Russia has welcomed the new National Security Strategy unveiled by the administration of President Donald Trump. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the changes in U.S. policy are “largely aligned with our vision.” The document, published on Thursday, marks a sharp departure from earlier U.S. strategies. It does not identify Russia as a direct threat to national security, instead emphasizing the need to restore “strategic stability with Russia” and describing an end to the war in Ukraine as a “key” interest of the United States. This stands in clear contrast to the 2022 strategy adopted under the Biden administration, which explicitly labeled Russia an aggressor and mentioned it no fewer than 71 times.
Rather than prioritizing cooperation through international organizations, the new strategy places the “American interest” at its core, calling for a review of alliance commitments and a selective approach to perceived threats—including those linked to Russia. In the document, Europe, rather than Moscow, is portrayed as the primary political and civilizational challenge. It calls for “supporting opposition” to the current course of European integration and for shifting the “primary responsibility” for defense onto the EU itself. For the Kremlin, this framing offers an opportunity to exploit rifts between the United States and Europe and to argue that the real problem is not Russia’s aggressive behavior, but rather Europe’s “overzealous” integration and what Moscow derides as the “ideology of Brussels.”
The shift away from open confrontation toward “strategic stability” with Moscow—while downplaying the security concerns of countries closest to Russia—reinforces the Kremlin’s long-standing narrative of a “dialogue among equals” between great powers. In practice, this means negotiations conducted over the heads of smaller allies, marginalizing their interests and security fears.
The strategy’s sharp criticism of the European Union as a project allegedly undermining national sovereignty closely mirrors Russian propaganda narratives. In Kremlin messaging, the EU is often depicted as an instrument of “liberal ideology” hostile to traditional nation-states. Trump’s strategy, along with statements from figures in his political orbit, explicitly encourages strengthening “opposition to the current direction of Europe’s development.” This gives momentum to political forces within the EU that for years have benefited from sympathetic coverage in Russian media, financial support, and networks of influence. From Moscow’s perspective, the weaker, more divided, and more internally focused the EU is, the easier it becomes for Russia to pursue its goals in Ukraine, the Balkans, and the countries of the Eastern Partnership.
The document has also triggered a sharp reaction from European officials, who view its rhetoric with growing concern. Europe is portrayed as a continent threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to migration and is described as potentially becoming “unrecognizable within 20 years or less.” The United States also calls for “cultivating opposition to the current trajectory” in European countries and praises the rising influence of “patriotic European parties”—language that many commentators interpret as a thinly veiled reference to far-right movements. Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt described the document’s language as reminiscent of the rhetoric of “the strange minds in the Kremlin.”
A central pillar of Trump’s approach is the consistent questioning of NATO’s relevance and the conditioning of U.S. security commitments on European defense spending. Public statements suggesting that the United States might not honor Article 5 for allies deemed to be “not paying enough,” along with earlier characterizations of NATO as “obsolete,” significantly undermine the credibility of Western deterrence.
From Russia’s standpoint, this is an exceptionally favorable development. For years, the Kremlin has sought to erode confidence in the automatic nature of U.S. security guarantees, particularly for countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The idea that allied solidarity is conditional fits perfectly with Russia’s concept of a security “gray zone” between NATO and Russia—an area vulnerable to political pressure, probing actions, and operations below the threshold of open conflict.
Taken together, Trump’s National Security Strategy and the accompanying political signals advance Russia’s strategic interests: they weaken transatlantic ties, undermine European Union cohesion, and relativize the perception of the Russian threat in the U.S. debate. While there is no conclusive evidence of formal, operational cooperation between the White House and the Kremlin, the convergence of objectives—the dismantling of the liberal international order, a return to politics centered on nation-states, and the marginalization of the EU—is so pronounced that it amounts to a de facto alignment of interests. For the European Union, this reality necessitates a fundamental reassessment of its own security strategy at a time when the United States, under Trump, is no longer an unconditional guarantor of stability but, alongside Russia, has become a factor contributing to the erosion of the existing order.
The release of the strategy coincided with three days of talks in Florida between representatives of the United States and Ukraine. The discussions centered on a peace proposal aimed at ending the nearly four-year war, which had thus far produced no breakthrough. Both sides described the talks as constructive and pledged to continue dialogue. On Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet in London with the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, and Germany to assess the state of negotiations.
These planned discussions will take place against the backdrop of continued Russian drone and missile strikes targeting Ukraine’s energy and rail infrastructure. The growing intensity of the attacks underscores that, despite ongoing diplomatic efforts, the military situation remains highly volatile. For European leaders, the new U.S. strategy adds another layer of complexity—affecting not only the continent’s sense of security, but also the unity of the West in the face of an ongoing war.
