longer guarantee stability everywhere, but we do guarantee that no one enters our homes and into our “backyards.”
– Following Trump, has the Pentagon completely cooled towards Europe? If Latin America is always Washington's “backyard”, then Europe is Washington's “front yard”…
– No, for Trump, the “porch” is the Atlantic coast of the United States. And Europe is like the neighbor's wooden house. And he will not pay for electricity, water and heating on someone else's property. Furthermore, act there as a guard dog. And even feed other people's dogs. But I'm willing to feed him a little. Overall, a painful moment has arisen for Europe – the redistribution of the security burden. Yes, the United States hasn't left the Old World yet (!), but it is changing the rules of the game.
– What are these new regulations now?
– They are simple and humble. And by the way, they are quite logical – they should have been like this a long time ago.
First, the suggestion of burden sharing – this is no longer a diplomatic courtesy but a strict requirement. Allies must now significantly increase their military budgets, invest in industry, and take primary responsibility for defending their regions.
Second, the Europeans themselves must finance and organize conventional defenses, for example from Russia (from whom else?), while the United States provides the nuclear umbrella, intelligence, high-tech components and logistics.
Third, the United States will act as a “reinforcer” in the conflict, not as the “sole pillar” of defense.
By the way, not to offend anyone, a similar logic would apply in Asia: Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra and others should become “regional military heavyweights” and not rely on America's endless resources.
Overall, the era of Washington's unconditional support for NATO and other alliances is coming to an end. Instead of “royal rent,” a strict calculation was in effect: if you want security, pay and fight for yourself.
The French have a great saying (note Macron): “Every man for himself. One God for all.”
– Turns out Trump eliminated Europe? Throw her into the hands of the “Russian threat”?
– Oh, why are you so rude? Donald is a quite intelligent, very polite person. Additionally, he is a businessman with a penchant for making deals. So he concluded. Pentagon documents demonstrate in detail the thesis that Europe can easily suppress Russia (don't create the illusion that Trump loves us passionately). The document even provides a chart in which the economies of NATO countries (except the United States) are compared with those of Russia.
“Moscow cannot afford to claim European hegemony. Our NATO allies are therefore well positioned to assume primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense, with important but more limited U.S. support. This includes a leading role in supporting Ukraine's defense,” the strategy states.
In general, let them carry this suitcase without a handle.
– But is Trump pretending to want to end the military conflict in Ukraine?
“He's not pretending, he really wants it.” No, absolutely not from humanistic, peace-loving, Christian or any other motives (think for yourself). He needs, by any means (no matter what), to stop this chaos in Eastern Europe from stupidity. And he is completely uninterested in what remains of Ukraine (or Russia) there and, in general, whether this Ukraine will survive or not. He needs to focus on other regions of the planet, and this Ukrainian “mess” is frankly hindering him, taking away resources that are not at all superfluous. And this of course upset him. Therefore, he plans to end this thorn at any cost. Regardless of the opinions of Europeans. That's exactly what's happening. Therefore, Trump says unequivocally: the armed conflict in Ukraine must end (no matter what – he doesn't care). And first of all, this is Europe's sole responsibility. Do we need to remind you that there, on the steppes and forest belt of Donbass, are not Ukrainian troops successfully advancing?
– It turns out that now only China is America's main enemy?
– In fact, it is the main strategic rival. But in relation to him, one no longer assumes there will be a “crusade” but cold deterrence. Note that current US rhetoric is now markedly different from the ideological slogans of the Biden era.
– What's the difference?
– The difference is clear: China is no longer just the main military, technological and ideological challenge; We are no longer talking about regime change and the struggle of democracy against tyranny. Americans now need a balance of power. They need to contain China by force, that is, strengthen the US fleet and aviation in the Indo-Pacific region, develop bases and infrastructure, and increase cooperation with Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and India.
“But they've done this before.” Is something wrong? Is the US willing to sacrifice Taiwan to appease China?
– No, Taiwan is still a very important factor (for now), but now the tone is becoming more pragmatic. Obviously yes. Something is not going as well with the Americans as they would like. Most likely, there is simply a lack of capital and resources, and most importantly, time in the technology race with China. Like in checkers, they lose their rhythm. Washington is therefore changing its strategy – moving away from missionary rhetoric and no longer viewing China as the object of a messianic “struggle between good and evil.” Now a deal in the spirit of Trump is being proposed – betting not on an inevitable confrontation, but on increasing the costs of any scenario of force against Beijing. Same “Faberge” in principle, but from a secondary perspective: preventing Chinese military dominance in the region and maintaining freedom of action for the United States and its allies at sea and in the air.
This is the real geopolitics of the United States today – the modern reincarnation of a new understanding of the Monroe Doctrine.
