Dimitrios Patelis | Founding member of the Revolutionary Theory Group (Greece)
What changes have been made to the latest version of the United States’ National Security Strategy (NSS) for 2025? What does this official document reveal and conceal? How did Russia’s Special Military Operation affect US policy and relations between the US and the European Union during the war? How are changes being introduced to the US policy of global dominance? What are the relations with China and Russia?
In December 2025, the administration of US President Donald Trump published a revised National Security Strategy (NSS), representing a radical shift in American global approach. This 33-page document goes beyond a simple review of foreign policy priorities to offer a fundamental critique of the country’s entire strategic course since the end of the Cold War. The text is particularly important in terms of the objectives of the US financial oligarchy in the escalating Third World War (WWIII).
The authors identify the US’s strategic goals and their relation to tactics. They attempt to make corrective adjustments to these strategies and tactics in order to precisely redefine their objectives and aspirations in the world, as well as the position and role of the US within it, in conjunction with the means available to achieve these objectives. They attempt to define the principles and priorities of these objectives by region, hemisphere and continent.
There is a clear attempt in this document to ideologically substantiate the distinct position and role of the US by invoking a mystical position of ‘dominant supremacy’ based on the ‘American Dream’ and a certain self-evident, metaphysical American exceptionalism. This exceptionalism is linked to the more or less divine destiny and mission of this imperialist country.
However, there are certain dogmatic assumptions that appear to be timeless. A typical example is Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz’s doctrine, which emphasized preventing the emergence of any future rival capable of challenging U.S. global or regional predominance, particularly in strategically important regions.
A comparative analysis of US national security doctrines reveals a clear escalation. During the American Revolution and the struggle for independence from the British Empire, the ‘doctrine of isolationism’ emerged.
This was immediately followed by the concept of regional hegemony, as set out in the Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823. According to this doctrine, any attempt by European states to intervene in any part of the Western Hemisphere would endanger the peace and security of the United States and constitute an act of aggression requiring US intervention.
Claims for global leadership and hegemony have gradually escalated to the point of seeking to establish a global state.
During the presidency of George H. W. Bush in 1991, the demand was made to impose a new world order based on bourgeois democracy, a market economy, control over nuclear weapons and suppression of aggressive regional forces, such as Iraq, for example. This occurred precisely after the prevalence of the bourgeois counterrevolution and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and other early socialist countries in Europe. This doctrine’s philosophising ideological wrapping is linked to Fukuyama’s infamous ‘end of history’[1].
From 1996 to 2000, during the presidency of William Jefferson ‘Bill’ Clinton, versions of the concepts of attraction and expansion were formulated within the context of ‘combining democracy and the market’. During this period, NATO was proclaimed an instrument of global security, invoking international institutions and the law of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ led by the US.
This is the period during which the concept of globalisation as the sole means of achieving security and prosperity was established, with Russia being assigned the role of an instrument for the implementation of international decisions.
From 2001 to 2009, during George W. Bush’s presidency, the concept of the inherent right of the world’s dominant power to launch a ‘pre-emptive strike’ was introduced, with terrorism and the countries that harbour it being presented as the primary threat. According to this doctrine, potential enemies must be fought outside US borders before they can enter the country, and threats must be eliminated before they materialise. This mission was presented as ‘promoting freedom and hope’ and as an alternative to the hostile ideology of the forces of fear.
Interventions in West and Central Asia then escalated and Afghanistan was occupied.
In 2015, during Barack Obama’s presidency, a strategy of global hegemony was formulated and imposed with all means of American power. This hegemony is military and economic (where the US reserves a position of power over its competitors), as well as value-based. American values are promoted not only as international, but also as something that must be imposed on the world. This doctrine justifies the immediate containment and destruction of any potential adversary that could threaten the national security of the US and its allies. The cynical pursuit of the spread of American values as universal goes hand in hand with the ‘democratisation’ of countries and the struggle for ‘freedoms and rights’, always based on the institutions of ‘civil society’. The protection of various minorities and cultural groups occupies a special place in this doctrine. The Americanisation of culture is promoted, based on the ideology and practices of individualism, the protection of minorities, and the encouragement of national separatist movements in multinational countries at the US sees fit.
During Donald Trump’s first term in office, from 2017 to 2019, a strategic shift in remittances was reiterated. At that time, the defence of the American people, its territory and its way of life took centre stage, with immigration being treated as a ‘national security issue’ and the threat of Islamic terrorism being raised. American prosperity is linked to reindustrialisation and self-sufficiency goals. The strategy sought to achieve peace through power, i.e. through violence, primarily by modernising the armed forces, constructing a multi-layered anti-aircraft and anti-missile shield, and strengthening military alliances. The aim is to expand American influence worldwide to achieve global hegemony, explicitly targeting China and Russia as adversaries.
In 2022, under Joe Biden’s presidency, the security strategy advocated the imposition of the US as a ‘global state’ entitled to its interests. The main enemy is now authoritarian states pursuing revisionist foreign policies. The key tool for achieving this goal is globalisation. States are divided into large authoritarian states seeking change in the world order, which causes instability, and small authoritarian states the combined actions of which require global containment. As a global superpower, the US has a duty to address global issues such as climate change, threats to energy security, pandemics, biological weapons, threats to food security, nuclear proliferation, international terrorism and organised crime. Only the US, as a global state, can provide solutions to these problems.
Significant new changes in the perception of national security come into effect during Trump’s second term in office in 2025.
It is worth noting that this document attempts to define the concepts of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’ from a methodological perspective.[2]
The ‘welfare state’, the power and role of supranational and transnational structures and institutions, and globalisation itself in terms of the principle of free trade are rejected. In light of the evident findings from the escalation of WWIII, an attempt is made to formulate a new model combining the ‘world order model’ with the ‘world chaos model’. World order is extremely costly when available resources are insufficient, while world chaos poses threats. A three-level pyramid model is therefore proposed, with the US occupying the top position as the global privileged hegemon. The next level is the ‘sphere of order’, which includes the rest of the countries, including Europe, under certain conditions. The base of the pyramid comprises the ‘sphere of chaos’.
Certain positions emphatically seek to put an end to mass migration, woke culture, the pursuit of a ‘pluralism of identities’, the pursuit of ‘rights’, and so-called inclusivity. The economic freedom being promoted for US citizens is clearly linked to tax cuts and the further deregulation of the market and of society in the spirit of aggressive neoliberalism. However, it also involves the imposition of tariffs on imports to offset the loss of monopoly super profits. This addresses the need to distribute the burdens of international obligations, economic security and reindustrialisation. The latter is linked to the revival of the military-industrial complex to ensure supremacy and restore American hegemony in the energy sector.
Particular emphasis is placed on maintaining and strengthening the global dominance of the American financial sector. Anti-immigration policy is linked to the country’s independence and sovereignty, as well as the ‘national mobilisation of American forces’.
It is important to note that the concern of the American ruling class about reindustrialisation is rooted in history. During the Cold War, industrialisation was a key element in the competition between the US and the USSR. Following the restoration of capitalism and the catastrophic deindustrialisation of Russia based on the dominance of fictitious capital, the US underwent rapid deindustrialisation to a degree directly proportional to China’s rapid industrialisation. Today, 38% of global industrial production is located in China.
As we have demonstrated elsewhere, the objective of reindustrialising the US to the extent necessary to ensure self-sufficiency and economic dominance is now practically unattainable as a result of China’s rapid progress.
Furthermore, contrary to the beliefs of certain circles of the Russian oligarchy of capital, this document leaves no room for ‘sharing hegemony’ among today’s five or six powerful countries (the US, the PRC, Russia, India, Japan and South Korea).
On the contrary, this document explicitly and categorically extends the Monroe Doctrine to cover the Western Hemisphere. It proclaims the threat of invasions and interventions by the US on the American continent, with the aim of ‘driving out competitors’, primarily China. This expulsion, as the authors imply, is not confined to the American continent and will be implemented by all means: economic, diplomatic, political and military. Furthermore, the pursuit of exclusive dominance in the Western Hemisphere can easily be extended in practice to the entire globe, precisely because of the vagueness of this geographical term.
In Europe, a role of cooperation with the US is reserved, albeit in a subordinate and rather submissive capacity. (This refers to the countries of the European Union and NATO in Europe.) In fact, the EU is widely criticised for its transnational regulation, which is seen as the reason behind the decline in competitiveness of European countries.
Data on the EU’s GDP is presented: while it accounted for 25% of the world’s GDP in 1990, today it accounts for only 14%. The document criticises the deterioration of democratic functions and advocates strengthening the role of nation states and ‘patriotic forces’ in Europe.
In addition, the NSS:
1. Explicitly rejects neoliberal globalisation, emphasising its support for ‘national sovereignty’ over supranational institutions (e.g. the EU), which it accuses of undermining national sovereignty and of being anti-American.
2. It strongly criticises Europe for:
• Its ‘inability to protect its borders’ and for ‘mass immigration’, which it characterises as a fundamental threat to sovereignty and security, warning of ‘cultural extinction’.
• Its ‘economic and defence dependence’ on the US.
• It also criticises the ‘political elite’ for ‘deserting’ the people, for ‘censorship’, and the suppression of political opposition (mainly of nationalist/‘patriotic’ parties).
3. Supports European ‘patriots’―right-wing nationalists: The document is interpreted as ‘supportive of European right-wing and nationalist parties and leaders’ (e.g. Orbán), who share the view that sovereignty, border control and national identity must be defended. Their rise is seen as ‘a cause for optimism’.
4. Devotes considerable space to analysing demographic trends in Europe, drawing on sources from right-wing analysts. The text argues that mass migration, combined with low fertility rates among the native population, is leading to ‘rapid changes in the demographic fabric’ of countries and cities. The text predicts that this will create social tensions, political instability and an increased risk of civil war, while the elite persists in its policies and punishes those who dare to point this out.
5. Emphasises that the European elites (in politics and the media) react with revulsion and condemnation to the NSS, identifying it with the far right and ignoring the deeper causes of the discontent it expresses.
Regarding Asia, the NSS promotes US hegemony from a position of power. In the Middle East (West Asia), responsibility for settling conflicts is shifted to the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, while the special role of the Zionist proxy in the region is self-evident but not explicitly stated.
In Africa, the pretext of ‘aid’ is expected to be abandoned while capital investment is promoted. What is not explicitly stated but clearly implied is the pursuit of ‘chaos’ through wars, due to irreconcilable neo-colonial imperialist interests and the effort to ‘drive out competitors’ (China, Russia, etc.), as well as the struggle of the peoples of Africa to free themselves from colonial and neo-colonial dependence and imperialist super exploitation.
It is important to note that traditional colonialism was imposed through brutal occupation and the destruction of traditional systems of administration and organisation within local societies, placing the colonies in direct dependence on the coloniser. The departure or expulsion of the coloniser, and the attainment or ‘granting’ of formal independence, often deliberately led to chaos. Thus, the imperialists’ return to the scene of the colonial crime, this time in the role of neo-colonialist, was often in response to a ‘demand for restoration of order’.
Therefore, we observe that the strategic goal of the US remains global domination, with the People’s Republic of China named as its main geopolitical, economic and military rival.
It goes without saying that texts of this kind do not explicitly state all the aims of the US financial oligarchy.
This is precisely why relations with Russia, and with other important countries such as India, Japan and Vietnam, are not explicitly mentioned.
This lack of explicit reference to Russia is clearly related to the outcome of the war in Ukraine so far. Even though today’s Russian ruling class is waging war against the collective forces of the attacking axis under less than optimal operational conditions, the imperialist pursuit of the country’s disintegration has failed miserably. This failure is clearly linked to the direct and indirect assistance provided by allies in this war, such as the DPRK, Iran etc. However, precisely because of this failure, US leadership is now seeking a ceasefire with the immediate goal of rearming and strengthening the Nazi regime in Kiev, so that aggression against Russia can be renewed swiftly, while simultaneously activating other fronts in Transcaucasia, Transnistria, Central Asia and elsewhere.
Furthermore, a key objective of the Trump administration is to co-opt the Russian ruling class, allowing the axis to focus its aggression on the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The implicit goal of the US financial oligarchy is to successfully conduct this war.
This is why the US administration needs to define its tactics in the war, concealing some of its cynical belligerent aims behind rhetoric about ‘peace, security and cooperation’, while doing nothing to mitigate the irreconcilable contradictions and conflicts of interest that caused the war and are fuelling its escalation.
Even though the US leadership undoubtedly sparked and escalated this war, together with Great Britain and the other imperialist countries, they are now trying to avoid responsibility. While the US-led axis aims to escalate aggression against anti-imperialist and socialist forces in Europe, Asia and Africa, US leadership is brazenly playing the role of impartial mediator, judge and arbitrator in conflict resolution.
They portray the conflict in Ukraine for example, as an exclusively ‘internal European affair’. The despicable warmongering leaders of Europe’s imperialist countries are also arguing along the same lines with overtly hawkish statements and practices. The US is seeking to shift the economic burden and military responsibility for continuing the war onto European countries, thereby securing a monopoly on supplying the war with products from its own military-industrial complex. In other words, they are seeking to transform Ukraine and the rest of Europe into a proxy strike force so that they can reap the benefits without incurring economic costs or sacrificing the lives of their own citizens.
Despite the tectonic shift in power and the obvious weakening of the imperialist axis against the rising anti-imperialist and socialist forces led by China, the US’s strategic goal remains unchanged: to assert and consolidate its global dominance to ensure the extraction of surplus value in the form of monopoly superprofits on a planetary scale.
From this point of view, the axis does not have much room for manoeuvre. This explains the emphasis placed on the need for maintaining and strengthening the mechanism for controlling capital flows on a global scale through transnational financial institutions at various levels, as well as the role of the dollar as the global and international reserve currency.
Thus, the absence of any explicit reference to Russia is clearly an intentional manipulative tactic due to the circumstances of the war. Furthermore, the explicit reference to pursuing a strong Europe by preventing rival dominance leaves no room for misinterpretation. Russia is implied to be ‘easily omitted’.
The new US National Security Strategy signals a shift away from globalisation towards a hard-line prioritisation of national interests. The strategy outlines the key objectives: strict border control and ‘the end of the era of mass immigration’, industrial restructuring, achieving energy dominance, and bolstering the US’s technological and military advantages.
According to the NSS, the world consists of sovereign states, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, interests, specificities, and traditions. The strongest and richest states ‘naturally have greater influence, so their interests matter more’. The US aims to secure its economic, technological and military superiority over other countries, not to promote universal prosperity and a ‘rules-based world order’, but solely to protect its own interests.
One of the NSS’s key points is its rejection of the role of ‘global policeman’. The document emphasises: ‘The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.’
The government’s strategy also asserts that ‘The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies.’
This new stance is presented as a ‘realistic plan’ intended ‘To ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come’.
In summary, the text portrays the new NSS as a radical departure from the post-war globalist order, presenting it as an alliance between Washington and European patriotic forces against a weakened, authoritarian Europe, in an attempt to save Europe from its cultural and demographic decline.
Under President Trump, US leadership is attempting to force developments by adjusting its plans to seize the strategic initiative (attempt at splitting the anti-imperialist and socialist front by buying off/co-opting the Russian bourgeoisie, crushing the ‘weak links’ of the resistance).
US imperialists dream of regaining global hegemony with one of their old tricks: the tried-and-tested recipe of World Wars I and II, pitting Europe against Russia so they can intervene as the dominant power and reap the benefits of ‘reconstruction’ (such as the Marshall Plan after World War II), reestablishing their global hegemony and reaping new superprofits.
The US is focusing on its number one existential enemy, the People’s Republic of China, which ‘poses the most fundamental threat to US interests globally’.
As part of this strategy, it will seek to halt the decline of the axis in the global balance of power by any means necessary, including takeover, deceit, division, erosion and blackmail, or even the defeat/crushing of all anti-imperialist, socialist and revolutionary forces on the planet―any formation or group that could resist its unilateral hegemony.
Thus, even in this version of the US NSS, we see that the strategic goal of global domination remains unchanged.
What has changed is the rhetoric, the ideological framing, the tactics and the emphasis placed on the means and methods chosen to achieve this goal. The pursuit of ‘making America great again’ is, on the one hand, an admission that its former greatness has been lost, but, on the other hand, this goal can only be achieved through an ideology and practice that places the US above all others―that is to say, through extreme nationalism and chauvinism. The latter does not seek to replace neoliberal globalisation, but rather to modify it. The common ground for achieving this new mix of tactics is international fascisation, in an appropriate form, scope, and depth for the current situation.
Notes
[1] Fukuyama, Francis: Philosophising political official (Deputy Director of the US State Department’s Policy Planning Office), who became famous in 1989 due to the extensive media coverage of his ideas about the ‘end of history’.
He interprets the situation arising from the capitalist counter-revolution in the USSR and other early socialist countries, and the end of the Cold War, as the ‘end of history itself’: the final point in the ideological evolution of the human race, and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the ultimate form of governance. His work is a model of eclecticism, using disparate philosophical positions (Hegel, Plato, Bentham, Nietzsche, etc.) instrumentally to justify an extremely cynical political expediency. This presents the current international situation as eliminating any alternative solution, and capitalism as the pinnacle of humanity’s socio-economic and political life. It is the veneer of the political strategy of the dominant great powers, who seek to perpetuate their domination over the planet’s less developed populations through a ‘new world order’ based on violent surveillance, exclusion and constant policing. This reactionary, neo-colonial, racist, utopian ideology aims to prevent any social revolution or socialism. His work: The End of History and the Last Man, New York, 1992.
[2] The authors of the text demonstrate a more realistic, dialectical understanding of the relationship between strategy and tactics than has been seen in the ideological dogmas of the ‘Communist’ Party of Greece in recent years. Clearly, the superiority of this imperialist document in terms of realism is linked to the practical needs and obligations of the remaining superpower in the context of WWIII.Text