What will China and Russia do in response to America’s national security strategy? – Mehr news agency RCO News Agency

Guest note, Ehsan Mohdian: In its new national security strategy, published in December 2025, America clearly outlines the main goals and means of achieving them – iense pressure and military operations in differe regions of the world. An importa question is how will China and Russia respond to these challenges?

The National Security Strategy of the United States is the most importa docume of the three main strategic planning documes of the United States. After its publication in January of the new year, the American National Defense Strategy was published, and another docume on the topic of nuclear energy is also on the way. Many observers have called Donald Trump’s national security strategy a differe docume. Some experts in Russia have cautiously expressed positive opinions about this. Part of this defense strategy is based on many of the assumptions of the older texts, but in a number of cases, including those related to Russia, there are deviations that make it a differe docume from the Russians’ poi of view.

What legacy has Trump left behind?

In its defense strategy, the Peagon has rejected the hypocritical American philosophy of a “law-based world” espoused by Trump’s political oppones. He also clearly rejects adherence to the principles of iernational law. In this strategy, the liberal and failed ideology of “nation building” through “regime change” and the reconstruction of the societies of other couries after regime change based on western democracies has also been rejected. Since “regime change” and subseque nation-building in practice lead to “endless” wars such as the 20-year war in Afghanistan, such campaigns have been rejected in Trump’s strategy.

All these denials naturally lead to the reduction of America’s global ambitions, which cannot be realized in the curre conditions of the multipolar world. Understanding the need to focus resources in key areas and based on the principle of “America First”, the Peagon under Preside Trump rejects excessive commitmes to allies and partners that lead to dependence on them. Accordingly, America’s allies must undertake additional duties and expenses, but will not receive additional rights and freedoms. What does Trump propose instead?

The Peagon’s strategy appears to appeal to “common sense”, but is actually based on the philosophy of American military superiority, which Trump considers to be the greatest nation in human history. The goal of the United States to impose peace is declared from a position of superior power, a position that the United States thinks it has. This approach is purely military, and concepts such as “democracy” and “the West” do not exist in its text.

The United States is by no means moving toward isolationism or retreating io its own borders. Simply, US ierveionism is changing, and concerns about maiaining hegemony are changing the coury’s view of geographic borders. Washington acknowledges that other poles of power have emerged in the world: China and Russia. But America considers itself the main and powerful pole that is able to impose its will on others. “Regime change” and social engineering are apparely “cancelled”, but the viole overthrow of regimes (according to the developmes in Venezuela and the creation of rebellion in Iran) and their overthrow through the creation of economic suffocation (such as the conditions created in Cuba) are not only tolerated, but also operationalized or planned. This is the “multipolar world” that Trump was.

For Trump and his team, ideology is irreleva when dealing with arch-enemies, but it matters when it comes to allies. Allies are obliged to follow the example of America and its policies. The main tool for correcting the behavior of allies is Trump’s tariff restrictions.

Trump’s idea that long wars are exhausting does not mean giving up wars altogether, it was not without reason that the Departme of Defense was renamed the Departme of War. In the first year of his second term, Trump repeatedly ordered short-term military operations around the world, using missiles and massive airstrikes, but without invading foreign territories. The targets of such attacks have been Afghanistan, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria and Syria.

Setting priorities, Trump style

Maiaining security in the national territory is the main priority for any coury. The Peagon’s new strategy reinforces and supports this idea. The security of the Western Hemisphere – America’s immediate region – has been seen as an iegral part of the United States’ own military security. Trump’s Monroe Doctrine proposes the restoration of the absolute military dominance of the United States in the Americas. This conquest effort includes full corol over key facilities and territories including the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and Greenland, as well as preveing extraregional powers from establishing military presence in the Western Hemisphere or developing capabilities that threaten U.S. ierests. It can be judged that this rece approach is also extended to deal with the expansion of China’s economic influence (in the form of the Belt and Road Corridor Initiative) in Latin America.

Last year, the US managed to easily exclude Chinese companies from managing the Panama Canal. Earlier this year, the United States launched a military operation in Venezuela, which also harmed China’s ierests. Now, the Americans plan to either force the Venezuelan governme to act in line with Washington’s ierests or replace it with a pro-American governme. The United States is also preparing to topple the governme in Havana through an economic embargo and curb Cuba’s energy, bringing it back io US orbit after some 75 years. Difficult times are also waiting for the governmes of Nicaragua and Colombia.

By exerting considerable pressure on Denmark and the Europeans, the United States has secured strategic corol over Greenland, which is particularly importa for the construction of the Golden Dome missile defense system. Washington is also pressuring Canada to limit its economic ties with China. Meanwhile, Trump openly taus Ottawa with the prospect of Canada joining the U.S., while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessa plays separatist instrumes in the oil-rich province of Alberta. Scott Bessa caused exciteme among the province’s separatists last week when he described Alberta as a “natural partner for the United States.” Last week, it was revealed that the Trump administration has held secret meetings with separatists in part of the oil-rich province of Alberta in Canada, as the rift between Washington and Ottawa deepens. Leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project, a far-right separatist group that was independence for the western province, have met with US State Departme officials in Washington three times since April last year.

The group is looking to hold another meeting next moh with officials from the US State Departme and Treasury to request a $500 billion line of credit; Credit that will be used to finance the province if the independence referendum, which has not yet been announced, is approved.

One of the importa aspects of the reconstruction and strengthening of the United States military is the accelerated developme of bases and military-industrial complexes of this coury, focusing on three areas of military production, promotion of innovation and atteion to technology. Militarization is not only a promine feature of Trump’s military and foreign policy, but also to some exte a tool for advancing his domestic policy.

Coaining China is considered the second priority of the US national security strategy after the complete corol of the Americas. Washington’s goal here is to maiain a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region, where more than half of the world’s GDP originates. The authors of this strategy believe that the prosperity and developme of the American economy, and even the fate of the American global empire, depends on the geopolitical dominance of the United States over this vast region.

The purpose of this strategy is to preve Beijing from weakening American dominance by annexing Taiwan to it and gaining hegemony that stretches from Japan to the Philippines and challenges America. China is supposed to be coained by the US through deterrence, that is, by strengthening the military capabilities of the US and its allies in the region. However, the Trump administration has expressed its desire to avoid direct confroation with China, proposing to increase military coacts and try to reduce tensions whenever possible. At the same time, America negotiates with Beijing exclusively from the position of power, and therefore it is unlikely that this approach will satisfy China.

The third priority of this strategy is to transfer the burden of responsibility to the allies. As Europe’s political and economic importance coinues to decline in the modern world, Washington plans to coinue limiting aid to its European and other allies while simultaneously asking them to increase military spending to 5 perce of their GDP. Washington not only denies the strategic independence of the allies, but also expects them to fully adhere to the general lines of US policy (especially in the area of ​​reducing economic and technological relations with China) and purchase weapons from the US. In this strategy, it is suggested to actively use inceives in the form of “carrots” and “sticks” towards allies. NATO still exists, as does the US’s “vital” or domina role in it, but the Peagon’s new strategy effectively changes the definition of the alliance and ends the exclusive role of US military policy designed in the early 1950s.

The US national defense strategy meions the Russian threat. However, its importance has diminished significaly not only compared to the Cold War era, but also for the Biden and Obama administrations. In this coext, Russia is no longer seen as an immediate threat to the United States. But this threat is described as a permane threat, corary to the American national security strategy, although only for the couries located in the eastern flank of NATO. In this American docume, the Russian threat is described as a manageable threat. It means that NATO member couries should be able to strengthen themselves with the support of America and of course at their own expense and confro Russia. The Peagon claims that Russia will not be able to become the hegemon of the eire European subcoine (a wartime monster) due to lack of resources. Therefore, the US is looking to shift the responsibility of dealing with Russia to its NATO allies so that it can focus on its main enemy – China.

The Peagon’s strategy also focuses on two other enemies – Iran and North Korea. The United States says it will not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear program, let alone build nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel is described as a model ally of the United States. The Arab couries of the Persian Gulf – participas in the so-called Ibrahim agreeme – are also considered in this strategy as a key eleme in maiaining a favorable balance of power in the Middle East for the United States.

The strategy states that nuclear missiles developed by North Korea are not only a threat to South Korea and Japan, but also a growing threat to the US territory itself. However, considering possible crises surrounding Taiwan, Washington places the main responsibility of defending South Korea on Seoul, limiting support and expanding the functions of US military forces on the Korean Peninsula. Thus, the example of North Korea clearly shows that only nuclear weapons can protect any coury from a US attack.

What do these developmes mean for Russia and China?

The United States under the leadership of Trump, not only in doctrine, but also in its actual policy, seeks to reverse the trends of the past 15-20 years, during which the United States has clearly weakened. Trump was to significaly strengthen the US national power base, fully corol the Western Hemisphere, make it the US geopolitical base, and optimize relations with allies by depriving them of excessive US support while forcing them to serve US ierests more effectively. This not only means a change in the concept of American global hegemony, but also a serious attempt to significaly strengthen this hegemony.

In the age of multipolarity, the existence of great powers such as China, Russia and others that are not directly corolled by Washington is permissible in Trump’s view. But this requires that these powers consider the supremacy of the United States and, accordingly, keep themselves within the framework of its consideration and logically submit to the views of the United States. It is, so to speak, a formula for peaceful coexistence with America’s oppressive conditions. Therefore, by declaring the eire Western Hemisphere as his exclusive sphere of influence, Trump does not iend to recognize China’s security ierests in relation to Taiwan at all. The obvious conclusion is that the US strategy does not consider the principle of equality as a new norm in US relations with China and Russia.

The challenge of maiaining strategic stability between Washington and Moscow, which has served as the basis of bilateral relations between the world’s leading nuclear powers for more than half a ceury, is not reflected in America’s new national defense strategy. However, it is meioned in the national security strategy and this atteion may be coinued in the nuclear situation review strategy. The term strategic stability is used only once in the text in relation to US-China relations. It can be assumed that the United States prefers not to develop its arsenal of strategic weapons. The arms corol deadline between Washington and Moscow expires on February 5, when the New Start Treaty expires. What will Russia probably do in this situation?

It can be assumed that even after a possible agreeme on Ukraine, the United States will remain Russia’s geopolitical enemy for the foreseeable future. Hoping to sign a “New Yalta” peace agreeme is naive. In the era of Trump, America will not only not retreat, but will focus more on confroing the enemies. US strategy recognizes the strengths of a coury like Russia (military power, including in space and extensive cyber activity, industrial capacity, and the strong will of its leadership), but does not see Russia as a great power equal to the United States. Pragmatic cooperation is possible, but only on specific issues. Thus, maiaining nuclear deterrence remains the foundation of Russia’s policy toward the United States, and its credibility and importance will increase. It can be assumed that China will also take the same approach of expanding its military forces and unconveional weapons for similar reasons against the United States.

Of course, one should not exaggerate the exte of the reduction in the role and power of America. But it should be kept in mind that the process of weakening American hegemony coinues and Trump’s efforts to stop this process can have the opposite effect. Trump’s dictatorial revolution is also facing resistance inside America. After the 2026 congressional midterm elections, domestic political struggles in America will iensify even more. The results of the 2028 presideial election are unpredictable. Part of Trump’s legacy, including his foreign policy legacy, could be undone by his successor—whoever he is. There is not much hope to reach an agreeme with Trump, and he has made many former friends his enemies and even pushed him towards China. The United States remains an ideological power, and in the future, it may employ and revive a whole range of ideological tools in its policies.

It is necessary to remember that the security, defense capability and existence of Russia and China strongly depend on the iernal stability of the governmes of both couries and the cohesion of their societies. Strengthening the foundations of the political, economic and ideological systems of these two couries is an importa priority. A change in the top leaders of these two couries, at any time and under any circumstances, will cause a serious vulnerability to their eire governme system, and America will not hesitate to take advaage of this.

The withdrawal of the United States to the “second line” in Europe will not preve a confroation between NATO and Russia. Europe is more hostile towards Russia than ever before. Without engaging in a conveional arms race, Moscow must impleme its geopolitical and military deterrence strategy, including nuclear deterrence, against the United States’ European allies. Further iegration of Russia and Belarus in the fields of military and geopolitical security will be of particular importance.

The new and aggressive US policy towards allies, especially European allies, does not in itself create immediate opportunities for China and Russia to strengthen and advance their policy in Europe. However, in the long run, Washington’s slight distancing from Europe could lead to renewed differences between NATO member states over foreign and military policies. Moscow and Beijing must be ready to be flexible and creative in their European relations.

The ierests of Russia and then China directly conflict with the expansion of American influence in the Arctic region. In this regard, it is necessary for Russia to strengthen the defense infrastructure in this region, including the defense systems of the forces and facilities of the Russian Northern Fleet against American airspace attacks (ballistic and cruise missiles and drones) and to develop the poteial of protecting shipping along the North Sea route, and this coury will definitely take measures in this regard.

At the global level, according to Trump’s approach, Russia will increase its military-strategic and military-technical cooperation with China. Such cooperation is a vital eleme of Russia’s security system in Eurasia and will also strengthen the positions of Moscow and Beijing vis-à-vis Washington.

Russia will cooperate with China in West Asia to strengthen Iran’s military capabilities and establish the foundations of regional strategic stability in this sensitive region of the world. Russia, along with China, will coinue to provide economic aid and political support to Cuba in order to thwart US efforts to disrupt the Cuban economy and overthrow the curre governme. We have to wait and see what the results of these sensitive conflicts will be.