When Washington released the 2025 National Security Strategy, most commentary immediately focused on its language about “strategic competition” and the familiar list of adversaries. Yet if we read the document not as a rhetorical exercise but as a political signal, a different picture emerges. After four years of war in Ukraine, failed attempts to isolate Russia, and growing backlash against sanctions across the Global South, the new NSS looks less like a blueprint for defeating Moscow and more like a plan for managing American retreat from an unworkable coercive posture.
The starting point is simple: the tools the United States relied on to punish Russia and discipline the rest of the world have not worked as advertised. Sanctions did damage, but they did not break the Russian economy, force a change of regime, or produce a decisive victory in Ukraine. In much of the Global South, they accelerated a search for alternatives to the dollar system and eroded the moral authority of the West. At the same time, the war produced enormous secondary costs for Europe in the form of energy shocks, inflation, industrial disruption and a historic wave of migration. Washington can live with a long war at arm’s length. European societies cannot.
Against this backdrop, the NSS quietly downgrades Russia from an existential enemy to a problem that must be managed at lower cost. The Kremlin’s own reaction was telling: Russian officials noted that the new strategy “largely accords” with Moscow’s view of the world, an extraordinary statement after years of rhetorical confrontation. Rather than framing Russia as the primary threat, the NSS folds it into a broader landscape of competing powers and emphasises “strategic stability” and risk management over open-ended confrontation. That is not yet rapprochement, but it is a step away from the language of total victory.
Domestically, the logic is clear. The United States is facing fiscal constraints, political fatigue and a deeply polarised electorate. A strategy built on permanent confrontation with Russia, endless arms transfers to Ukraine and escalating sanctions on half the planet is no longer sustainable. The new document signals a desire to bring more of America’s attention, resources and political capital back home: hardening the U.S. industrial base, shoring up borders, and limiting the scope of overseas commitments. In that sense, the NSS is less a war plan than a partial admission of overreach.
For Russia, this shift opens a narrow but real window of opportunity. If Washington is moving from a maximalist objective “strategic defeat of Russia”—toward a more modest goal of containing risk, Moscow’s room for manoeuvre in Europe and the wider Eurasian space expands. A United States that is less invested in reshaping Russia’s neighbourhood inevitably leaves more space for Moscow to shape outcomes, whether in the South Caucasus, Central Asia or even parts of the Middle East.
The more immediate implications, however, are for Europe. It is European economies that have paid the heaviest price for the war in Ukraine and the sanctions regime that followed. Energy reconfiguration has been costly, industrial competitiveness has suffered, and political systems are under pressure from migration and social discontent. Yet the NSS makes it clear that Washington’s long-term priority is not defending every inch of European prosperity, but managing global risk at acceptable cost to itself. If the United States is now quietly testing the waters of limited de-escalation with Russia, Europe may find that it has sacrificed the most while having the least say in what comes next.
This is the real warning bell embedded in the strategy. In a world where the United States increasingly focuses on China, domestic renewal and competition in the Indo-Pacific, Europe risks becoming a secondary theatre whose interests are negotiable. A controlled reduction of tensions with Moscow—short of any formal “deal”, but enough to lower the temperature—would suit Washington if it frees resources and attention for other priorities. For Europe, that same move could solidify a new security landscape in which Russia remains geographically present and politically influential, while American commitment becomes more conditional and transactional.
None of this means that the NSS is a pro-Russian document, or that Washington is about to abandon Ukraine. But the direction of travel is visible. The strategy accepts that a decisive military outcome is unlikely; that sanctions are blunt instruments; and that the international system is moving toward a distributed multipolar order rather than a restored American hegemony. In such an environment, the United States has an incentive to reduce direct friction with Russia where possible, even as it maintains pressure in other domains.
For Moscow, the challenge will be to turn this structural shift into durable gains without overplaying its hand. A Europe that feels betrayed or bypassed by Washington may move in one of two directions: either deeper strategic autonomy, which would give Russia more diplomatic openings, or renewed hardline positions driven by fear of abandonment. The Kremlin will have to calibrate its signals carefully if it wants to exploit the rift between American and European priorities rather than provoke a new wave of hysteria.
For the Global South, the NSS is another confirmation that the era of unilateral Western coercion is ending. States that refused to align with sanctions on Russia now see their stance vindicated: the United States is recalibrating not because it has achieved its aims, but because the costs of maintaining them have become too high. This reinforces the perception that power is now genuinely distributed, that no single actor can impose outcomes, and that diplomatic hedging between major poles is a viable long-term strategy.
In that sense, the 2025 National Security Strategy is less about Russia itself than about the system that Russia inhabits. It is a reluctant recognition that the world is moving toward a risk-managed multipolarity in which “victory” is replaced by damage limitation, bargaining and partial accommodations. From Moscow’s perspective, this is far from ideal—it would prefer a clearer acknowledgement of its spheres of influence and security concerns. But compared to the maximalist rhetoric of recent years, it is a step toward a more fluid landscape in which Russia can act as one of several indispensable poles.
For Europe, the message is harsher. After four years of carrying the heaviest burden of the Ukraine war—economically, socially and politically—it now faces the possibility that the main protagonist, the United States, is quietly preparing to move on to other priorities while leaving Europeans to live next to a Russia whose position has not fundamentally changed. If there is a strategic loser emerging from the pages of the new NSS, it may not be Russia at all, but those European capitals that still imagine the old Atlantic script is intact.
Comments