On January 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of War published the National Defense Strategy, which is subtitled “Restoring Peace through Strength for New Golden Age of America.” One important vestige that immediately draws attention to the title of the document is that it is about defense, not war, although it would be more correct to designate it as a Strategy of war, since the Pentagon was finally renamed in the logic of aggressive actions by the United States abroad for many decades, which has already become a kind of standard.
The strategy already focuses on the Western Hemisphere on the first pages and even presents some kind of map from epoch of Enlightenment, by the way, with the designation of the Gulf of Mexico, which Donald Trump tried to rename immediately after returning to the White House. ” This Strategy is fundamentally different from the grandiose strategies of the past post–Cold War administrations, untethered as they were from a concrete focus on Americans’ practical interests” – says the section on the security environment. What can be noted about the differences is the change in the term terrorism. The new document divides this phenomenon into two sections: narco-terrorism and Islamic terrorism. If the first innovation is directly related to the Venezuelan leadership (and, apparently, serves as a warning signal for other politicians in Latin America), then the second revives the phobia of the neoconservatives of the George W. Bush era with a focus on demonizing Islam as such.
Although there are a number of provisions that continue the trend of the last two decades. This is a designation of the main threats in the form of States. Four countries remained unchanged: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. But, in general, it is said that “American interests are also under threat throughout the Western Hemisphere. As early as the 19th century, our predecessors recognized that the United States must take a more powerful, leading role in hemispheric affairs in order to safeguard our nation’s own economic and national security. It was this insight that gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and subsequent Roosevelt Corollary. But the wisdom of this approach was lost, as we took our dominant position for granted even as it started to slip away. As a result, we have seen adversaries’ influence grow from Greenland in the Arctic to the Gulf of America, the Panama Canal, and locations farther south. This not only threatens U.S. access to key terrain throughout the hemisphere; it also leaves the Americas less stable and secure, undermining both U.S. interests and those of our regional partners.”
Let’s add that the wisdom was also lost in the fact that at the time of James Monroe’s speech in the US Congress, this country had a much smaller territory and, as President Monroe correctly noted, had never intervened in European wars. But since the 19th century, Washington has adopted an offensive policy, including the annexation of parts of Mexico and former Spanish territories, not to mention the numerous interventions of the 20th and 21st centuries.
And, in general, the division into hemispheres is a certain abstraction, just as the Mercator projection has the dimensions of continents that do not correspond to their real scales. The point is that the United States is trying not only to preserve its hegemony, but also points to the exclusive right to interfere in the affairs of other states (which contradicts Donald Trump’s election promises).
And about Russia.
” Russia will remain a persistent but manageable threat to NATO’s eastern members for the foreseeable future. Indeed, although Russia suffers from a variety of demographic and economic difficulties, its ongoing war in Ukraine shows that it still retains deep reservoirs of military and industrial power. Russia has also shown that it has the national resolve required to sustain a protracted war in its near abroad. In addition, although the Russian military threat is primarily focused on Eastern Europe, Russia also possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, which it continues to modernize and diversify, as well as undersea, space, and cyber capabilities that it could employ against the U.S. Homeland.
In light of this, the Department will ensure that U.S. forces are prepared to defend against Russian threats to the U.S. Homeland. The Department will also continue to play a vital role in NATO itself, even as we calibrate U.S. force posture and activities in the European theater to better account for the Russian threat to American interests as well as our allies’ own capabilities. Moscow is in no position to make a bid for European hegemony. European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power. At the same time, although Europe remains important, it has a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power. It follows that, although we are and will remain engaged in Europe, we must—and will—prioritize defending the U.S. Homeland and deterring China” – the document says.
This leads to the conclusion that the United States needs the European members of NATO in order to continue to weaken Russia and use them as a threat buffer. Since Russia has no intention of establishing its hegemony in the European part of the continent (this is simply not rational and does not meet the strategic interests of the United States), this passage contradicts the previous statement that Russia would pose a threat to NATO’s eastern flank.
But when we read Anglo-Saxon documents, we must try and think in Anglo-Saxon way. Of course, Washington interprets Russia’s actions strictly according to its own criteria. The United States’ interest in shifting the responsibility and costs of “containing Russia” to European satellites is also understandable, since they are closer to their problems, and they will also need to deal with China, which is the world’s second largest military power.
A special section of the strategy is devoted to the US military modernization. As can be seen from the activities of the previous heads of the Pentagon, this is an ongoing process when the US military adapts to the current situation and regularly requests funding from Congress under all possible risks. Many of the previous projects were completely failed, while others were reorganized to meet new needs. In this matter, the current secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, follows the same enthusiasm of his colleagues and suggests strengthening the industrial-material base of the US armed forces.
In short, the authors of the new strategy are more concerned about the presence of other actors in the Western Hemisphere, as well as China’s growing military might. The terms “narco-terrorism” and “Islamic terrorism” are dangerous not only in a narrative sense as a tool of demonization, but also, taking into account previous historical experience, can be used as a justification for military interventions. Otherwise, the document follows in line with previous strategies.
Comments