Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

China, Russia Must Manage 'Orderly' US Decline | Huang J. and S. Karaganov

The year 2026 opened with a series of maneuvers by the United States that continue to unsettle the global landscape. Beneath the surface of international diplomacy, powerful undercurrents are surging. Even as the aftershocks of the military strike on Venezuela linger, Donald Trump has turned his sights toward Greenland, alternating between economic buyouts and martial threats.

» The Americans are withdrawing to the Western Hemisphere.  They are transitioning into a "normal" regional power. «               1941 political cartoon by Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) satirizing "America First" isolationism. An elderly woman in an "America First" sweater reads "Adolf the Wolf" to two horrified children, remarking: "...and the Wolf chewed up the children and spit out their bones... but those were foreign children, and it didn't really matter."
 » The Americans are withdrawing to the Western Hemisphere. 
They are transitioning into a "normal" regional power. « 
1941 political cartoon by Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) satirizing "America First" isolationism. An elderly woman in an "America First" sweater reads "Adolf the Wolf" to two horrified children, remarking: "...and the Wolf chewed up the children and spit out their bones... but those were foreign children, and it didn't really matter."
This predatory posture—where even allies are not spared—raises a fundamental question: Is this the brute assertion of a military hegemon, or the final, desperate thrashings of a superpower in decline? As the rift between the US and Europe widens over the Greenland dispute, and the very foundations of the NATO alliance tremble, what kind of shockwaves will the global order sustain?

Huang Jing: Regarding the abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro and the First Lady—an act of blatant violent aggression—how do you foresee its impact?

Sergey Karaganov: To be clear, we are still operating without full transparency regarding the facts; the abduction is peculiar, appearing almost like a choreographed performance. While clearly the work of US security apparatuses, their local facilitators remain in the shadowsHowever, the trend is undeniable: Trump and the US are attempting to pivot back to the Western Hemisphere as they retreat from global leadership. This process began 15 to 17 years ago, though it went largely unremarked by the masses. 

Huang: We only truly grasped it about 15 years ago.

Karaganov: Exactly. Circa 2006 or 2007. It was an internal discussion then, but the trajectory was visible. Notably, when Obama took office, his instinct was an "America First" strategy, but he was constrained by the globalist factions surrounding him. 
The kidnapping of Maduro and the "piracy" of seizing oil tankers are criminal acts. Yet, there is a "silver lining": the Americans are withdrawing to the Western Hemisphere. They are transitioning into a "normal" regional power rather than a global hegemon, shedding the pretense of world leadership. It is a double-edged sword. While we must condemn the incredible crime of abducting an elected leader, we are seeing a strategic retreat. For years, I have argued that we must create the conditions to help the US exit its global role—without triggering a world war.
 
» US decline isn't the problem; the "disorder" of that decline is the catastrophe. « Aggression as a symptom of decay: POTUS claiming US used classified "Disruptor"  weapon to paralyze Venezuelan defense systems in order to hijack Nicolás Maduro.
» US decline isn't the problem; the "disorder" of that decline is the catastrophe. «
Aggression as a symptom of decay: POTUS claiming US used classified "Disruptor" 
weapon to paralyze Venezuelan defense systems in order to hijack Nicolás Maduro.
 
Huang: Agreed. I recall your work on "Disorder," suggesting that a chaotic US decline is a threat to us all. This hegemonic fatigue began because the US simply could not sustain the post-1991 international system. You cite 2006; I would argue the definitive cracks appeared by 2008.

Karaganov: The decline of Western hegemony actually dates back to the 1960s. The signs were there, but ignored. When the USSR achieved nuclear parity, the foundation of a 500-year-old Western dominance began to crumble. After the Soviet collapse, the West—and the US specifically—fell into a state of "euphoria," believing they had reversed the tide of history. This lasted barely 15 years before Russia began to reconstitute its position and China emerged as a titan. Blinded by their "victory," the American elite made massive strategic blunders. They essentially subsidized China's rise, naively believing that capitalism would inevitably lead to a "democracy" that would act as a US satellite. When reality failed to meet their visions, they doubled down on failed invasions—Afghanistan, Iraq. By 2008, the internal decision to begin a long-term withdrawal had already taken root.
 
» Russia and China should work together to facilitate an orderly decline for the United States. This is in everyone's interest, including Washington's. «   August 2021, managing 'disordered' collapse: US troops at Kabul Airport use rifles to deter Afghan civilians attempting to flee during the withdrawal.
» Russia and China should work together to facilitate an orderly decline for
the United States. This is in everyone's interest, including Washington's. « 
 August 2021, managing 'disordered' collapse: US troops at Kabul Airport use
rifles to deter Afghan civilians attempting to flee during the withdrawal.
 
Huang: I agree, though I’d add a nuance: China’s rise wasn't merely a gift from the US. It was the result of correct internal policies and a desire to integrate into the global system to reform it from within. The US "vision" of a peaceful evolution into a Western-style state was indeed a profound miscalculation.

Karaganov: I don't disagree, but consider this: China’s development was facilitated by the Soviet/Russian security umbrella. Even when China was militarily weaker, the US never dared a direct strike. Furthermore, the US committed the ultimate strategic error. Through their actions, they pushed Russia and China—natural neighbors—into an unbreakable de facto alliance. Over the last 15 years, this "quasi-alliance" has effectively doubled the strategic weight of both nations. It is an monumental failure by Western competitors.
 
» The US will never come to the rescue of Europe. « 
 
Huang: From a historical perspective, we remember how the USSR helped build China’s industrial base. Yet the USSR also suffered from overexpansion—Afghanistan being the fatal error—which led to the fragile US-China cooperation of the 1980s to contain Moscow.

Karaganov: Indeed. But it wasn't just overexpansion; it was arrogance. Khrushchev’s arrogance toward Mao in the 50s and the refusal to aid China’s nuclear program were grave miscalculations.

Huang: Yet China succeeded regardless.

Karaganov: Yes, and that autonomous development secured China’s strategic autonomy for decades. Had we helped then, the rapprochement with Nixon might never have been necessary. History would be unrecognizable. But today, the US is committing the greatest error of the modern era. Post-1991, they mistook their moment for permanent "Globalist" dominion. They tried to export "universal values" through Color Revolutions and the Arab Spring—all of which failed. Now, they are retreating into the Western Hemisphere because they must, not because they want to. 
  
Huang: As you famously said: US decline isn't the problem; the "disorder" of that decline is the catastrophe. Does the invasion of Venezuela reflect a managed exit or a chaotic one?

Karaganov: Let’s put it this way: Russia and China should work together to facilitate an orderly decline for the United States. This is in everyone's interest, including Washington's. The US was an "accidental" global hegemon. Before WWII, they were an economic powerhouse but a geopolitical non-factor. They became the world leader with very little capital investment because Europe collapsed and the USSR was exhausted.

Now, as the "Global South" and China rise, the West realizes it can no longer control the very system of free trade and international law it created. So, they have begun to sabotage their own system—using sanctions and breaking trade rules—because they can no longer win by the old rules. In Ukraine, the Biden administration initially thought they could isolate Russia from Europe. They succeeded in creating a rift, but now that they see Russia is willing to escalate—even to the nuclear level—they are looking for the exit. Trump is vocal about withdrawal, but Biden started the process. I saw it myself: Biden's 2022 New York Times piece, where he set "red lines" for the US (no direct entry, no regime change), was the first signal of the American retreat.
 
» The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «  Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz, December 8, 2025.
 » The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «

 Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz, December 8, 2025.

Huang: You warned the Americans in 2012: "You are pushing us into a corner, and you will end up in one yourselves." In 2020, you argued that the goal wasn't just defeating Ukraine, but dismantling the Western international system itself—a system used as a tool for hypocritical hegemony. Do you still stand by that?

Karaganov: Absolutely. And we are succeeding. By raising the stakes, we have essentially pushed the US out of the war. We made them realize that Russia would risk nuclear conflict over Europe. Biden never explicitly promised to fight for Europe if it were attacked; he only spoke of "support." Now, Russia’s objective is to break the will of the European elites. Europe has historically been the source of the world's greatest troubles—colonialism, racism, world wars. They are currently drifting toward a Third World War. Our strategic long-term goal should be to push Europe to the periphery of the global stage, creating systemic conditions where their current "sinister" elites are rendered obsolete.

Huang: On that point, you and Trump seem to be in total agreement.

Karaganov: (Laughs) I said it first.
 
[Continue from 27:00 in the video above—highly insightful and well worth the watch.] 
 
[中俄应该携手合作,帮助美国实现“有序衰落.”]
 
"How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas? Neither we will ever discuss anything with her,  nor will the Americans, and this is obvious. We can only wait until she leaves," Peskov said.
"How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas? Neither we will ever discuss anything with her, 
nor will the Americans, and this is obvious. We can only wait until she leaves," Peskov said.

Huang Jing is a Distinguished Professor at Shanghai International Studies University and a globally recognized authority on Chinese politics and US-Asia relations. Formerly a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Director at the National University of Singapore, he specializes in the US-China-Russia strategic triangle. He is a prolific author and advisor known for his realist analysis of great power competition and global governance.
Sergey Karaganov is the Honorary Chairman of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and a presidential advisor to both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. He currently serves as the Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. A primary architect of the "Greater Eurasia" concept, he is a leading realist thinker on Russian grand strategy and the transformation of the global order.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Strategic and Esoteric Battles for Greenland and the Arctic | Daniel Estulin

The Greenland issue consists of both a public political element and a hidden esoteric element. I am going to explain both. The Arctic dispute is an "all-or-nothing" fight for the distribution of the North. Russia consistently maintains the position that the Gakkel Ridge is a continuation of the Eurasian continental massif. Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Denmark, by way of Greenland, proposes an alternative interpretation, linking the territory to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
 
» Shifting the balance of power through alliances and the control of key territories. « 
United States Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, on the
northwest coast of Greenland in the Kingdom of Denmark.
 
Behind this controversy, a third actor is becoming increasingly visible: the United States. They prefer to act indirectly, shifting the balance of power through alliances and the control of key territories. In their vision of global economic regionalization, this territory would encompass Greenland, Canada, the United States, and Mexico, reaching all the way down to Venezuela and Colombia. Greenland is fundamental to this configuration. Trump’s "chatter" about purchasing the island is not the eccentricity many claim it to be; rather, it is the covert activation of a process of strategic redistribution. Controlling Greenland would grant Washington more than just a military advantage by placing them closer to Russia; it would provide direct access to the core of very important Arctic resources. We are talking about colossal volumes of mineral resources. This factor, more than any other, explains the growing American interest—an interest that curiously only became public under Trump.
 
» We are talking about colossal volumes of mineral resources. «
The mythical Arctic continent oHyperborea on Gerardus Mercator’s 1595 map, split 
into the islands of Thule and Ultima Thule, often identified with Iceland and Greenland.
 
If the US establishes de facto control over Greenland, Washington will inevitably begin pushing the theory that the Gakkel Ridge is an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge stretching from Greenland toward Siberia. This interpretation is dangerous because it provides the legal and political justification for US claims over the Central Arctic, where almost all the natural resources are located. This maneuver would put the US on a war footing with Russia, from whom it had wrested influence in Venezuela. In mere hours, the influence that Russia had painstakingly built over 25 years was dismantled. Now, the US is going to take northern territory. The logic is evident: Greenland allows the United States to close the Arctic arc from the North Atlantic and gain levers of influence, especially over the Northern Sea Route—Russia’s primary maritime route—which will become the main stage for resource competition over the next decade.

» This is not symbolical nor ceremonial, this is real power. «
The Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of 
Rhodes and of Malta, Fra’ John Dunlap, awarded King Charles III Coronation Medal, March 26, 2025.
 
That is the political side. On the other hand, there is the esoteric part. While political scientists and analysts focus on policy, geopolitics, and geoeconomics, I am going to tell you about the power in the shadows. One of the heraldic symbols of the British secret societies is the Royal Badge of Wales. Between 1953 and 2008, it featured the Red Dragon with the motto "Y ddraig goch ddyry cychwyn" ("The Red Dragon inspires action"). Though it was officially updated in 2008 to include a crown, four cheetahs, and the motto "Pleidiol Wyf i'm Gwlad" ("I am true to my country"), the claim is that the change is a cover story. The true symbol was and remains the Red Dragon—a symbol rooted in Arthurian legend and adopted by the Tudors—representing an image of unimaginable force. 
 
»
Hidden knowledge and the number 7, the force of the underworld. «
Solidly in the grips of dark forces since long before the days of Dr. Dee.
 
Furthermore, there exists an occult Order of the Green Dragon. Often described in esoteric literature as a murky mystical society linked to Tibetan or Japanese traditions, it is said to influence major historical figures through the mastery of etheric bodies. In occultism, colors, numbers, dates, and images provide a 'cover language' for the invisible world that connects mysticism to power politics. Drawing from Chinese mysticism and Masonic traditions, the Green Dragon represents hidden knowledge and the number 7, the force of the underworld, while the Red Dragon represents the number 9, symbolizing the forces that triumph on the Earth's surface and the rank of guardian angels.

» Forces that triumph on the Earth's surface and the rank of guardian angels. «
Y ddraig goch, the Welsh Red Dragon. 
 
In the 16th century, these ideas were developed by John Dee, Queen Elizabeth I’s advisor and a Welsh order Kabbalist magician. Dee was the first great intelligence agent—the original James Bond—who signed his secret documents "007." The symbol of Wales on its flag—a Red Dragon on a white and green background—reflects this. Dee’s primary work involved Enochian magic, which later influenced the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the 19th and 20th centuries. Behind this order were the 'Sons of the Sun,' a bohemian group of British nobility that included the Prince of Wales, later to become King Edward VII, the 'Peace Maker' and master spin doctor of WWI, who 'befriended' France and Russia, and built a "ring of fire" around Germany to destroy Britain's greatest rival. And it was John Dee who created the concept of "Green Land" (Greenland), proposing that Britannia create a new empire devoid of biblical elements, uniting North America and Eurasia around the Arctic. He drew from Arthurian myths to justify claims over these lands, leading to the symbolic centering of the world at the Greenwich Meridian. In today's politics, this is the project of the New Jerusalem Kabbalists based in London. 
 
» A new empire, uniting North America and Eurasia. «
A map of the Arctic, created by the US Department of State.
 
Originally, Dee's circumpolar arctic "Green Land" empire was to be realized via the dynastic lines of Elizabeth I and Ivan the Terrible (Ivan Rurik). The Rurik dynasty, founded in 862, ruled Russia for 21 generations, and they are seen as the only ones with the historical right to sit at the metaphorical round table of world power—ranking above the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Genghis Khan and Ivan Rurik shared a concept of monarchy as a mystical union, while the Romanovs (of German origin) became a buffer for the Holy Roman Empire against the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan from the East.

"Европейское содружество и США." — "European Commonwealth and the US."
1952 Soviet political caricature, which aged as a fine wine.
 
Now, how does this relate to current reality? Public education and the media completely dismiss the actual power of European royals, aristocratic bloodlines, the Vatican, and secret societies. But as a matter of fact, the British Crown remains the head of state not only of the UK, but also of Canada and many other countries and territories. This is not symbolical nor ceremonial, this is real power. 'Green' eugenicist globalist King Charles III is the King of Canada, and Mark Carney is the Prime Minister he approved. And a change of power is occurring in the House of Windsor—not in favor of the old King, but in favor of his eldest son William, the son of Diana Spencer (a direct blood descendant of the Stuart monarchs and a distant Tudor), married to Kate Middleton, whose mother, Carole Elizabeth Middleton, comes from the famous Jewish billionaire Goldsmith family. To be clear: sooner than later power is moving from Elizabeth II via Charles III to William, the Prince of Wales. The struggle of the Spencers against the Windsors (the German Saxe-Coburg and Gothas, the Glücksburgs, and the Battenbergs) is a war between old and new princes, about how Britain will carry out its 'biblical alliances' during the current change of eras. 
  
Reference:
 
  
» History in the making! «
Born in 1966, Daniel Estulin is a Soviet-Lithuanian-born Russian expatriate, PhD in Political and Social Economy (UAM, Spain), and self-identified former KGB agent. He has published 14 books, including "Los secretos del club Bilderberg" (2006) and "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" (2009), with sales exceeding 7 million copies in 68 countries. In 2010, after Fidel Castro praised and quoted his work in public, the two met in Havana for high-profile meetings. On Castro's recommendation, Estulin served for years as an intelligence and military consultant to the Venezuelan Chavista elite, advising figures like Rafael Ramírez and Delcy Rodríguez. Now based in Cancún, he analyzes global affairs via estulin.media and his YouTube and Telegram channels.

Friday, January 16, 2026

"Russia Will Nuke Germany & UK if Ukraine War Persists" | Sergey Karaganov

"We are fighting Europe once again—the continent that has consistently been the source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity, including, of course, world wars, racism, and colonialism." Sergey Karaganov’s perspective on Europe and its relationship with Russia is defined by his belief in the urgent necessity of a definitive civilizational break from the West.
 
 » The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «
 Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz coordinating their seizure of Russian assets, December 8, 2025.

He views the current conflict between the US-EU-NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a historical repetition, noting that "Europe has been several times invading us" and that "last time was in 1941–1945 when Western European countries came here under the banners of Hitler [Operation Barbarossa]." Karaganov asserts that "unbelievably after all their defeats they haven't learned the lesson" and "they are still pushing for a big war."
 
He warns that Europe’s "strategic parasitism" and "loss of the fear of God and nuclear war" make them "dangerous idiots that are pumping up hatred towards Russia like mad. Even in Hitler's Germany, the level of anti-Russian propaganda was maybe weaker than what is happening in Europe now." He argues that "they do not understand anything but physical pain," suggesting that Russia will be forced to "punish them severely" with "waves of nuclear strikes" should they continue fueling the war in Ukraine and threatening to directly attack Russia.
 
How far are we from Russia using nuclear weapons against Europe? "Two years, maybe one year. I've been calling on my government to escalate earlier. But President Putin is very religious and cautious." Karaganov specifies that "my choice would be Britain and Germany" and "Germany should be nuked first because it is the source of the worst in European history."
  
»
Germany should be nuked first because it is the worst. «
Sergey Karaganov, January 14, 2026.
 
"I beg the Almighty that won't happen. I have a lot of friends in Europe, but I have no contact with them because they are banned by their elites from talking to us. These elites are preparing them for war, though they cannot comprehend that if a real big war is unleashed, there will be nobody in Europe left to talk to. I pray that we won’t have to make this decision."
 
Regarding the decline of European elites, Karaganov argues that under its current leadership, Europe "became anti-European and even anti-human." He characterizes these leaders as "complete failures on all counts—moral, political, economic," and bluntly asserts that "Europe is going down." He further contends that "never in the history of Europe have we had such a low level of intellectual capacities in the leadership of most European countries," noting that while this applies to "not all but almost" every nation, the overall decline is undeniable.

» Micron keeps peddling this pathetic bullshit. This is what you’ll get. «
 
European elites "understand that their Golden Age is finished and they are desperate," primarily because they realized "they cannot live on others' money nor on the cushion of US protection any longer." Ultimately, he suggests that "everybody in the world now laughs at Europe," observing that a continent which "used to be one of the core centers of world power" has now been reduced to "a joke."
 
On the relationship between Russia and Europe, Karaganov believes "our European journey which Peter the Great started is over" and "it should have been over 150 years ago." He expresses a sense of liberation from Western influence, saying, "we are not European, thanks God" and "we are returning back to where we belong—to become the Eurasian nation... We have done away with "comprador" elites and thrown away the "fifth column." We are returning to our Russian soul. The only problem is that we have to pay for it with the lives of our best men. But other than that, Western sanctions have been a blessing. Russia, when threatened, is again a nation of warriors."
 
 
See also:
Sergey Karaganov is a Russian political scientist, Professor Emeritus, and Supervisor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics. A long-standing personal friend and advisor to President Vladimir Putin—and formerly Boris Yeltsin—he is the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. Architect of the "Karaganov Doctrine" and Russia’s Eurasian pivot, he advocates for an assertive foreign policy, interaction with the non-Western World Majority that has no binding relationships with the US and the organizations it patronizes, as well as for a radical civilizational break from the West.

Friday, December 19, 2025

Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia | Dmitry Seleznyov

As cynical and crude as it may sound, a US war with Venezuela would benefit Russia. Venezuela could become America's "Ukraine," diverting US attention and resources away from our own conflict in Ukraine. The United States risks getting bogged down in a war it starts—especially if it launches a ground operation. In that case, Venezuela could turn into a second Vietnam for the US. Either way, South American countries would likely rally in solidarity to support it, uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." 
 

It won't be possible to tear the country apart with impunity; there won't be an easy walkover, and the US could face unacceptable losses. On the international stage, Russia and China would provide support—both politically and through hybrid means. On one hand, we'd be whispering sweet nothings to those 
Witkoffs or whoever's in charge in that administration, while on the other, quietly fueling Maduro's fire. Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? Of course, we'd offer help with the constraint that we're still tied down in Ukraine, but we'd do what we can.  
 
» Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? «
 
If things in Venezuela escalate to a hot phase and body bags start flowing back to Trump's "Great America," the MAGA electorate won't like it. Trump was elected to do the opposite. Fighting a war in Venezuela isn't just getting involved for Israel's sake or bombing Iran on the other side of the world—this one's right in America's backyard, with short supply lines. Not to mention that Trump would permanently lose his carefully cultivated image as a "peacemaker," the one he wants to be remembered for in history. A war in Venezuela would brand him forever as the man who tied a bloody ribbon of a second Vietnam around America's neck. Does Trump want that? Doubtful.
 
But Trump is pushing hard—he always plays the bluff game. Recently, Mr. Twitter declared a no-fly zone, and just the other day, he went even further with a full blockade. In effect, that's already a declaration of war. Will Maduro escalate? Sure, a direct conflict could end in different ways, but if Trump has already sentenced the Venezuelan president, what does he have to lose? Escalation often leads to de-escalation. Remember how young Kim Jong-un told Trump to get lost on surrendering nuclear weapons—and nothing happened; he ended up as a "good guy."
 
But for now, our friend Maduro is acting unconvincingly. Chanting "peace, peace, peace" won't stop an inevitable war. "You're only guilty of making me hungry," as the fable goes—red-haired Donnie's intentions are clear. So why wait? Look at the "barefoot" Houthis—they drove off American ships from clustering near their coast. And they're still standing strong

Or what—surrender?

 
Caracas, December 18, 2025: Venezuelan naval forces have begun escorting non-sanctioned oil tankers carrying petroleum derivatives, reportedly destined for China, in direct response to US President Donald Trump's December 16 announcement of a "total and complete blockade" targeting sanctioned vessels entering or leaving Venezuela. The escalation follows the US seizure on December 10 of the tanker Skipper, carrying approximately 1.9 million barrels of Venezuelan crude, which Trump indicated the US would retain. 
 

Venezuela has condemned these actions as aggression, requesting an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting to address perceived violations of international law. Domestically, PDVSA workers staged protests across multiple states in defense of national sovereignty, while Vice President Delcy Rodríguez reaffirmed the uninterrupted operation of the hydrocarbons sector. Amid the tensions, President Nicolás Maduro reported that Venezuela achieved 9 percent GDP growth in 2025 despite sanctions, with projections of at least 7 percent for 2026.

Monday, December 8, 2025

Preventing Empire Collapse | Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou

The new 33-page US National Security Strategy, strongly shaped by Elbridge Colby and personally prefaced by President Trump, represents a partial yet still incomplete departure from three decades of neoconservative pursuit of hegemony. Officially released on December 4, it explicitly renounces any further quest for global domination, acknowledges that post-1991 globalism hollowed out American industry while delivering few benefits to ordinary citizens, and ultimately weakened the United States itself. It faults an over-reliance on allies and proxies that Washington could not fully control—pointedly implying Israel and European-driven adventures in Ukraine—for repeatedly pulling America into conflicts that did not serve its core interests.
 
» The unipolar era is over. «
» The unipolar era is over. « 
 
In place of hegemony, the document calls for aggressive domestic reindustrialization, technological supremacy, and a return to traditional spheres-of-influence politics. It resurrects an explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, insisting that no external great power may have any presence whatsoever in the Western Hemisphere and that the United States must maintain absolute predominance there. At the same time, it insists that America must remain the world’s foremost military and economic power and must permanently prevent any rival from ever attaining the degree of primacy the United States itself enjoyed in recent decades.

» Extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the EU. «
»
 
Extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the EU. «
 
China continues to be treated as the sole peer competitor capable of achieving parity or even supremacy; opposition to Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland remains a clear priority, revealing no substantive softening despite changed rhetoric. Russia, by contrast, is now a power with which the United States must seek accommodation and continental stability. The document is extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the European Union, accusing Brussels of delusional thinking on Russia and Ukraine, economic self-destruction, creeping authoritarianism, and the erosion of European civilization itself. Stabilizing Europe, it argues, requires ending the Ukraine war in partnership with the continent’s other great power—Russia.
 
The new operating model abandons the image of America as a "weary Titan" bearing the world’s burdens alone. Instead, Washington will concentrate on its own hemispheric backyard while outsourcing or franchising security responsibilities elsewhere: Europe is expected to provide for its own defense, Asia will be handled by regional proxies, Africa reduced to transactional resource partnerships, and the Middle East treated as a complicated but no longer central theater. These partners will still answer to the United States and pay their dues, yet day-to-day management becomes their problem.

Historically, this precise pattern—admitting overextension, rejecting free-trade globalism, demanding allied burden-sharing while assuming continued overall control, and invoking the "weary Titan" metaphor—appeared during the terminal phases of both the British Empire under Joseph Chamberlain in the 1890s–1900s and the Spanish Empire under Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares in the 17th century. In both cases the reforms were offered as salvation but in reality signaled irreversible imperial decline.

» Explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. «
» Explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. «
 
The strategy is riddled with contradictions. While calling for stabilization with Russia, Pentagon sources simultaneously press Europe to be combat-ready against Moscow by 2027; Europeans counter that 2030 is more realistic, and Viktor Orbán openly states that the official EU position is preparation for war with Russia by that later date. The unspoken American ultimatum to Europe is therefore: achieve full military self-sufficiency on Washington’s timeline or the United States will negotiate directly with Moscow over Europe’s head and end the Ukraine conflict on Russia’s terms. Given Europe’s incapacity to meet that deadline, the second path becomes the default—yet powerful entrenched forces in Washington, Brussels, and the broader transatlantic apparatus remain committed to perpetual confrontation with Russia and containment of Russia.

» Franchising security responsibilities elsewhere. « Joseph-Noel Sylvestre "The Plunder of Rome"
»
 
Franchising security responsibilities elsewhere. «
 
The document is ultimately a fragile compromise between a small restraint-oriented faction and the far larger interventionist bureaucracy. History suggests the bureaucracy will prevail, just as it defeated Chamberlain and Olivares. Moscow and Beijing instantly recognize the contradiction of a United States that urges its vassals to keep fighting while posing as the reasonable party seeking stability; they will not be deceived. Russia, in particular, reads the American declaration that peace in Ukraine and stabilized relations with Moscow are now core US interests as confirmation that time is on its side, that it can stand firm on all demands, and that Washington will eventually concede because it is the United States, not Russia, that now needs the war to end.

Thus, while the 2025 National Security Strategy marks the intellectual arrival of restraint-oriented thinking inside parts of the American national-security establishment and constitutes an official admission that the unipolar era is over, its internal contradictions and the entrenched power of the old order make it unlikely to survive in anything like its present form. Like its British and Spanish predecessors, it may ultimately be remembered less as the blueprint for managed retrenchment than as one of the first formal acknowledgments that American hegemony has irrevocably ended.
 
Reference: