He did what good commanders do, he provided his intent, and I know that for sure, then his NSA staff wrote it and shared with key people in Defense and State, then they briefed on it to make sure his intent was met, and it was.
It is easy to rip him, but look at what he has on his plate. If I had Stephen Miller writing this, and they trust each other, I would just need an EXSUM. Trump is doing more to straighten out this country and any other President, he is extremely busy. I read it, is a great document focused on the Constitution as written, not on globalism.
Trump is the most corrupt President in our history. Every word out of his mouth is a lie and every action a distraction or a crime. Nothing his administration does can be trusted on face value. He has descended into dementia and let the animals run the zoo.
As a lifelong patriot who's seen the erosion of American sovereignty firsthand—from factory floors shuttered in the Rust Belt to endless wars draining our blood and treasure—I'm sick and tired of these baseless smears against President Trump. You listen too much to the leftist MSM and entertainment industry.
The comment calling him "the most corrupt President in our history," a serial liar whose every action is a "distraction or crime," and a dementia-riddled figurehead letting "animals run the zoo" is nothing but hysterical projection from the globalist elite who’ve spent decades selling out our nation.
Trump isn't the villain here; he's the disruptor who exposed their game. Let's dismantle this nonsense point by point with cold, hard facts, then stack it up against the real architects of America's decline: the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. They didn't just look the other way as Cultural Marxism wormed into our institutions, a uniparty "global order" flooded our borders with unchecked third-world migration, shipped our industrial base overseas, and dragged us into perpetual wars—they actively accelerated it. Trump fought back. They surrendered.
1. Corruption? Trump's Record Stands Tall Against the Swamp Kings
The accuser's blanket claim of Trump as history's most corrupt ignores the mountain of evidence that his predecessors Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden built empires on cronyism, pay-to-play schemes, and outright treasonous deals.
Trump's "corruption" largely boils down to relentless witch hunts: two impeachments over policy disputes, endless Russia hoaxes funded by the Clintons, and Big Tech-fueled lawfare. No president's been more investigated—Mueller, Durham, January 6 committees—and what came of it? Zilch on criminality at the top. Contrast that with the real rot:
Sources confirm: GOP admins like Bush's racked up far more indictments than Dems. Trump's not perfect—no man is—but he divested from businesses, donated salary, and faced more scrutiny than all of them combined. The real corruption? A uniparty that let the "global order" (think Davos elites) loot America while they cashed checks.
2. Lies and Distractions? Every President Fibs—But Trump's Actions Delivered Results
Sure, fact-checkers tallied 30,573 "false or misleading claims" from Trump over four years—about 21 a day, often bombastic hype or off-the-cuff spins. Politically incorrect truth:
That's showmanship, not deceit, and it pales against the lethal whoppers from prior admins that cost lives and trillions. Bush's "slam-dunk" WMD intel? Led to 4,500+ U.S. deaths in Iraq. Obama's "keep your doctor" pledge? A bald-faced lie that blew up Obamacare.
Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations"? Perjury that impeached him.
Trump's "lies" were mostly rhetorical flair—e.g., crowd sizes or trade wins—but his distractions? They were masterstrokes:
Space Force, Abraham Accords, no new wars. Meanwhile, his accusers peddled Russiagate fiction for years, distracting from real threats like China's IP theft.
3. Dementia and "Animals Running the Zoo"? Vicious Ageism Against a Sharp Operator
This is the lowest blow: Smearing a 79-year-old fighter as demented because he won't bow to the establishment.
Fact-checks in 2025 confirm no diagnosis—Trump aced the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with a perfect 30/30 in April, scoring "excellent health" per White House docs. He calls it a "very hard IQ test" (it's a quick dementia screen, not IQ, but passing it shuts down the narrative).
Critics nitpick "symptoms" like tangential speech? That's Trump's style—energetic, unfiltered. Experts agree: No public evidence of dementia; full neuropsych eval needed, which he's passed repeatedly. Compare to Biden's visible decline (stumbles, gaffes) or Clinton's post-presidency fog—Trump's sharper at rallies than ever, negotiating deals that eluded "fit" predecessors. The "animals" jibe? Projection. Trump's team delivered record-low unemployment (3.5% pre-COVID), energy independence, and border security. Whose zoo ran wild? Obama's, with IRS scandals and unchecked migration.
4. The Real Betrayal: How Clinton, Bush, and Obama Surrendered to Cultural Marxism, Globalism, and Endless Wars
Trump didn't "let animals run the zoo"—he caged the beast. His predecessors? They opened the gates, promoting a toxic brew of Cultural Marxism (Frankfurt School-inspired cultural subversion via identity politics, per Heritage analysis), third-world mass migration, offshoring our jobs, and war-mongering for the "global order." Here's the scorecard:
Cultural Marxism's Creep: This isn't conspiracy—it's the Left's long march through institutions, from 1960s campus radicals to today's DEI mandates. Clinton's era saw PC explode (e.g., speech codes); Bush's "compassionate conservatism" greenlit faith-based dilutions; Obama's admin pushed CRT roots via education grants and Title IX overhauls, embedding "victim-group" hierarchies that echo Marcuse's playbook. Trump? Banned critical race training in feds, defended free speech—first pushback in decades.
Mass Immigration from Third-World Nations: They flooded us while preaching "diversity." Clinton's 1996 laws ramped deportations but expanded H-1Bs for cheap labor; Bush's guest-worker push and post-9/11 amnesties let 12M+ in; Obama's DACA shielded 800K+ and oversaw record border encounters (1M+ yearly). Combined: 25M+ removals/returns, but net influx from Latin America/Africa strained welfare, wages. Trump? Built 450 miles of wall, ended catch-and-release—illegal crossings plummeted 90%.
Offshoring Our Industrial Might: Globalists gutted the heartland. Under Clinton/NAFTA: 700K manufacturing jobs lost; Bush/China PNTR: 3.7M more gone; Obama? Plateaued losses but no reversal—200K+ vanished. Trump? Tariffs brought back 12K factories, added 400K jobs pre-COVID—first net gain in decades.
Embroiled in Every War Possible: The uniparty's forever wars.
Clinton: Balkans (78 days bombing), Somalia/Haiti interventions.
Obama: Libya regime change (chaos ensued), Syria drone wars, Yemen/Somalia expansions—8 years of unbroken conflict, first prez to do so.
Trump? Zero new wars—first in modern history. Brokered Middle East peace, crushed ISIS without boots on ground.
In sum, Trump's not the corrupt dementia patient— he's the antidote to a system that let Cultural Marxism divide us, globalists offshore our future, and neocons entangle us in quagmires. His accusers? Defenders of the status quo that hollowed out America. We've had enough. Time to Make America Great Again—for real, under Trump. God bless him and our fighting spirit.
That is the most ignorant post I have perhaps read in all my time reading posts. He has sold the Office of the President to the highest bidder while lining his and his family members pockets, and has bended his knee to Vladimir Putin and along with it sacrificed our sovereignty. We fought an undeclared Cold War against the USSR and he has abandoned the ideals of democracy we fought for. Any National Security Policy has to be viewed in that light.
"I read it, is a great document focused on the Constitution as written, not on globalism". Yes, and Trump gets far too little credit for his respect, dedication, and belief in the Constitution.
Over the past four days I have read and dissected every line of the Trump’s administration’s 33-page National Security Strategy released in November 2025. What follows is my unfiltered assessment, judged strictly against the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the proven principles of Maneuver Warfare, and measured against the corrosive influence of Cultural Marxism on our culture, fighting power and the continuing evolution of the Generations of Modern War.
For more than thirty years I have championed Maneuver Warfare and Mission Command: doctrines that defeat enemies by outthinking and outmaneuvering them through decentralized initiative, tempo, and trust. Just as the Constitution distributes power while retaining accountability, these philosophies push decision-making downward, demanding that leaders at every level exercise bold judgment in pursuit of the commander’s intent—fully responsible for their actions, yet free to act, and obliged to empower those they lead.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
My study of the generations of war—from the bloody attrition of second-generation warfare, through the maneuverist brilliance of the third, to the information-saturated chaos of the fourth—has confirmed one enduring truth: victory goes not to rigid, top-down bureaucracies, but to adaptive, merit-driven forces that empower initiative, exploit enemy weakness, and are guided by clear commander’s intent rather than micromanagement.
And lurking beneath it all is the corrosive threat of Cultural Marxism, that insidious ideology of division and control, which seeks to dismantle Western traditions, meritocracy, and national identity under the guise of “equity” and “global harmony.”
It is with profound vindication that I analyze the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), released on November 25, 2025, under President Trump’s unyielding leadership. This document is not merely a policy blueprint; it is a clarion call to apply Constitutional principles—America First, Peace Through Strength, and unapologetic sovereignty—to the full spectrum of national defense. We must focus our energies inward, on the U.S. homeland and the strategic areas around it (such as Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America). In short: Take care of Americans first.
Far from the meandering “laundry lists” of post-Cold War delusions that bloated our military with endless interventions and hollowed out our industrial heartland, this NSS embodies the very essence of maneuverist thinking: focused, flexible, and ferociously competent. It rejects the globalist traps that previous administrations fell into, those “hugely misguided and destructive bets on globalism and so-called ‘free trade’” that enriched elites while betraying American workers.
In its place, it forges a strategy that aligns seamlessly with Maneuver Warfare’s emphasis on speed, surprise, and decentralized execution, while directly countering the Cultural Marxist rot that has infiltrated our institutions.
The Constitutional Core: Pillars of Strength and Sovereignty
At its heart, the 2025 NSS is a masterstroke of strategic economy, distilling America’s vital interests into a laser-focused framework that echoes the OODA Loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—of maneuver warfare pioneer John Boyd. No longer do we squander resources on vague “rules-based orders” peddled by transnational bureaucrats; instead, we prioritize “essential interests” like border security, economic resilience, and a lethal military deterrent.
I think, (and I could be wrong) that the vast majority of U.S. military intervention in Latin America was a brief correction and a comparatively swift exit (e.g. Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Colombia). I can't think of a five or 20 year Iraq, or Afghan or Viet Nam engagement in the Western Hemisphere. How long were the Rough Riders in Cuba? GITMO and PR are special cases, the US Finished and operated the Panama Canal. What am I missing?
Cuba: In1899, Leonard Wood, a US Army general, held supreme power in Cuba. It was occupied by the US from 1898 to 1902 under Wood as its military governor, and again from 1906 to 1909, in 1912, and from 1917 to 1922.
Dominican Republic: Occupied by the US from 1916 to 1924.
Haiti: Occupied by the US from 1915 to 1934.
Nicaragua: Was occupied by the US almost continuously from 1912 to 1933. The United States occupation of Nicaragua from August 4, 1912, to January 2, 1933, was part of the Banana Wars, when the U.S. military invaded various Latin American countries from 1898 to 1934.
More recently, U.S. support in Nicaragua for the Contras primarily occurred from late 1981 via the CIA, escalating into the mid-1980s to overthrow the Sandinista government, but faced significant congressional bans (Boland Amendments) from 1984 through 1986, leading to the secret diversion of funds from Iranian arms sales, which became the Iran-Contra Affair, with support eventually winding down but continuing in various forms until the early 1990s.
Great job of summarizing this new NSS. Thank you for doing so. Had to provide summaries to my bosses for a couple of decades, and in that time, it always struck me how the NSS never actually grappled with the issue of CHOOSING or even PRIORITYZING what we needed to do. This document does that, and as you note it has provided loud lowing from gored oxen and shattered rice bowls on the floor. Europe's "commitment" to greater defense spending is likely a NATO (No Action Talk Only) with the exception of Poland and Finland...perhaps a few others. Threat equals Capability times Intent. Sinking narco boats indicates a credible threat. FWIW
Because you must not speak what can't be spoken. There's a reason Dick Cheney was Bush's VP, he was the architect of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. We warned everybody back then what it would lead to and lo and behold, here we are.
I retired at the end of the Cold War with not so much a Mission Accomplished feeling as a feeling of "I'm done...and we all can have a brighter future". Not finding a way to get along with Russia was a terrible lost opportunity.
Some people think it's always 1933; some 1963; others 1991. They refuse to accept it's 2025, and that's why their response to this document is hysteria.
And, for what's worth, the initial Japan take on NSS:
U.S. Security Strategy: “strengthening capabilities to prevent Taiwan’s seizure”; U.S. demands Japan increase defense spending
Nikkei Shimbun
December 5, 2025
The U.S. government released its new National Security Strategy (NSS) outlining plans to strengthen U.S. and allied capabilities to prevent any attempt to forcibly seize Taiwan, while formally defining the First Island Chain including Japan’s southwest islands as an essential defensive line. NSS makes clear that the U.S. alone cannot defend the region and therefore calls for Japan and other allies to substantially increase defense spending, explicitly noting stronger burden-sharing demands toward Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. The NSS also warns of China’s maritime expansion, pledges to stop unfair trade practices, IP theft, and fentanyl exports. The report underscores the Indo-Pacific as the primary geopolitical and economic arena, stressing cooperation with India and the importance of the Quad. NSS places the priority on the Western Hemisphere, seeks to block Chinese and Russian influence in the region, and outlines plans to shift U.S. forces from comparatively lower-priority regions.
and......
U.S. Secretary of War demands Japan raise defense spending to 5% of GDP within several years
Nikkei Shimbun
December 7, 2025
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth urged allies, including Japan, to adopt a defense-spending target of 5% of GDP, which aligns with NATO’s benchmark combining 3.5% in defense spending and 1.5% in infrastructure. Hegseth emphasized that allies not meeting their obligations would face consequences. He also praised South Korea who decided to increase their defense spending to 3.5% and stated that other “wealthy” partners in the Indo-Pacific, such as Japan and Australia, to follow the example which could rebuild deployable forces and revitalize defense industries. Hegseth also framed the NATO and Korean targets as a new global standard set by POTUS Trump. Hegseth warned of China’s rapid military buildup in the Indo-Pacific, stressing the need for strong allied posture to maintain balance. He called for sustained force projection across the First Island Chain and the region, ensuring powerful deterrence that China would not contemplate aggression. His remarks precede the forthcoming NDS and align with the newly released NSS, which already called on Japan to significantly increase its defense budget.
I reviewed it CDR Salamander, and loved it. I see all the RINOs and Democrats I know going nuts, and they even asked me what I thought, so I will be done by tomorrow with my analysis and post on Substack, https://donvandergriff.substack.com/publish/post/180887738
On the note of revitalizing our Military, and specifically our Navy and Marine Corps, the NSS is music to this dumb old 0302’s ears. This sets up well for the MAGTF and Navy that can support the MAGTF at all three levels, MEU/MEB/MEF, but if used judiciously the likelihood that any conflict goes to the MEF level seems very unlikely. The exception being the IndoPacific, but there the fight if it came to that, would be so big the Corps itself would just one leg of the 5 legged stool. Hair on fire from Spiro Agnew’s natter nabobs of the left or right or in between’s is an anticipated outcome and doubtful any of the critics have bothered to read the whole document. Looking forward to your post tomorrow!
Good Morning CDR … today, Monday 0900 EST we agree on the first part of this post! I’ll read the rest after I meet with my Legal advisor at Anne Arundel Community College.
Anyone believing 5% is the Magic Sticker Number for European Western, Caribbean, South American, African or Indo-Pacific Sovereign Nations contributory part to American Protection better come off their H. Pipe now.
Examples are Ellen D., Portia, Jarad K. and Barron T. with their immediate family (s), taking the “High Ground”!
Is the NSS really the Gateway to Assisted Living for those older than 55-60 years old?
Hold onto your seats because January 2026 is when reality will meld with the American brain. Is healthcare affordable? What do I do to survive with a “Quality Lifestyle”? Definitions and examples, please.
It’s not playing tourist anywhere!
Ask RFK Junior about Global Health Care. How are Americans in the lower 48 protected? Very respectfully, Nurse Jane
Hey, remember that time Putin asked to join NATO and he was given the back of the hand while George Bush expressed his desire for Ukraine to join?
It's all the Russophobes that have quietly destroyed our country with their forever wishlist of never ending weapons to play with all in order to "deter Russia." Don't look now, but Trillion$ of dollars later, Russia has defeated NATO.
Well done, Commander. Your analysis, as always, is comprehensive. Now, we need to see if the US actually intends to implement this strategy, rather than letting it gather dust on a shelf at the Pentagon. Hope it’s the former.
Thanks very much for the insightful analysis. I especially appreciated your thoughts on US—European relations. What we are witnessing today in some European countries seems to be the type of civilizational demoralization that led to the collapse of France in 1940. William L. Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic, which is on my short list of best WWII books, describes these factors from his firsthand observations as a CBS news correspondent. There were many contributing factors (weak and divided leaders, political instability, economic stagnation, declining birth rate, severe demographic losses from WWI and a military command structure populated by elderly and cautious senior officers who were resistant to innovation) that contributed to an internal atmosphere of fatigue, disunity, and diminished national spirit. When initial battlefield setbacks occurred at the hands of the Germany in the Spring of 1940, France just threw in the towel and surrendered despite having military forces that were at least the equal of the Wehrmacht.
That book has not come across my radar screen. From my brief research on “The Blitzkrieg Legend,” it sounds like the author, Karl-Heinz Frieser, focuses on the operational details much more than Shirer does. Both Shirer and Frieser appear to make the same point about tank power—France had more (~3,000 compared to Germany’s ~2,400) and French tanks were better powered and more heavily armored. (The superior Panzer IIIs and IVs were few in number at the time.)
The subject of France’s military collapse in 1940 is a deep and fascinating subject. I have put Frieser’s book on my book bucket list. Thanks!
Great summary and analysis. My first take is that the adults in the room wrote this with nary a reference to the usual deadwood topics including diversity, DEI, gender, jointness, climate change, etc.
First, it seems clear that this was written in such a way to appeal to the vanity of the President. Maybe that's necessary to get him to buy in, but I would prefer to see more focus on our national security and less on stroking his ego.
It also reflects some of the incoherence that defines the current administration. A document that has to use "so called" any time it references free trade is not making a strong case for itself or for American values. It claims that it wants "to ensure that U.S. technology and U.S. standards—particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing—drive the world forward." But it also wants to oppose "globalism" and lock America into a 1950's view of industrial policy. Those two are mutually exclusive.
Finally, the line about NATO not becoming an "ever expanding" alliance sounds like exactly what Russia has been hoping to hear. A better answer there would be that NATO will expand as much as is necessary to counter Russian ambitions for as long as those ambitions are counter to American interests.
I also struggled with some of the internal contradictions. Opposing regional hegemony abroad while reviving the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere opens this up to hypocrisy charges.
That being said, I believe that a strong national security policy is going to be hypocritical by nature, but reducing it to writing like this is unnecessary.
Documents like this will always be open to the charge of hypocrisy, because our position (and every country's position TBH) will always be "It's okay when we do it, but not okay for anyone else." The defense against that hypocrisy charge is that we're correct when we say it.
The difference being we don't demand the EU and NATO assist us in policing our hemisphere or pass the hat or tie their national armies to our problems.
Like all such documents the "incoherence" is the result of multiple actors in the Pentagon providing their input and advancing their own agendas. And apparently there was not a strong enough principal author to iron out any inconsistencies. This suggests that the various constituencies in the Pentagon are no longer scared of Hegseth or Trump, if they ever were.
And what's wrong with giving Russia what it wanted to hear? The whole current war in Europe started essentially because Russia numerous times warned that it feels threatened by major military alliance creeping toward its borders, and West dismissed those concerns without even trying to took Russian fears into consideration?
Dilandu said: "And what's wrong with giving Russia what it wanted to hear? The whole current war in Europe started essentially because Russia numerous times warned that it feels threatened by major military alliance creeping toward its borders, and West dismissed those concerns without even trying to took Russian fears into consideration?"
-----------------------------------
Mr. Dilandu, my inner Major Kong tells me that by asking the following three questions, I am going toe to toe with the cyber Russkies. But here are the questions anyway ....
Question #1: As a Russian, do you hold the view that Russia no longer has designs on western Europe in the same way that it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union? Does the Russia of 2025 still pose an acute military threat to France, to Germany, and to the UK as it did in the forty years prior to 1991?
Question #2: Ardent Russian nationalists accuse Vladimir Putin and his Russian oligarch allies of working with western globalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union to steal Russia's wealth. As a Russian, do you share this view?
Question #3: These same ardent Russian nationalists say that because of Putin's past history of cooperation with western globalist interests in stealing Russia's wealth, he and his Russian oligarch allies are not pursuing a quick victory in the Russia-Ukraine war, waiting instead for the emergence of a peace deal which favors the west and which is inimical to Russia's long term economic and security interests. As a Russian, do you share this view?
Billy, let's hear what the Russkie has to say about it -- if he is willing to address the topic of why Putin and his team continue with the war in spite of the significant casualties his side of the conflict has suffered, and will suffer if the war continues.
Because they see NATO expansion eastward as an existential threat and have the will and resources to deal with it. When EU officials like Kaja Kallas state that Russia must be broken up to make it more manageable, the Russians take the threat to their sovereignty seriously.
1. Russia didn't have any "designs" on Western Europe since 1945. The most ambitious of the post-war Soviet "designs" were "maybe we could somehow persuade West to have unified neutral demilitarized Germany between us". Soviet leadership was too deeply traumatized by World War 2 - its enormous losses, its destruction - to seriously consider any "designs". Even Stalin's post-war plans were strictly defensive, and circulated around the idea "what would we do if those treacherous capitalists would suddenly attack us"
2. What "ardent Russian nationalists" are you talking about? The views your are implying are from extremely small - basically, fringe - minority of Russian nationalist movement, very close to conspiracy theorists and flat earthers. I.e. there might be a bunch of buffoons who really believe in such, but I'm not aware of them being anything more than laughable minority.
3. Answered above. If those views are even real, they are from very tiny groups of conspiracy theorists. The majority of Russian nationalist movement did not hold such views.
Russia feared a toothless NATO in 2022 that had expanded on paper only, with little ability to fight on the new front line.
Russia (in their Soviet garb) feared NATO along the Elbe River in the Cold War.
Face it, if Russia held the line at Hadrian's Wall the Russians would still fear invasion by the West. Paranoia cannot be eased with any amount of a buffer.
Russia really needs to control their paranoia about the West that couldn't care less about invading Russia; and pivot to the east where Russia holds huge tracts of land on the Pacific that Russia took from China during the Century of Humiliation.
Will have to disagree with you. The demonstrations of lack of aggressive intent after winning the Cold War were numerous.
NATO "expanded" not in the way the Soviet empire expanded, but by former Soviet vassals understanding they needed protection.
NATO disarmed dramatically after the Cold War. Even American spending declined, if less dramatically than Europeans or Canada.
America withdrew two Army corps and much of the Air Force and almost all the Navy from Europe. The once-mighty 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean became a phantom fleet of a command ship and any ships transiting between the East Coast and CENTCOM. 2nd Fleet for the Atlantic was disbanded. Indeed, at one point America had zero tanks in Europe.
No NATO troops from Cold War members were deployed east until after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
NATO lacked any infrastructure in the new NATO states required to actually fight there. A problem NATO is still trying to correct.
NATO lacked even war plans to fight the Russians. A shortcoming NATO is only now beginning to correct.
NATO states in Europe had to be dragged into spending more on defense after 2014; and still resist actually staffing bigger military forces.
And today when you see reports on how many troops NATO can send east in the first 30 or 90 days of mobilization, the fact that the vast majority are naval and air force strength is not advertised. What troops could invade Russia?
I just don't think it is possible to calm Russian fears. Moscow has simply revived post-World War I Germany's "stabbed in the back" propaganda to weaponize their "Russophobia" BS.
We can only convince the Russian that Europe is too hard a target and that it would be better to side with America to deter China from taking over their Far East and supplanting Russian influence in Central Asia.
1. NATO started to expand again in 1999 - by including Poland, Hungary and Czech. The largest expansion happened in 2004. What kind of "protection" those nations might need then?
2. And despite this disarmament, NATO now have much greater superiority over Russia than it was during Cold War. Especially in the types of armament Russia considered most threatening - stealth aircraft and strategic cruise missiles.
3. As 1991, 1999 and 2003 demonstrated, US have absolutely zero problems with amassing powers whenever they wanted, so it wasn't exactly very reassuring.
4. Yes, but administrative structures for such deployment (Multinational Corps Northeast, for example) were created already by late 1990s. While no significant troop deployiment (outside exercises) took place till 2014, it was kinda obvious, that NATO could do it at basically any time it wanted.
5. The major problem is, that it's air and naval forces that Russia view as most threatening to itself. Since basically 1980s, the constant fear for Soviet, then Russian leadership was a combination of decapitating and disarming strikes, launched by stealth planes from European bases and cruise missiles from sea. The NATO land forces were never viewed as singificantly threatening; it was air and naval forces that were always our concern.
Basically, from the Russian point of view, how it all looked like? The military alliance, created with SPECIFIC goal to deter and oppose Russia (USSR to be exact, but nobody was sure that other guys got the distinction) was creeping toward Russian borders, admitting more and more of Eastern European nations. Including nations, that weren't exactly nice toward remaining Russian population (Baltic states), and essentially declared Russia their historical enemy. While there were no massive troops deployment, there were administrative structures created to support such deployment. And the whole American and NATO military doctrine increasingly leaned toward exactly what Russia feared the most - massive air and missile strikes, without large-scale land warfare. And then a matter of missile defense systems in Europe rise; Russia was very seriously unhappy with missile defense sites in Poland and Romania, fearing that they might be used either as part of first-strike capability, or as part of missile defense to blunt off Russian retaliation.
The worst was that Russia never get any comprehensive answer for all its fears and concerns. NATO basically declared "you should believe that we aren't against you", and continued to do what it wanted, despite Russia objecting. No serious talks about the matters that worried Russia were ever supported by the West.
Someone is going to have to explain to me like I am a small child, or a Golden Retriever, how ‘Promoting European Greatness’ is anti-European or anti-NATO?
European greatness is in their political/economic unity(as best as they can get it) to stare down Russia. No single or small grouping of European nations will be able to that on their own--hell, it's a very open question if they can do it as post-American unified block. The way I read it, at least, is that the admin has some vision of a return to pre-WW2 framework--a bunch of individual nations turned inward(explicit support from admin officials for Germany First, France First crowds)--for reasons only Trump really understands. It helps Russia and that's why top Russian elites have come out in support of this document.
"European greatness" is, as the document states, when each nation retains its own individual character and history, and is not submerged in the stifling and anti-freedom transnational bureaucracy.
That's what they argue and they're wrong. Europe wasn't great under the boot of the Soviets, or any incarnation of the Russian Empire, I can assure you.
The document isn't anti-Europe. It is effectively anti-European Union. The EU is a proto-imperial state eager to strip away the prefix, in my view. America can have friends and allies in Europe. But "Europe" under one ruler cannot be our friend. For over a century America has worked to prevent any single power from controlling the continent and threatening America across the Atlantic. The EU is no kinder and gentler empire.
Yes, to some points. I actually love Sal's comparison to the EU being a quasi version of the Holy Roman Empire. This isn't one ruler though. I think they have more a Confederation of the Rhine thing going on. As to the brutality, still light years better than the savagery this continent has seen over the centuries. I'm not Rah rah the EU itself except in its expression of European unity, and pointed at Russia.
Good point on the HRE comparison. In the short run the EU is certainly far better than Russia. My brief comment failed to make it clear that the "one ruler" referred to Brussels after the EU strips away the "proto" part of their future imperial state. I'd rather the EU was returned to the EEC stage.
My preference as an alternative to an EU with the power to have "strategic autonomy" is for American leadership in a NATO that has revived European capabilities and key American enablers and (in my perfect world) an Army corps with five maneuver brigades as its foundation across Europe, and REFORGER in Poland). I advocated for that posture in part as an insurance policy against a revived Russian threat more than two decades ago in Military Review.
HRE. Not me. All Sal. First time I read it I slapped my head and said, "Oh right! So obvious, now!". I like all your words. They're certainly reasonable and workable. The EEC model was excellent as well. The logic on a more decentralized EU burns brighter in light of Hungary's role as our favorite stick in the mud. Now, if the admin was advocating something like what you're suggesting that would be great but I don't get a sense that's what they have in mind. My impression is that they want a bunch of single nation states acting on their own or in small blocks: Advantage Russia. Just look at what they're doing with some of their historically friendly eastern/central European nations now, never mind if the EU was torn asunder.
I'm certainly not a ground combat guy--I'm catching up; but I would think a fully manned and equipped Army Corps in conjunction with a bunch of my very motivated kinfolk(the Poles), and a bunch of not so motivated western Europeans, in rear echelon support, should give Putin enough of a headache to give him(as Gene Hackman said in Crimson Tide) a moment of pause.
None of this works if the US isn't a credible backstop, however. We are and always will be the secret sauce. For the Europeans, I do think they will get their crap together. Fear will do that. They just need to realize the opportunity, here; that it really is true that the US is flowing out of Europe; that you will no longer have American officials strongly insisting you tailor your armed forced to support our auxiliary roles. The political voices are there; they just need to be brought to the political forefront.
I’ve had 20+ years of not getting that beginnings of a corps. I suspect you are right about it not happening. But at least elements of V Corps in Poland. 🤞
That's the issue for Europe: on their own, the European states are too weak to effectively respond to Russia, much less China or various other potential regional threats.
Can they have a strong military alliance with coordinated diplomacy without also having a quasi-international government like the EU? That seems to be the rub.
Right, the EU, NATO, and other transnational institutions were precisely designed to glue them together and build them to stand up to Russia. Now you want to break that apart? Okkkayyy. I never have a problem with transitioning strategy when needed, but why here? What's the driving imperative besides that nationalist parties beat on immigration more aggressively? I don't buy the false choice of the Russian narrative offers: That the only way you're going to get your immigration vision done is to throw out the thing that makes you strongest against...well, us lol...oh, and we were the driving force behind the mass migrations that started in Syria but that's all coincidence....Comrade.
Yep. And in Denmark, their populist anti-immigration parties combined took 11% of the vote in the last election. Please contrast this with, say, Germany, where AfD got 20% of the vote in the last election, or France, where the National Front got about 30% of the vote in the last election. Super weird, can't imagine why there's such a difference.
Er, VERY BRIGHT boys and girls at CIA are responsible for Syria. Since it now has a Jeffersonian democrat as president, it turns out they had the right idea!
Is it an invasion if they let them in? These are crappy choices they made increasingly based on crappy demographics among some other increasingly less relevant things.
I mean, I think you can IF you also have a ruthless program of assimilation. Obviously you want to import people closer to your baseline culture than further. I think that was our strength for so long. Not only was our own cultural aperture wide enough to mix together people in ways that couldn't be mixed in Europe, but our society brooked no quarter in terms of assimilation.
IMHO, at last ... we are not going to be the 911 for the globalists. We are no longer going to be burdened by a 1948 world view, or Bush the greater's globalist New World Order. A strategy for the USA!
Now that we have it, shed the unnecessary and build the (much smaller) War Dept. to implement it.
At this moment our most critical national security threat is internal to our border. Tulsi is addressing the most critical government insitution parts of it in DC, BUT the activities of the ten thousand plus PRC agents that entered the US in the Biden years is only beginning to be realized. PRC is engaged in war with us. Too few have ever read Unrestricted Warfare. PRC has a plan. They are carrying out the preparations. Ex. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hevJMVQFrYw. Too bad the FBI was so badly abused by OBiden to see it.
Thank you for taking the time to produce this analysis. Well done.
My 2 cents. The 20th Century is over. Yet the entirety of institutions, organizations, intergovernmental policies and individual actors who came of age in that far distant past continue wedded to the post World War 2 policies that birthed the “system” that evolved from that war.
All those policies, organizations and institutions were conceived as a means to aid the war ravaged world to recover. The United State emerged as the least damaged, most advanced player on the world stage and assumed responsibility for leading the world’s recovery.
The world long ago recovered from World War 2. Yet all the paraphernalia left in its wake survives and no one can imagine a world any different.
As a result of 20th Century US foreign and domestic policies, the US Tax Payers are the largest philanthropic entity in history.
It is more than past time to discard the 20th Century system and figure out how to deal with the 21st century system.
The United State is the sole hegemon. And in its self-interest the United State should exploit that advantage to the benefit of all it’s citizens and stop trying to rebuild the world in its image using 20th century institutions, and architecture.
Thank you for this excellent review and analysis!
There’s a big presumption that Donald Trump has even read this document or had any input.
He did what good commanders do, he provided his intent, and I know that for sure, then his NSA staff wrote it and shared with key people in Defense and State, then they briefed on it to make sure his intent was met, and it was.
Right up until it becomes policy in the name of his administration. What good commander signs something out under his name without reading it?
It is easy to rip him, but look at what he has on his plate. If I had Stephen Miller writing this, and they trust each other, I would just need an EXSUM. Trump is doing more to straighten out this country and any other President, he is extremely busy. I read it, is a great document focused on the Constitution as written, not on globalism.
Trump is the most corrupt President in our history. Every word out of his mouth is a lie and every action a distraction or a crime. Nothing his administration does can be trusted on face value. He has descended into dementia and let the animals run the zoo.
This perfectly describes the Biden administration, not the Trump administration.
As a lifelong patriot who's seen the erosion of American sovereignty firsthand—from factory floors shuttered in the Rust Belt to endless wars draining our blood and treasure—I'm sick and tired of these baseless smears against President Trump. You listen too much to the leftist MSM and entertainment industry.
The comment calling him "the most corrupt President in our history," a serial liar whose every action is a "distraction or crime," and a dementia-riddled figurehead letting "animals run the zoo" is nothing but hysterical projection from the globalist elite who’ve spent decades selling out our nation.
Trump isn't the villain here; he's the disruptor who exposed their game. Let's dismantle this nonsense point by point with cold, hard facts, then stack it up against the real architects of America's decline: the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. They didn't just look the other way as Cultural Marxism wormed into our institutions, a uniparty "global order" flooded our borders with unchecked third-world migration, shipped our industrial base overseas, and dragged us into perpetual wars—they actively accelerated it. Trump fought back. They surrendered.
1. Corruption? Trump's Record Stands Tall Against the Swamp Kings
The accuser's blanket claim of Trump as history's most corrupt ignores the mountain of evidence that his predecessors Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden built empires on cronyism, pay-to-play schemes, and outright treasonous deals.
Trump's "corruption" largely boils down to relentless witch hunts: two impeachments over policy disputes, endless Russia hoaxes funded by the Clintons, and Big Tech-fueled lawfare. No president's been more investigated—Mueller, Durham, January 6 committees—and what came of it? Zilch on criminality at the top. Contrast that with the real rot:
Sources confirm: GOP admins like Bush's racked up far more indictments than Dems. Trump's not perfect—no man is—but he divested from businesses, donated salary, and faced more scrutiny than all of them combined. The real corruption? A uniparty that let the "global order" (think Davos elites) loot America while they cashed checks.
2. Lies and Distractions? Every President Fibs—But Trump's Actions Delivered Results
Sure, fact-checkers tallied 30,573 "false or misleading claims" from Trump over four years—about 21 a day, often bombastic hype or off-the-cuff spins. Politically incorrect truth:
That's showmanship, not deceit, and it pales against the lethal whoppers from prior admins that cost lives and trillions. Bush's "slam-dunk" WMD intel? Led to 4,500+ U.S. deaths in Iraq. Obama's "keep your doctor" pledge? A bald-faced lie that blew up Obamacare.
Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations"? Perjury that impeached him.
Trump's "lies" were mostly rhetorical flair—e.g., crowd sizes or trade wins—but his distractions? They were masterstrokes:
Space Force, Abraham Accords, no new wars. Meanwhile, his accusers peddled Russiagate fiction for years, distracting from real threats like China's IP theft.
3. Dementia and "Animals Running the Zoo"? Vicious Ageism Against a Sharp Operator
This is the lowest blow: Smearing a 79-year-old fighter as demented because he won't bow to the establishment.
Fact-checks in 2025 confirm no diagnosis—Trump aced the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with a perfect 30/30 in April, scoring "excellent health" per White House docs. He calls it a "very hard IQ test" (it's a quick dementia screen, not IQ, but passing it shuts down the narrative).
Critics nitpick "symptoms" like tangential speech? That's Trump's style—energetic, unfiltered. Experts agree: No public evidence of dementia; full neuropsych eval needed, which he's passed repeatedly. Compare to Biden's visible decline (stumbles, gaffes) or Clinton's post-presidency fog—Trump's sharper at rallies than ever, negotiating deals that eluded "fit" predecessors. The "animals" jibe? Projection. Trump's team delivered record-low unemployment (3.5% pre-COVID), energy independence, and border security. Whose zoo ran wild? Obama's, with IRS scandals and unchecked migration.
4. The Real Betrayal: How Clinton, Bush, and Obama Surrendered to Cultural Marxism, Globalism, and Endless Wars
Trump didn't "let animals run the zoo"—he caged the beast. His predecessors? They opened the gates, promoting a toxic brew of Cultural Marxism (Frankfurt School-inspired cultural subversion via identity politics, per Heritage analysis), third-world mass migration, offshoring our jobs, and war-mongering for the "global order." Here's the scorecard:
Cultural Marxism's Creep: This isn't conspiracy—it's the Left's long march through institutions, from 1960s campus radicals to today's DEI mandates. Clinton's era saw PC explode (e.g., speech codes); Bush's "compassionate conservatism" greenlit faith-based dilutions; Obama's admin pushed CRT roots via education grants and Title IX overhauls, embedding "victim-group" hierarchies that echo Marcuse's playbook. Trump? Banned critical race training in feds, defended free speech—first pushback in decades.
Mass Immigration from Third-World Nations: They flooded us while preaching "diversity." Clinton's 1996 laws ramped deportations but expanded H-1Bs for cheap labor; Bush's guest-worker push and post-9/11 amnesties let 12M+ in; Obama's DACA shielded 800K+ and oversaw record border encounters (1M+ yearly). Combined: 25M+ removals/returns, but net influx from Latin America/Africa strained welfare, wages. Trump? Built 450 miles of wall, ended catch-and-release—illegal crossings plummeted 90%.
Offshoring Our Industrial Might: Globalists gutted the heartland. Under Clinton/NAFTA: 700K manufacturing jobs lost; Bush/China PNTR: 3.7M more gone; Obama? Plateaued losses but no reversal—200K+ vanished. Trump? Tariffs brought back 12K factories, added 400K jobs pre-COVID—first net gain in decades.
Embroiled in Every War Possible: The uniparty's forever wars.
Clinton: Balkans (78 days bombing), Somalia/Haiti interventions.
Bush: Afghanistan (20 years), Iraq invasion (4,500 dead).
Obama: Libya regime change (chaos ensued), Syria drone wars, Yemen/Somalia expansions—8 years of unbroken conflict, first prez to do so.
Trump? Zero new wars—first in modern history. Brokered Middle East peace, crushed ISIS without boots on ground.
In sum, Trump's not the corrupt dementia patient— he's the antidote to a system that let Cultural Marxism divide us, globalists offshore our future, and neocons entangle us in quagmires. His accusers? Defenders of the status quo that hollowed out America. We've had enough. Time to Make America Great Again—for real, under Trump. God bless him and our fighting spirit.
That is the most ignorant post I have perhaps read in all my time reading posts. He has sold the Office of the President to the highest bidder while lining his and his family members pockets, and has bended his knee to Vladimir Putin and along with it sacrificed our sovereignty. We fought an undeclared Cold War against the USSR and he has abandoned the ideals of democracy we fought for. Any National Security Policy has to be viewed in that light.
TDS.
"I read it, is a great document focused on the Constitution as written, not on globalism". Yes, and Trump gets far too little credit for his respect, dedication, and belief in the Constitution.
Over the past four days I have read and dissected every line of the Trump’s administration’s 33-page National Security Strategy released in November 2025. What follows is my unfiltered assessment, judged strictly against the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the proven principles of Maneuver Warfare, and measured against the corrosive influence of Cultural Marxism on our culture, fighting power and the continuing evolution of the Generations of Modern War.
For more than thirty years I have championed Maneuver Warfare and Mission Command: doctrines that defeat enemies by outthinking and outmaneuvering them through decentralized initiative, tempo, and trust. Just as the Constitution distributes power while retaining accountability, these philosophies push decision-making downward, demanding that leaders at every level exercise bold judgment in pursuit of the commander’s intent—fully responsible for their actions, yet free to act, and obliged to empower those they lead.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
My study of the generations of war—from the bloody attrition of second-generation warfare, through the maneuverist brilliance of the third, to the information-saturated chaos of the fourth—has confirmed one enduring truth: victory goes not to rigid, top-down bureaucracies, but to adaptive, merit-driven forces that empower initiative, exploit enemy weakness, and are guided by clear commander’s intent rather than micromanagement.
And lurking beneath it all is the corrosive threat of Cultural Marxism, that insidious ideology of division and control, which seeks to dismantle Western traditions, meritocracy, and national identity under the guise of “equity” and “global harmony.”
It is with profound vindication that I analyze the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), released on November 25, 2025, under President Trump’s unyielding leadership. This document is not merely a policy blueprint; it is a clarion call to apply Constitutional principles—America First, Peace Through Strength, and unapologetic sovereignty—to the full spectrum of national defense. We must focus our energies inward, on the U.S. homeland and the strategic areas around it (such as Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America). In short: Take care of Americans first.
Far from the meandering “laundry lists” of post-Cold War delusions that bloated our military with endless interventions and hollowed out our industrial heartland, this NSS embodies the very essence of maneuverist thinking: focused, flexible, and ferociously competent. It rejects the globalist traps that previous administrations fell into, those “hugely misguided and destructive bets on globalism and so-called ‘free trade’” that enriched elites while betraying American workers.
In its place, it forges a strategy that aligns seamlessly with Maneuver Warfare’s emphasis on speed, surprise, and decentralized execution, while directly countering the Cultural Marxist rot that has infiltrated our institutions.
The Constitutional Core: Pillars of Strength and Sovereignty
At its heart, the 2025 NSS is a masterstroke of strategic economy, distilling America’s vital interests into a laser-focused framework that echoes the OODA Loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—of maneuver warfare pioneer John Boyd. No longer do we squander resources on vague “rules-based orders” peddled by transnational bureaucrats; instead, we prioritize “essential interests” like border security, economic resilience, and a lethal military deterrent.
"Far from the meandering “laundry lists” of post-Cold War delusions that bloated our military with endless interventions..."
Doesn't an expansionist Monroe Doctrine simply change the time and place of endless interventions?
I think, (and I could be wrong) that the vast majority of U.S. military intervention in Latin America was a brief correction and a comparatively swift exit (e.g. Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Colombia). I can't think of a five or 20 year Iraq, or Afghan or Viet Nam engagement in the Western Hemisphere. How long were the Rough Riders in Cuba? GITMO and PR are special cases, the US Finished and operated the Panama Canal. What am I missing?
Cuba: In1899, Leonard Wood, a US Army general, held supreme power in Cuba. It was occupied by the US from 1898 to 1902 under Wood as its military governor, and again from 1906 to 1909, in 1912, and from 1917 to 1922.
Dominican Republic: Occupied by the US from 1916 to 1924.
Haiti: Occupied by the US from 1915 to 1934.
Nicaragua: Was occupied by the US almost continuously from 1912 to 1933. The United States occupation of Nicaragua from August 4, 1912, to January 2, 1933, was part of the Banana Wars, when the U.S. military invaded various Latin American countries from 1898 to 1934.
More recently, U.S. support in Nicaragua for the Contras primarily occurred from late 1981 via the CIA, escalating into the mid-1980s to overthrow the Sandinista government, but faced significant congressional bans (Boland Amendments) from 1984 through 1986, leading to the secret diversion of funds from Iranian arms sales, which became the Iran-Contra Affair, with support eventually winding down but continuing in various forms until the early 1990s.
Is that presumption larger or smaller than the one presuming he didn’t?
You have to first believe he can read.
You’ve got TDS. See a doctor.
Nope, just an obligation to my oath to defend against a domestic enemy to our Constitution. You seem to have violated your oath.
I never served, so no oath there.
But I’m also not retarded.
Let’s call it even.
Could have fooled me. There’s a short bus with your name on it.
Great job of summarizing this new NSS. Thank you for doing so. Had to provide summaries to my bosses for a couple of decades, and in that time, it always struck me how the NSS never actually grappled with the issue of CHOOSING or even PRIORITYZING what we needed to do. This document does that, and as you note it has provided loud lowing from gored oxen and shattered rice bowls on the floor. Europe's "commitment" to greater defense spending is likely a NATO (No Action Talk Only) with the exception of Poland and Finland...perhaps a few others. Threat equals Capability times Intent. Sinking narco boats indicates a credible threat. FWIW
Because you must not speak what can't be spoken. There's a reason Dick Cheney was Bush's VP, he was the architect of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. We warned everybody back then what it would lead to and lo and behold, here we are.
Bill Bradley at the Carnegie Council, 17 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-alxZvUCS8
I retired at the end of the Cold War with not so much a Mission Accomplished feeling as a feeling of "I'm done...and we all can have a brighter future". Not finding a way to get along with Russia was a terrible lost opportunity.
Filthy politicians.
Thanks Sal. Excellent essay and terrific insights.
Some people think it's always 1933; some 1963; others 1991. They refuse to accept it's 2025, and that's why their response to this document is hysteria.
1904. It all begins with John Halford Mackinder,.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
It's why Oceania is always at war with Eurasia.
Theodr Herzl deserves special mention along with Lord Balfour.
"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Winston Churchill
And, for what's worth, the initial Japan take on NSS:
U.S. Security Strategy: “strengthening capabilities to prevent Taiwan’s seizure”; U.S. demands Japan increase defense spending
Nikkei Shimbun
December 5, 2025
The U.S. government released its new National Security Strategy (NSS) outlining plans to strengthen U.S. and allied capabilities to prevent any attempt to forcibly seize Taiwan, while formally defining the First Island Chain including Japan’s southwest islands as an essential defensive line. NSS makes clear that the U.S. alone cannot defend the region and therefore calls for Japan and other allies to substantially increase defense spending, explicitly noting stronger burden-sharing demands toward Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. The NSS also warns of China’s maritime expansion, pledges to stop unfair trade practices, IP theft, and fentanyl exports. The report underscores the Indo-Pacific as the primary geopolitical and economic arena, stressing cooperation with India and the importance of the Quad. NSS places the priority on the Western Hemisphere, seeks to block Chinese and Russian influence in the region, and outlines plans to shift U.S. forces from comparatively lower-priority regions.
and......
U.S. Secretary of War demands Japan raise defense spending to 5% of GDP within several years
Nikkei Shimbun
December 7, 2025
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth urged allies, including Japan, to adopt a defense-spending target of 5% of GDP, which aligns with NATO’s benchmark combining 3.5% in defense spending and 1.5% in infrastructure. Hegseth emphasized that allies not meeting their obligations would face consequences. He also praised South Korea who decided to increase their defense spending to 3.5% and stated that other “wealthy” partners in the Indo-Pacific, such as Japan and Australia, to follow the example which could rebuild deployable forces and revitalize defense industries. Hegseth also framed the NATO and Korean targets as a new global standard set by POTUS Trump. Hegseth warned of China’s rapid military buildup in the Indo-Pacific, stressing the need for strong allied posture to maintain balance. He called for sustained force projection across the First Island Chain and the region, ensuring powerful deterrence that China would not contemplate aggression. His remarks precede the forthcoming NDS and align with the newly released NSS, which already called on Japan to significantly increase its defense budget.
I reviewed it CDR Salamander, and loved it. I see all the RINOs and Democrats I know going nuts, and they even asked me what I thought, so I will be done by tomorrow with my analysis and post on Substack, https://donvandergriff.substack.com/publish/post/180887738
On the note of revitalizing our Military, and specifically our Navy and Marine Corps, the NSS is music to this dumb old 0302’s ears. This sets up well for the MAGTF and Navy that can support the MAGTF at all three levels, MEU/MEB/MEF, but if used judiciously the likelihood that any conflict goes to the MEF level seems very unlikely. The exception being the IndoPacific, but there the fight if it came to that, would be so big the Corps itself would just one leg of the 5 legged stool. Hair on fire from Spiro Agnew’s natter nabobs of the left or right or in between’s is an anticipated outcome and doubtful any of the critics have bothered to read the whole document. Looking forward to your post tomorrow!
Good Morning CDR … today, Monday 0900 EST we agree on the first part of this post! I’ll read the rest after I meet with my Legal advisor at Anne Arundel Community College.
Anyone believing 5% is the Magic Sticker Number for European Western, Caribbean, South American, African or Indo-Pacific Sovereign Nations contributory part to American Protection better come off their H. Pipe now.
Examples are Ellen D., Portia, Jarad K. and Barron T. with their immediate family (s), taking the “High Ground”!
Is the NSS really the Gateway to Assisted Living for those older than 55-60 years old?
Hold onto your seats because January 2026 is when reality will meld with the American brain. Is healthcare affordable? What do I do to survive with a “Quality Lifestyle”? Definitions and examples, please.
It’s not playing tourist anywhere!
Ask RFK Junior about Global Health Care. How are Americans in the lower 48 protected? Very respectfully, Nurse Jane
Hey, remember that time Putin asked to join NATO and he was given the back of the hand while George Bush expressed his desire for Ukraine to join?
It's all the Russophobes that have quietly destroyed our country with their forever wishlist of never ending weapons to play with all in order to "deter Russia." Don't look now, but Trillion$ of dollars later, Russia has defeated NATO.
Not the phrase I would use for the probable outcome of the war in Ukraine. How many NATO soldiers died, exactly?
After vast expenditure of men and resources, Russia has gained a few miles here and there of Ukrainian steppe. Yay! Much victory.
Thanks for your input Ivanbot, now piss off!
Well done, Commander. Your analysis, as always, is comprehensive. Now, we need to see if the US actually intends to implement this strategy, rather than letting it gather dust on a shelf at the Pentagon. Hope it’s the former.
Thanks very much for the insightful analysis. I especially appreciated your thoughts on US—European relations. What we are witnessing today in some European countries seems to be the type of civilizational demoralization that led to the collapse of France in 1940. William L. Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic, which is on my short list of best WWII books, describes these factors from his firsthand observations as a CBS news correspondent. There were many contributing factors (weak and divided leaders, political instability, economic stagnation, declining birth rate, severe demographic losses from WWI and a military command structure populated by elderly and cautious senior officers who were resistant to innovation) that contributed to an internal atmosphere of fatigue, disunity, and diminished national spirit. When initial battlefield setbacks occurred at the hands of the Germany in the Spring of 1940, France just threw in the towel and surrendered despite having military forces that were at least the equal of the Wehrmacht.
Have you read The Blitzkrieg Legend? The fascinating thing is how few Germans (especially Hitler) grasped how effective the invasion plan could be.
That book has not come across my radar screen. From my brief research on “The Blitzkrieg Legend,” it sounds like the author, Karl-Heinz Frieser, focuses on the operational details much more than Shirer does. Both Shirer and Frieser appear to make the same point about tank power—France had more (~3,000 compared to Germany’s ~2,400) and French tanks were better powered and more heavily armored. (The superior Panzer IIIs and IVs were few in number at the time.)
The subject of France’s military collapse in 1940 is a deep and fascinating subject. I have put Frieser’s book on my book bucket list. Thanks!
Great summary and analysis. My first take is that the adults in the room wrote this with nary a reference to the usual deadwood topics including diversity, DEI, gender, jointness, climate change, etc.
A few thoughts:
First, it seems clear that this was written in such a way to appeal to the vanity of the President. Maybe that's necessary to get him to buy in, but I would prefer to see more focus on our national security and less on stroking his ego.
It also reflects some of the incoherence that defines the current administration. A document that has to use "so called" any time it references free trade is not making a strong case for itself or for American values. It claims that it wants "to ensure that U.S. technology and U.S. standards—particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing—drive the world forward." But it also wants to oppose "globalism" and lock America into a 1950's view of industrial policy. Those two are mutually exclusive.
Finally, the line about NATO not becoming an "ever expanding" alliance sounds like exactly what Russia has been hoping to hear. A better answer there would be that NATO will expand as much as is necessary to counter Russian ambitions for as long as those ambitions are counter to American interests.
I also struggled with some of the internal contradictions. Opposing regional hegemony abroad while reviving the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere opens this up to hypocrisy charges.
That being said, I believe that a strong national security policy is going to be hypocritical by nature, but reducing it to writing like this is unnecessary.
Documents like this will always be open to the charge of hypocrisy, because our position (and every country's position TBH) will always be "It's okay when we do it, but not okay for anyone else." The defense against that hypocrisy charge is that we're correct when we say it.
It’s not hypocrisy. It’s power.
The difference being we don't demand the EU and NATO assist us in policing our hemisphere or pass the hat or tie their national armies to our problems.
Because the US leads because we don't want China or Russia to fill the vacuum left in the wake of our retreat from the world...
Like all such documents the "incoherence" is the result of multiple actors in the Pentagon providing their input and advancing their own agendas. And apparently there was not a strong enough principal author to iron out any inconsistencies. This suggests that the various constituencies in the Pentagon are no longer scared of Hegseth or Trump, if they ever were.
The WH wrote this document...
And what's wrong with giving Russia what it wanted to hear? The whole current war in Europe started essentially because Russia numerous times warned that it feels threatened by major military alliance creeping toward its borders, and West dismissed those concerns without even trying to took Russian fears into consideration?
Dilandu said: "And what's wrong with giving Russia what it wanted to hear? The whole current war in Europe started essentially because Russia numerous times warned that it feels threatened by major military alliance creeping toward its borders, and West dismissed those concerns without even trying to took Russian fears into consideration?"
-----------------------------------
Mr. Dilandu, my inner Major Kong tells me that by asking the following three questions, I am going toe to toe with the cyber Russkies. But here are the questions anyway ....
Question #1: As a Russian, do you hold the view that Russia no longer has designs on western Europe in the same way that it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union? Does the Russia of 2025 still pose an acute military threat to France, to Germany, and to the UK as it did in the forty years prior to 1991?
Question #2: Ardent Russian nationalists accuse Vladimir Putin and his Russian oligarch allies of working with western globalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union to steal Russia's wealth. As a Russian, do you share this view?
Question #3: These same ardent Russian nationalists say that because of Putin's past history of cooperation with western globalist interests in stealing Russia's wealth, he and his Russian oligarch allies are not pursuing a quick victory in the Russia-Ukraine war, waiting instead for the emergence of a peace deal which favors the west and which is inimical to Russia's long term economic and security interests. As a Russian, do you share this view?
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
1. Russia has no designs on Western Europe. There's nothing there it needs.
2. "Ardent Russian nationalists" don't know the history.
3. Really, are you serious? National Enquirer readers are better informed.
Billy, let's hear what the Russkie has to say about it -- if he is willing to address the topic of why Putin and his team continue with the war in spite of the significant casualties his side of the conflict has suffered, and will suffer if the war continues.
Because they see NATO expansion eastward as an existential threat and have the will and resources to deal with it. When EU officials like Kaja Kallas state that Russia must be broken up to make it more manageable, the Russians take the threat to their sovereignty seriously.
Oh look its the #1 Kremlinbot on this site, chiming in, right on time....
1. Russia didn't have any "designs" on Western Europe since 1945. The most ambitious of the post-war Soviet "designs" were "maybe we could somehow persuade West to have unified neutral demilitarized Germany between us". Soviet leadership was too deeply traumatized by World War 2 - its enormous losses, its destruction - to seriously consider any "designs". Even Stalin's post-war plans were strictly defensive, and circulated around the idea "what would we do if those treacherous capitalists would suddenly attack us"
2. What "ardent Russian nationalists" are you talking about? The views your are implying are from extremely small - basically, fringe - minority of Russian nationalist movement, very close to conspiracy theorists and flat earthers. I.e. there might be a bunch of buffoons who really believe in such, but I'm not aware of them being anything more than laughable minority.
3. Answered above. If those views are even real, they are from very tiny groups of conspiracy theorists. The majority of Russian nationalist movement did not hold such views.
Russia feared a toothless NATO in 2022 that had expanded on paper only, with little ability to fight on the new front line.
Russia (in their Soviet garb) feared NATO along the Elbe River in the Cold War.
Face it, if Russia held the line at Hadrian's Wall the Russians would still fear invasion by the West. Paranoia cannot be eased with any amount of a buffer.
Russia really needs to control their paranoia about the West that couldn't care less about invading Russia; and pivot to the east where Russia holds huge tracts of land on the Pacific that Russia took from China during the Century of Humiliation.
Maybe, but let's be frank; West did not demonstrate any significant desire to calm Russian fears.
Will have to disagree with you. The demonstrations of lack of aggressive intent after winning the Cold War were numerous.
NATO "expanded" not in the way the Soviet empire expanded, but by former Soviet vassals understanding they needed protection.
NATO disarmed dramatically after the Cold War. Even American spending declined, if less dramatically than Europeans or Canada.
America withdrew two Army corps and much of the Air Force and almost all the Navy from Europe. The once-mighty 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean became a phantom fleet of a command ship and any ships transiting between the East Coast and CENTCOM. 2nd Fleet for the Atlantic was disbanded. Indeed, at one point America had zero tanks in Europe.
No NATO troops from Cold War members were deployed east until after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
NATO lacked any infrastructure in the new NATO states required to actually fight there. A problem NATO is still trying to correct.
NATO lacked even war plans to fight the Russians. A shortcoming NATO is only now beginning to correct.
NATO states in Europe had to be dragged into spending more on defense after 2014; and still resist actually staffing bigger military forces.
And today when you see reports on how many troops NATO can send east in the first 30 or 90 days of mobilization, the fact that the vast majority are naval and air force strength is not advertised. What troops could invade Russia?
I just don't think it is possible to calm Russian fears. Moscow has simply revived post-World War I Germany's "stabbed in the back" propaganda to weaponize their "Russophobia" BS.
We can only convince the Russian that Europe is too hard a target and that it would be better to side with America to deter China from taking over their Far East and supplanting Russian influence in Central Asia.
If we're being frank here.
1. NATO started to expand again in 1999 - by including Poland, Hungary and Czech. The largest expansion happened in 2004. What kind of "protection" those nations might need then?
2. And despite this disarmament, NATO now have much greater superiority over Russia than it was during Cold War. Especially in the types of armament Russia considered most threatening - stealth aircraft and strategic cruise missiles.
3. As 1991, 1999 and 2003 demonstrated, US have absolutely zero problems with amassing powers whenever they wanted, so it wasn't exactly very reassuring.
4. Yes, but administrative structures for such deployment (Multinational Corps Northeast, for example) were created already by late 1990s. While no significant troop deployiment (outside exercises) took place till 2014, it was kinda obvious, that NATO could do it at basically any time it wanted.
5. The major problem is, that it's air and naval forces that Russia view as most threatening to itself. Since basically 1980s, the constant fear for Soviet, then Russian leadership was a combination of decapitating and disarming strikes, launched by stealth planes from European bases and cruise missiles from sea. The NATO land forces were never viewed as singificantly threatening; it was air and naval forces that were always our concern.
Basically, from the Russian point of view, how it all looked like? The military alliance, created with SPECIFIC goal to deter and oppose Russia (USSR to be exact, but nobody was sure that other guys got the distinction) was creeping toward Russian borders, admitting more and more of Eastern European nations. Including nations, that weren't exactly nice toward remaining Russian population (Baltic states), and essentially declared Russia their historical enemy. While there were no massive troops deployment, there were administrative structures created to support such deployment. And the whole American and NATO military doctrine increasingly leaned toward exactly what Russia feared the most - massive air and missile strikes, without large-scale land warfare. And then a matter of missile defense systems in Europe rise; Russia was very seriously unhappy with missile defense sites in Poland and Romania, fearing that they might be used either as part of first-strike capability, or as part of missile defense to blunt off Russian retaliation.
The worst was that Russia never get any comprehensive answer for all its fears and concerns. NATO basically declared "you should believe that we aren't against you", and continued to do what it wanted, despite Russia objecting. No serious talks about the matters that worried Russia were ever supported by the West.
I appreciate your response.
I’m content to leave our arguments as is so others can judge merits.
Someone is going to have to explain to me like I am a small child, or a Golden Retriever, how ‘Promoting European Greatness’ is anti-European or anti-NATO?
European greatness is in their political/economic unity(as best as they can get it) to stare down Russia. No single or small grouping of European nations will be able to that on their own--hell, it's a very open question if they can do it as post-American unified block. The way I read it, at least, is that the admin has some vision of a return to pre-WW2 framework--a bunch of individual nations turned inward(explicit support from admin officials for Germany First, France First crowds)--for reasons only Trump really understands. It helps Russia and that's why top Russian elites have come out in support of this document.
"European greatness" is, as the document states, when each nation retains its own individual character and history, and is not submerged in the stifling and anti-freedom transnational bureaucracy.
That's what they argue and they're wrong. Europe wasn't great under the boot of the Soviets, or any incarnation of the Russian Empire, I can assure you.
Then maybe they shouldn't make a point of making Russia their enemy again and again?
yea, Europe has to quit getting drunk and picking fights with poor nuclear armed Russia that is just minding its business.
It isn’t great under the boot of the EU either.
The document isn't anti-Europe. It is effectively anti-European Union. The EU is a proto-imperial state eager to strip away the prefix, in my view. America can have friends and allies in Europe. But "Europe" under one ruler cannot be our friend. For over a century America has worked to prevent any single power from controlling the continent and threatening America across the Atlantic. The EU is no kinder and gentler empire.
Yes, to some points. I actually love Sal's comparison to the EU being a quasi version of the Holy Roman Empire. This isn't one ruler though. I think they have more a Confederation of the Rhine thing going on. As to the brutality, still light years better than the savagery this continent has seen over the centuries. I'm not Rah rah the EU itself except in its expression of European unity, and pointed at Russia.
Good point on the HRE comparison. In the short run the EU is certainly far better than Russia. My brief comment failed to make it clear that the "one ruler" referred to Brussels after the EU strips away the "proto" part of their future imperial state. I'd rather the EU was returned to the EEC stage.
My preference as an alternative to an EU with the power to have "strategic autonomy" is for American leadership in a NATO that has revived European capabilities and key American enablers and (in my perfect world) an Army corps with five maneuver brigades as its foundation across Europe, and REFORGER in Poland). I advocated for that posture in part as an insurance policy against a revived Russian threat more than two decades ago in Military Review.
HRE. Not me. All Sal. First time I read it I slapped my head and said, "Oh right! So obvious, now!". I like all your words. They're certainly reasonable and workable. The EEC model was excellent as well. The logic on a more decentralized EU burns brighter in light of Hungary's role as our favorite stick in the mud. Now, if the admin was advocating something like what you're suggesting that would be great but I don't get a sense that's what they have in mind. My impression is that they want a bunch of single nation states acting on their own or in small blocks: Advantage Russia. Just look at what they're doing with some of their historically friendly eastern/central European nations now, never mind if the EU was torn asunder.
I'm certainly not a ground combat guy--I'm catching up; but I would think a fully manned and equipped Army Corps in conjunction with a bunch of my very motivated kinfolk(the Poles), and a bunch of not so motivated western Europeans, in rear echelon support, should give Putin enough of a headache to give him(as Gene Hackman said in Crimson Tide) a moment of pause.
None of this works if the US isn't a credible backstop, however. We are and always will be the secret sauce. For the Europeans, I do think they will get their crap together. Fear will do that. They just need to realize the opportunity, here; that it really is true that the US is flowing out of Europe; that you will no longer have American officials strongly insisting you tailor your armed forced to support our auxiliary roles. The political voices are there; they just need to be brought to the political forefront.
Just a former National Guard Signal Corps grunt!
I’ve had 20+ years of not getting that beginnings of a corps. I suspect you are right about it not happening. But at least elements of V Corps in Poland. 🤞
That's the issue for Europe: on their own, the European states are too weak to effectively respond to Russia, much less China or various other potential regional threats.
Can they have a strong military alliance with coordinated diplomacy without also having a quasi-international government like the EU? That seems to be the rub.
Right, the EU, NATO, and other transnational institutions were precisely designed to glue them together and build them to stand up to Russia. Now you want to break that apart? Okkkayyy. I never have a problem with transitioning strategy when needed, but why here? What's the driving imperative besides that nationalist parties beat on immigration more aggressively? I don't buy the false choice of the Russian narrative offers: That the only way you're going to get your immigration vision done is to throw out the thing that makes you strongest against...well, us lol...oh, and we were the driving force behind the mass migrations that started in Syria but that's all coincidence....Comrade.
Denmark is a good example of a country where a non-populist party took a hard stance on immigration. It's possible for others to do that.
Yep. And in Denmark, their populist anti-immigration parties combined took 11% of the vote in the last election. Please contrast this with, say, Germany, where AfD got 20% of the vote in the last election, or France, where the National Front got about 30% of the vote in the last election. Super weird, can't imagine why there's such a difference.
Er, VERY BRIGHT boys and girls at CIA are responsible for Syria. Since it now has a Jeffersonian democrat as president, it turns out they had the right idea!
With only a few exceptions, they also appear too weak to respond to the Islamic invasion they have experienced.
Is it an invasion if they let them in? These are crappy choices they made increasingly based on crappy demographics among some other increasingly less relevant things.
You don't fix crappy demographics with Third World people.
I mean, I think you can IF you also have a ruthless program of assimilation. Obviously you want to import people closer to your baseline culture than further. I think that was our strength for so long. Not only was our own cultural aperture wide enough to mix together people in ways that couldn't be mixed in Europe, but our society brooked no quarter in terms of assimilation.
At best, they become an underclass. The necessary IQ to assimilate into advanced Western Cultures is not there.
Good article! And, sounds like a good strategy for America in 2025.
As you say, some gnashing of teeth here, from the 'we aren't the establishment' establishment types:
https://warontherocks.com/2025/12/ten-jolting-takeaways-from-trumps-new-national-security-strategy/
IMHO, at last ... we are not going to be the 911 for the globalists. We are no longer going to be burdened by a 1948 world view, or Bush the greater's globalist New World Order. A strategy for the USA!
Now that we have it, shed the unnecessary and build the (much smaller) War Dept. to implement it.
At this moment our most critical national security threat is internal to our border. Tulsi is addressing the most critical government insitution parts of it in DC, BUT the activities of the ten thousand plus PRC agents that entered the US in the Biden years is only beginning to be realized. PRC is engaged in war with us. Too few have ever read Unrestricted Warfare. PRC has a plan. They are carrying out the preparations. Ex. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hevJMVQFrYw. Too bad the FBI was so badly abused by OBiden to see it.
Thank you for taking the time to produce this analysis. Well done.
My 2 cents. The 20th Century is over. Yet the entirety of institutions, organizations, intergovernmental policies and individual actors who came of age in that far distant past continue wedded to the post World War 2 policies that birthed the “system” that evolved from that war.
All those policies, organizations and institutions were conceived as a means to aid the war ravaged world to recover. The United State emerged as the least damaged, most advanced player on the world stage and assumed responsibility for leading the world’s recovery.
The world long ago recovered from World War 2. Yet all the paraphernalia left in its wake survives and no one can imagine a world any different.
As a result of 20th Century US foreign and domestic policies, the US Tax Payers are the largest philanthropic entity in history.
It is more than past time to discard the 20th Century system and figure out how to deal with the 21st century system.
The United State is the sole hegemon. And in its self-interest the United State should exploit that advantage to the benefit of all it’s citizens and stop trying to rebuild the world in its image using 20th century institutions, and architecture.
"The United State is the sole hegemon". Nope. Accept reality.
Kremlinbot Billy speaks again...Piss off Vlad!