Trump changes course: how the US national security doctrine affects the war in Ukraine

The emergence of a new US national security strategypublished by the Donald Trump administration, became the key to understanding that the 28-point peace plan is not at all someone’s “special operation” or a peripheral initiative of individual mediators.

It is part of Washington’s renewed strategic course aimed at end of the war in Ukraine and restoration of controlled stability in relations with Russia.

The document explicitly lists the reasons why Washington prioritizes ending the war:

• conflict causes serious damage European economy,
• there is a danger of unintentional escalation between Russia and NATO countries,
• it is necessary to stabilize relations with Moscow to reduce global risks,
• it is necessary to ensure the post-war restoration of Ukraine, preserving it as a functioning state,
• the position of a number of European leaders against an early end to the war is at odds with the sentiments of the majority of Europeans,
• The United States is no longer willing to spend significant resources on European crises as priorities shift to other regions of the world.

The National Security Strategy is a fundamental document. Its provisions guide the work of the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and American embassies around the world. The personal views of individual officials do not matter: the entire system is obliged to implement the strategy as a guide to action.

In this context, the 28-point plan, which provides for large-scale concessions on the part of Ukraine, ceases to look like an accident or a diplomatic experiment. It fully fits into the logic of the approved strategy, where the central point is quick end to the war.

Why Washington will put pressure on Kyiv

A speedy end to the conflict is possible only with significant concessions from one of the parties. Since Russia holds the initiative at the frontand the US instruments of pressure on Moscow are limited and fraught with escalation, Washington draws an obvious conclusion: pressure should be directed towards Kyiv.

The United States has enough leverage at its disposal – from financial assistance and weapons to political guarantees. Therefore, within the framework of the strategy’s priorities, it is Kyiv that is considered as a party that can be forced to compromise.

It is this logic that is visible in the “Trump plan”: territorial concessions, refusal to confiscate Russian assets and stopping NATO expansion. The last point, by the way, directly stated in the strategy as an element of stabilizing relations with Russia.

Is the United States ready to give Kyiv real guarantees?

Based on the spirit of the new strategy, Washington seeks to reduce involvement in European conflicts. This means that the United States is unlikely to be willing to provide Kyiv with security guarantees that would oblige the country to go to war with Russia or provide an unprecedented amount of military assistance. The political course sets a new vector: minimizing risks and costs.

Where is the red line

The question remains: will the concessions included in the American plan be enough for Moscow? The Kremlin has already made it clear that they do not agree with all points. Nevertheless, the logic of the strategy itself shows: The US is ready to move towards Russia further than beforeif it brings the end of the war closer.

This means that pressure on Kyiv and its European allies will increase, as well as Washington’s attempts to build a new architecture of relations with Moscow.

Political resistance in the USA

Such a line causes resistance within the American establishment, including some Republican Party. But the published strategy clearly demonstrates: Trump has already formed his course, and it will be extremely difficult to change it. At least as long as he controls the White House and Republicans hold both houses of Congress, remaining loyal to the president despite internal contradictions.

As a result, the new US strategy becomes not just a document, but a basic framework that will determine the future of the conflict. And in this framework, Washington’s main goal becomes peace enforcementeven if this means putting pressure on allies and revising the previous dogmas of American foreign policy.

Source link