Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy: A Sharp Reorientation That Echoes Russia’s Worldview

The release of President Donald Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy has opened an immediate geopolitical debate within Washington, European capitals, and Moscow. While U.S. national security strategies typically reaffirm American alliances, identify principal threats, and outline global priorities, this new strategy stands out for one defining reason: it adopts a tone toward Russia that is markedly softer than any U.S. framework issued since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. At the same time, it increases rhetorical pressure on Europe, depicts the continent as faltering, and shifts focus toward great-power “realism” anchored in spheres of influence rather than universal rules.

This recalibration has not gone unnoticed. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and other Russian officials have openly welcomed the document, praising it as “largely” aligned with Russia’s own vision of international order. Their approval is unusual and significant: no U.S. national security document in the past decade has produced such a positive reaction from Moscow. Russian analysts highlight the absence of adversarial language, the emphasis on strategic stability, and the revival of a Monroe Doctrine approach that implicitly endorses great powers managing their own regions. These themes resonate strongly with Russia’s long-standing geopolitical narratives.

The strategy therefore does not simply adjust tone—it reframes how the United States sees Russia, Europe, and the international system. The shift is dramatic enough that some analysts are calling it a conceptual inversion of post-Cold War U.S. doctrine.

A Strategy That Avoids Calling Russia an Adversary

The most striking feature of the new strategy is what it does not say. For the first time since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, a U.S. National Security Strategy does not describe Russia as an aggressor or primary security threat. Instead, it focuses on “managing escalation,” “restoring strategic stability,” and exploring “areas of cooperation.” This rhetorical repositioning places Russia in a category closer to a difficult peer than an outright adversary.

To Russia, this is a diplomatic victory. For years, Moscow has insisted that the West exaggerates the threat posed by Russian power. By reframing Russia as a strategic interlocutor rather than a malign actor, the new U.S. strategy lends some indirect legitimacy to Russia’s long-standing claim that it simply seeks recognition as a great power with its own security interests.

Even more consequential is the strategy’s framing of the war in Ukraine. Rather than prioritizing the restoration of Ukraine’s full territorial sovereignty—which has been the consistent U.S. and European message since 2014—the document emphasizes the need for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict. This mirrors Russia’s preferred approach, which seeks to solidify de facto control over occupied territories through diplomacy rather than face ongoing U.S.-backed resistance.

While the United States continues providing military assistance to Kyiv, the strategic language signals a shift in emphasis: the war is portrayed less as a moral struggle against aggression and more as a destabilizing conflict that the great powers must bring to an end.

A Revival of Spheres of Influence: The New Monroe Doctrine Tone

Another element that aligns closely with Russia’s worldview is the revived language reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. The strategy explicitly asserts U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere and stresses that external interference will be treated as a major strategic challenge. By reinforcing a great-power privilege in its own region, the United States echoes the structural argument Russia makes regarding its interests in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

In essence, if Washington claims exclusive strategic rights in the Americas, Moscow argues that it should enjoy similar rights in its near-abroad. This symmetry is not lost on Russian officials, who view the document as a tacit acknowledgement that the world is moving toward a multipolar order governed by spheres of influence rather than universal norms.

For analysts in Europe and parts of Asia, however, this orientation is deeply concerning. It suggests a retreat from the rules-based system that has underpinned U.S. foreign policy for decades. Instead of enforcing global norms, the strategy elevates transactional great-power negotiation—a framework Russia has long advocated, believing it advantages larger states and weakens the normative pressures that constrain its own actions.

Europe Described as “Weak” and in “Civilizational Decline”

If the strategy softens language on Russia, it sharpens criticism of Europe. It depicts the continent as economically stagnant, politically fragmented, and dependent on U.S. security guarantees. More strikingly, it frames Europe’s challenges as symptoms of deeper “civilizational” weakness, a term that mirrors rhetoric often found in Russian state media portraying the West as culturally exhausted.

By casting Europe in this way, the strategy repositions America’s traditional allies from essential partners to burdens requiring recalibration. This rhetorical distance alarms European governments who fear Washington is signaling that their strategic importance is no longer guaranteed.

European analysts warn that such framing risks:

• weakening NATO cohesion
• encouraging nationalist parties who advocate cutting defense budgets
• creating openings for Russia to expand political influence
• undermining unified support for Ukraine

For Moscow, this internal Western friction is strategically favorable. Russian diplomacy has long sought to divide European governments and weaken transatlantic unity—particularly on sanctions and military aid for Ukraine.

Ukraine: A Shift Toward a Negotiated End Favorable to Russia

The new strategy’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is nuanced but consequential. It acknowledges ongoing U.S. military support for Kyiv while simultaneously stressing that America’s core interest lies in ending the war through negotiation. It suggests that prolonged conflict distracts from other strategic priorities and drains resources.

Critics in the United States and Europe interpret this as a pivot toward a settlement framework more compatible with Russian demands. While the strategy avoids endorsing territorial concessions explicitly, its emphasis on stability over victory represents a departure from the doctrine that Russia must reverse its aggression before any settlement.

Moscow has already reacted favorably. Russian officials portray this language as proof that the United States is recognizing geopolitical “realities” on the ground—code for accepting Russia’s control over parts of Ukraine.

Great-Power “Flexible Realism”: A Departure from the Rules-Based Order

The conceptual foundation of the strategy—described internally as “flexible realism”—marks another departure from traditional U.S. policy. Instead of promoting universal norms, human rights, and a rules-based system, the strategy embraces a pragmatic view centered on stable relations between major powers.

This approach mirrors Russia’s preferred global model: a world where powerful states negotiate outcomes directly, smaller states adapt to the balance of power, and the principle of non-interference overrides democratic or normative concerns.

Under this framework:

• geopolitics is transactional
• great powers have privileged interests in their regions
• ideological competition is downplayed
• stability is prioritized over liberal values

To Russia, this is the world order it has always wanted the United States to acknowledge.

Expert Reactions: Alarm in Europe, Caution in Washington, Approval in Moscow

Reactions to the strategy vary sharply by region and political alignment.

In Europe, officials express deep unease. Many believe the strategy undermines the moral clarity that has guided Western support for Ukraine. Some warn that nationalist parties across the continent will feel emboldened to challenge defense spending and push for rapprochement with Moscow.

In Washington, analysts note the contradiction between a softer tone toward Russia and the fact that U.S. sanctions, arms deliveries to Ukraine, and military deployments in Europe remain unchanged. They argue that the strategy’s language, even without policy reversals, could significantly reshape perceptions of U.S. commitment.

In Moscow, the response is overtly positive. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov praised the document’s alignment with Russia’s “strategic vision,” particularly its rejection of Russia-as-adversary framing and its acceptance of great-power negotiation as the center of international order.

Why Critics Say the Strategy “Aligns with Russia”

The claim that the strategy aligns with Russia does not imply the United States is abandoning competition with Moscow. Instead, it refers to the strategy’s rhetorical and conceptual shift, which mirrors several of Russia’s long-standing positions:

• Russia is not an enemy, but a power the U.S. must accommodate.
• Europe is weak, divided, and losing global relevance.
• The Ukraine conflict should be resolved through negotiation, not through battlefield victory.
• The world is best governed by great powers managing their spheres of influence.
• Strategic stability—not confrontation—is the cornerstone of U.S.–Russia relations.

These themes directly align with Russia’s public messaging and strategic preferences. The fact that Russian officials endorse the document reinforces this interpretation.

A Geopolitical Reorientation With Global Consequences

Trump’s new National Security Strategy represents more than a shift in tone—it signals a reorientation of American geopolitical priorities that carries far-reaching implications. By softening how the United States discusses Russia, escalating criticism of Europe, and embracing great-power spheres of influence, the strategy reshapes the foundation of U.S. foreign policy in a way unmatched since the end of the Cold War.

Whether this approach stabilizes global politics or empowers rival powers remains to be seen. What is clear is that the strategy has already altered perceptions in Moscow, worried America’s closest allies, and opened a new chapter in the debate over America’s role in the world.

If Russia feels validated and Europe feels exposed, the ripple effects of this strategic rewrite will shape the geopolitical landscape for years to come.