Overview
In early December 2025, the Trump administration published a new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) that formally abandons the long‑standing framing of Russia as a primary threat and instead emphasizes a doctrine of “flexible realism.” The document calls for reviving the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, ending the perception of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance, and making it a core U.S. interest to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine while re‑establishing strategic stability with Moscow. Within days, the Kremlin offered rare public praise, saying the strategy “corresponds in many ways” with Russia’s own worldview and welcoming the shift away from treating Russia as a direct adversary.
The new NSS crystallizes a broader 2025 Trump‑era effort to recast U.S. foreign policy around spheres of influence, accelerated peace talks on Ukraine, and a sharp critique of Europe’s internal trajectory and support for Kyiv. European leaders have reacted with alarm, warning that Washington is undermining NATO and legitimizing Russian demands, while Moscow signals cautious optimism that a lasting U.S.–Russia accommodation may be possible. The outcome of this realignment—whether it yields a negotiated peace, a fractured Western alliance, or renewed confrontation—will shape the geopolitical order in Europe and the wider world for years.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The executive branch of the U.S. government under President Donald Trump, responsible for defining and implementing national security and foreign policy.
The executive office of the Russian president, controlling foreign policy messaging and negotiations with the United States over Ukraine and strategic stability.
A 32‑member transatlantic security alliance that has expanded eastward since the end of the Cold War and has been central to Western support for Ukraine.
A political and economic union of 27 European states, many of them NATO members and leading supporters of Ukraine.
Ukraine’s government, fighting to defend its territory and sovereignty against Russian invasion while relying heavily on Western military and financial support.
Timeline
-
New security roadmap omits North Korea denuclearization, reflecting broader strategy shift
Policy DetailA follow‑on U.S. security roadmap tied to the NSS notably omits reference to North Korea’s denuclearization after two decades of such language in U.S. strategy documents. Analysts see this as part of Trump’s ‘flexible realism,’ focusing on deterrence and diplomacy rather than maximalist objectives, mirroring his approach to Russia and Ukraine.
-
European leaders warn of rift over Trump’s 2025 NSS
Allied ReactionEuropean leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron and Poland’s Donald Tusk, voice concern that the new U.S. NSS marks a break with decades of transatlantic cooperation, criticizes European liberal policies and support for Ukraine, and appears to back far‑right movements. Analysts warn the document could be a watershed that undermines NATO, weakens EU cohesion, and emboldens pro‑Kremlin forces in Europe.
-
Kremlin publicly welcomes Trump’s new U.S. security strategy
Public StatementThe Kremlin issues rare praise for a U.S. National Security Strategy, saying Trump’s new doctrine largely aligns with Russia’s own view of the world. Peskov highlights the NSS’s call to revive the Monroe Doctrine, end the idea of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance, treat ending the Ukraine war as a core U.S. interest, and re‑establish strategic stability with Russia, while noting concerns about resistance from the U.S. ‘deep state.’
-
Kremlin encouraged by progress in Ukraine peace talks
Public StatementKremlin aide Yuri Ushakov says Russia and the United States are making progress on key aspects of Ukraine negotiations following the December 2 talks, and that Moscow is ready to continue working with Trump’s team despite unresolved disputes over territory, especially Donbas.
-
Trump administration publishes 2025 National Security Strategy
Policy DocumentThe White House releases the 2025 National Security Strategy, signed by President Trump. The document presents a doctrine of ‘flexible realism,’ revives the Monroe Doctrine, warns that Europe faces ‘civilizational erasure’ without major policy shifts, calls for a negotiated end to the Ukraine war, and advocates re‑establishing strategic stability with Russia while ending the perception of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.
-
Five‑hour Moscow talks on U.S. Ukraine peace plan
DiplomacyPutin meets two U.S. envoys in Moscow for five hours to discuss a U.S.-drafted peace proposal for Ukraine. The Kremlin later says Putin has accepted some elements but insists on full control of Ukraine’s Donbas region, threatening to take it by force if Ukrainian troops do not withdraw.
-
Kremlin says Russia–U.S. relations improving slower than desired
Public StatementKremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov notes that efforts to restore Russia–U.S. relations are progressing “much more slowly than desired,” but reiterates Moscow’s desire to remove “irritants” and deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, reflecting cautious expectations ahead of a new U.S. strategy.
-
Putin praises U.S. efforts and signals openness to arms control deal
Public StatementOn the eve of an Alaska summit with President Trump, Vladimir Putin tells senior officials that the U.S. is making “energetic and sincere efforts” to halt the Ukraine war and suggests that Moscow and Washington could agree on a nuclear arms control deal as part of a broader peace framework.
-
U.S.-brokered Black Sea and energy truce between Ukraine and Russia
DiplomacyThe United States announces separate accords with Kyiv and Moscow to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea and to halt attacks on energy facilities. President Zelenskyy says the truce is effective immediately but warns that Russia is already manipulating and distorting the agreements, and vows to seek more weapons and sanctions if Moscow violates them.
-
Trump publicly revives the Monroe Doctrine for the Western Hemisphere
Public StatementIn remarks and policy guidance, Trump declares a renewed Monroe Doctrine as the organizing principle for Latin America policy, prioritizing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and countering Chinese and European influence, foreshadowing the spheres‑of‑influence logic later embedded in the 2025 NSS.
-
First Trump NSS labels Russia a ‘revisionist power’ and major threat
BackgroundDuring his first term, President Trump signs a National Security Strategy that describes Russia (and China) as ‘revisionist powers’ seeking to undermine the U.S.-led order, reflecting the post‑Crimea consensus in Washington despite Trump’s personal rhetoric toward Putin.
Scenarios
Managed Détente: Negotiated Ceasefire and Limited U.S.–Russia Accommodation
Discussed by: Reuters, Guardian, Washington Post foreign policy analysts, various think‑tank commentators
In this scenario, the Trump administration leverages the 2025 NSS to push through a ceasefire or armistice in Ukraine that freezes front lines close to current positions while leaving the final status of occupied territories ambiguous. Washington and Moscow then formalize a new strategic stability framework, possibly including an arms control agreement and de‑confliction mechanisms, while the U.S. informally acknowledges Russian dominance in parts of Ukraine and its near abroad. NATO remains intact but strained, with some allies quietly adapting to the new reality while others increase national defense spending and hedging behavior. This outcome would resemble a 21st‑century version of Cold War–style spheres of influence, with reduced immediate risk of escalation but heightened long‑term instability and moral hazard.
Partition Peace and Transatlantic Rupture
Discussed by: European press, security scholars cited in major newspapers, Eastern European officials
Here, U.S. pressure and war fatigue lead to a political settlement that formally recognizes Russian control over Donbas and possibly other occupied territories, perhaps wrapped in referendums of dubious legitimacy. Ukraine receives security guarantees and reconstruction aid but loses significant land. Many in Europe see this as de facto acceptance of territorial conquest by force. The deal triggers a deep rift within NATO and the EU: frontline states like Poland and the Baltics accelerate defense buildups and explore alternative security arrangements, while Western European governments seek to normalize relations with Moscow. U.S. domestic politics polarize further as opponents accuse Trump of appeasement. Over time, Europe’s strategic autonomy accelerates, and transatlantic trust erodes, potentially reshaping Western security architecture for a generation.
Institutional Pushback: U.S. and Allied Resistance Blunts the Strategy
Discussed by: U.S. congressional critics, former officials quoted in U.S. media, policy think tanks
In this scenario, the ambitious re‑framing of Russia in the 2025 NSS is undermined by resistance from within the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishment, Congress, and key allies. Legislators restrict the administration’s ability to lift sanctions or recognize territorial changes, NATO members refuse to accept limits on enlargement, and European pressure—combined with domestic political costs—forces the White House to moderate its stance. The NSS remains on paper, but actual policy reverts to a more conventional deterrence‑and‑containment approach toward Moscow. Relations with Russia remain chilly, Ukraine continues to receive substantial Western support, and the hoped‑for grand bargain never fully materializes.
Talks Collapse and Confrontation Returns
Discussed by: More pessimistic Russia–Europe watchers and security analysts
Under this outcome, Ukraine negotiations stall or collapse as Moscow insists on maximalist demands—including full control of Donbas and possibly additional territory—while Kyiv, backed by parts of Europe, refuses. The initial goodwill generated by the NSS evaporates; accusations of bad faith fly on all sides. The Trump administration, facing criticism at home and abroad, oscillates between accommodation and pressure, leading to miscalculations. Russia escalates military operations, perhaps targeting critical infrastructure beyond Ukraine, while NATO reinforces its eastern flank and steps up arms deliveries. The U.S.–Russia relationship returns to open hostility, but now with weakened alliance cohesion and more ambiguous red lines, raising the risks of direct confrontation.
European Strategic Autonomy Accelerates Regardless of Outcome
Discussed by: European strategic thinkers, EU policy debates, major European newspapers
Across most plausible paths, Europe interprets the 2025 NSS as a loud warning that U.S. security guarantees are conditional and ideologically contested. Even if a Ukraine settlement emerges or the NSS is partially walked back, EU states seriously invest in long‑term defense integration, joint procurement, and independent deterrence capabilities. This scenario does not preclude cooperation with the U.S. or NATO but marks a structural shift in burden‑sharing and political expectations. Over a decade, Europe becomes a more autonomous pole capable of both coordination and open disagreement with Washington on Russia, China, and regional crises.
Historical Context
Nixon–Brezhnev Détente and the 1972 Moscow Summit
1972–1975What Happened
In the early 1970s, U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev pursued détente to reduce Cold War tensions. At the 1972 Moscow Summit they signed the SALT I agreement and the Anti‑Ballistic Missile Treaty, limiting strategic nuclear weapons and establishing new rules for U.S.–Soviet competition.
Outcome
Short term: Détente produced major arms‑control milestones and a period of reduced superpower tensions, while both sides continued proxy competition elsewhere.
Long term: The spirit of détente eroded by the late 1970s amid renewed rivalry and events like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the arms‑control framework laid groundwork for later agreements.
Why It's Relevant
The Trump administration’s search for a Ukraine deal bundled with a strategic stability or arms‑control framework with Russia echoes the logic of détente—trading specific concessions for managed competition. The historical record shows such arrangements can reduce immediate risks but are fragile and often contested domestically and among allies.
Obama’s 2009 ‘Russia Reset’
2009–2013What Happened
The Obama administration sought a ‘reset’ with Russia, symbolized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presentation of a mislabeled ‘reset button’ to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2009. Washington aimed to cooperate on issues like arms control and Iran, while downplaying disputes. The reset yielded some successes, such as the New START treaty, but soured as disagreements over NATO, missile defense, and Russia’s internal politics resurfaced.
Outcome
Short term: Relations improved briefly, enabling limited cooperation on arms control and Afghanistan transit.
Long term: The reset collapsed amid Russia’s 2012 political turn, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and growing U.S. skepticism about Putin’s intentions. ‘Reset’ became shorthand for the perceived naivety of expecting sustainable partnership without addressing core strategic conflicts.
Why It's Relevant
The 2025 NSS goes further than the reset by changing how the U.S. labels Russia in its core doctrine and by explicitly criticizing Europe. The mixed legacy of the reset highlights the risk that tactical cooperation with Moscow, absent shared fundamentals, can quickly unravel and provoke political backlash.
The Monroe Doctrine and Spheres of Influence in the Americas
1823–20th centuryWhat Happened
First articulated in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off‑limits to new European colonization or interference and evolved into a justification for U.S. dominance in Latin America. Over the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was expanded by doctrines like Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary, under which Washington asserted the right to intervene in Latin American states to protect U.S. interests.
Outcome
Short term: The doctrine helped deter European powers from establishing new colonies, but it also enabled frequent U.S. interventions in Latin America, often resented as imperial overreach.
Long term: While the U.S. later adopted more cooperative regional policies, the Western Hemisphere has remained widely seen as a U.S. sphere of influence, shaping how both Washington and others think about regional security and external involvement.
Why It's Relevant
Trump’s 2025 NSS explicitly calls for reviving the Monroe Doctrine and adopts a broader spheres‑of‑influence logic—accepting Russian primacy in parts of its neighborhood in exchange for U.S. dominance in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine’s history illustrates both the power and the costs of such claims: they can stabilize great‑power competition in one sense, but at the price of smaller states’ sovereignty and frequent tensions with neighbors.