Ukrainians are heading to Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast and «Ukrainian Week». Then, in February, the Munich Security Conference with the theme «Peace through dialogue». After the breakthrough speeches of world leaders in Davos and disagreements over security threats, Greenland — Ukraine remains on the agenda, but without a Western strategy for ending the war. Not only at summits and forums, but also in US documents, there is no understanding of the importance of the defeat of the Russian Federation.
While attention was focused on Davos, the US State Department released a strategic plan through to 2030. An organic continuation of the National Security Strategy published at the end of 2025. A document signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that turns allies into clients, international law into an obstacle, and Ukraine into a technical problem on the path to something more important – the normalisation of relations with Russia.
The State Department document deserves a detailed analysis. Not because it defines Washington’s policy for years to come – administrations change, documents are rewritten. But because it openly articulates an ideology that is replacing the liberal international order. An ideology in which the word «civilisation» becomes a tool for dividing the world, in which international institutions are declared enemies of sovereignty, and assistance is transformed into commercial contracts.
The strategy is built around six goals.
The first – national sovereignty through border control and mass remigration.
The second – the Donroe Doctrine, absolute hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.
The third – the Indo-Pacific region as an arena of confrontation with China.
The fourth – a civilisational alliance with Europe, but on the terms of European self-financing.
Fifth – economic and technological dominance through reindustrialisation.
Sixth – targeted aid, redistributed from Europe to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. Promoting trade, but not aid.
Ukraine does not fit into any of these goals as a priority.
Although Ukraine is mentioned three times in the 22-page document. The first time: «We will strive to end the Russian-Ukrainian war and direct diplomatic resources towards preventing new conflicts in Europe». The second time: «China’s support for Russia and its invasion of Ukraine directly undermines security in Europe». The third time: «It is time for European nations to wake up. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that Europe continues to face serious security threats and must remilitarise». That’s it. Not a word about victory. Not a word about territorial integrity. No specific commitments. No long-term guarantees. No questions of justice for aggression, which should be defined as genocide.
Instead, there is more context about Russia. «While strengthening NATO’s deterrence in Europe, we will maintain dialogue with Russia, seek the normalization of diplomatic operations, and pursue strategic stability. As conditions allow, we will negotiate arms control for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons». The document refers to Russia as a «geopolitical rival”: «Nor will the United States shy away from competition with China or other geopolitical adversaries. While we do not seek unnecessary conflict, we will zealously guard our interests – political, security, economic, and otherwise – against encroachment by China, Russia, Iran and other geopolitical rivals». So Russia is a rival, but at the same time a partner for negotiations on strategic stability. The wording is transparent. Ukraine is getting in the way of something more important: negotiations with Moscow on the division of spheres of influence, where the big powers agree among themselves and decide the fate of the small ones without their participation.
«The desire for completion» does not mean victory. It means closing the issue quickly. Territorial issues, international law, justice – these are details. The main thing is to move on to the next task. In the document, this is called «avoiding new conflicts».
Ideology instead of rules
The State Department strategy uses the term «civilizational alliance». Not military. Not economic. Civilizational. This is the key to understanding the new American strategy. The West is not as a community of democracies with universal values. The West is a civilisation against the rest of the world. Once, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about the clash of civilisations after the Cold War as a conservative realist describing a threat, not as an ideologue promoting it. The State Department document turns analysis into a programme of action.
«The original sin of globalism is that it denied American exceptionalism». This phrase in the foreword, signed by Rubio, reveals a great deal. The religious terminology is not accidental. Rubio is a devout Catholic, he draws a cross on Ash Wednesday. Messianism and Christian ethics, but in a different incarnation. The «Crusades» of the 1990s–2000s to spread democracy in the Middle East led nowhere. Now, instead of democracy – a civilisational alliance. The foreword formulates the ideological base: globalism as a sin against American exceptionalism, international institutions as a constraint on sovereignty, multilateral diplomacy as weakness. Therefore, all this must be rejected not because of ineffectiveness, but because of fundamental wrongness.
Criticism of European elites goes further. «Submitting to the uncontrolled supranational regulatory bureaucracy of the European Union, the continent has deindustrialised, failed to innovate, and fallen into economic stagnation. European elites began to espouse increasingly radical concepts of globalism and panhumanism, which led them to reject the fundamental principles of Western civilisation: Western faith and values, national sovereignty, free speech, and free markets.» Vice President J.D. Vance at the 2025 Munich Security Conference said the same thing — Europe is weak, dependent, and unable to defend itself. The State Department document codifies these guidelines.
The explanation is simple: the EU is not an equal partner or ally. The European elites look like traitors to civilisation. Everything Brussels has done over the past 30 years has been a mistake or a crime. This is an ideological war declared on allies. It is not economic competition or geopolitical rivalry. It is a war of values.
The document openly attacks international organisations. «We will push back on the UN’s 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which advance a program of soft global governance inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans». The UN Sustainable Development Goals are declared a threat. Not ineffective, not impractical. A threat to sovereignty.
«The Department will no longer fund or support international organizations or conventions that act contrary to America’s interests or that erode our sovereignty». Further, specifically: «The Department will lead efforts to wind down costly and ineffective peacekeeping and special political missions around the world». The United States is withdrawing from global governance. Instead, it is proposing its own alternative – Trump’s Peace Council, attempting to seat Ukraine and Russia at the same table. The victim and the rapist. The price of the ticket is one billion US dollars. Cynicism packaged as a new security architecture.
Migration policy is formulated in the same terms. «EU principles regarding the free movement of people were weaponized to flood Europe with waves of non-assimilated foreign migrants, diluting the bonds of culture, community, and history that sustained historic polities». «Mass migration is a threat to national cohesion, social stability, and civilizational values».
The document further states. «The Department will work with allies and partners to renegotiate the international consensus on asylum to enshrine common-sense principles and reassert the primacy of national sovereignty in decisions on migration». Not amendments to the Geneva Convention on Refugees. A revision of the very foundation of international humanitarian law. «Primacy of national sovereignty» means the right to deny asylum under any circumstances. The 1951 Convention, adopted after the Second World War to prevent a repetition of catastrophe, is now an obstacle to be removed.
The strategy goes on to discuss a review of migration policy. Visa applicants will undergo not only security checks but also ideological tests for «hostility toward culture.» «We will reinvigorate and expand the application of the «public charge” ineligibility to ensure visa holders do not become burdens to American society.» Class discrimination built into migration policy.
The Donroe Doctrine is central to the strategy. It is not simply an update of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It is a radical expansion of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. «The Donroe Doctrine extends this principle to clean up uncontrolled economic and migration interference and drugs, and to eradicate the malign influence of states outside the Western Hemisphere, transnational criminal organizations, and regional rogue actors.» «The projection of foreign power in the Western Hemisphere will again be considered a hostile act against the United States.»
More specifically. Any Chinese, Russian, or European military presence is a hostile act. «Regional rogue actors» — Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua. «Eradicate» — not contain, not constrain. Eradicate. The document adds: «We will not hesitate to use force when necessary and appropriate.”
The operation against Nicolás Maduro on 3 January 2026 became the first illustration of the doctrine in action. Delta Force Special Operations abduct the head of state, deliver him to the United States, and establish a temporary administration in Venezuela. No UN sanctions, no international courts, no consequences. Only a demonstration of force and a message to the rest of the region. Who is next? Rubio’s small homeland, Cuba? Nicaragua with Chinese investments? Any left-wing government in South America that does not recognise American hegemony?
Greenland fits into the same logic. It is an island in the Western Hemisphere. Denmark is a country in the other hemisphere, a foreign power. If the Donroe doctrine means that «projection of foreign power» is a hostile act, why should Denmark control territory within the American sphere of influence? Trump talked about buying it. The document creates an ideological justification for scenarios that seemed absurd just a year ago.
The document frames this as a fight against drug cartels. «Transnational criminal organisations» as a threat that justifies the use of force. But the line between combating cartels and changing undesirable regimes is deliberately blurred. If a regime «cooperates» with cartels, it becomes a legitimate target. And which Latin American government can prove that it does not “cooperate»?
This is not isolationism. It is an expansionist doctrine packaged in rhetoric about fighting threats. Monroe said: Europe does not interfere in America, America does not interfere in Europe. Donroe says: The Western Hemisphere is under absolute American control, the rest of the world is on its own.
This is no longer a security policy. It is a cultural war exported to the level of state strategy. And most interestingly, it is not only directed outward. The document contains a section on foreign interference through NGOs. «We will carefully monitor attempts by foreign states to influence the US internally. This includes lobbying and litigation; the activities of NGOs, including think tanks, cultural centers, and educational institutions; and media manipulation. In some cases, these activities have fueled or contributed to civil unrest in American cities.»
A law on foreign agents? Seen this somewhere before… What does this mean in the long term? The administration gains an instrument to pressure any NGOs, think tanks, or media under the pretext of «foreign influence». Protests against government policy can be written off as «civil unrest» inspired from outside. This is not a basis for cancelling elections or formal usurpation – the American system has too many safeguards. But it is a mechanism for narrowing the space for criticism, for labelling the opposition as «agents of influence», for legitimising pressure on independent institutions under the cover of national security.
Numbers and structural changes
USAID has been completely eliminated. Not reformed, not restructured. Eliminated. An organization with 27,000 employees, projects in over a hundred countries, and a budget of over $50 billion. An organization that existed for 63 years. Destroyed by a single sentence in a strategic document.
The accusation is harsh. «USAID began to consider the global humanitarian community, rather than the American nation or people, as its primary audience.» This is the language of cultural cleansing. Wrong audience. Wrong loyalty. «Betrayal» of national interests for the sake of globalist illusions.
The redistribution of resources is specific. «In 2024, USAID spent only 10-15% of its budget on the Western Hemisphere and the Asia-Pacific region combined. Accordingly, the State Department aims to spend at least 40% on these regions in 2026.» It was 85-90% for the rest of the world, including Ukraine. It will be 60%. The Indo-Pacific region is the second major target after the Western Hemisphere. Ukraine may receive 5-10% of the previous level. Possibly less.
«Trade, not aid» is the key mantra of the document. «Developing nations want help fostering self-reliant growth, not assistance programs designed to create reliance on multilateral institutions and global non-profits». Next – what to do: «We will diversify our implementing partner set away from the non-profit and international organization sectors and towards the American business community.»
The money will not go to humanitarian projects, but to contracts with American companies. From aid to export credits. From NGOs to corporations. This is not a strategy. This is the privatization of foreign policy. Ukraine is not a partner in this logic. Ukraine is a market for American weapons, technology, and energy. «In exchange, we will ensure that only reliable partners have access to these technologies.» In exchange. Transactional logic instead of strategic partnership.
Europe is being given an ultimatum. «Without demonstrable progress, the American people cannot continue to care more about the security of far-off nations than the citizens of those nations do themselves. We will push strongly for adherence to The Hague commitment; nations that continue to freeride will forfeit the benefits of friendship with the United States».
The Hague Summit commitments – 5% of GDP on defence. NATO countries currently spend around 2%. The idea of 5% is supported by many – the Nordics and the Baltics above all, because of the threat from Russia. The ultimatum is clear. Americans think their military-industrial complex will profit from this. The truth may be more painful – Europeans are drawing conclusions and will invest in themselves, in their own defence industries. And in Ukraine. Additional tens of billions of euros annually for each major economy.
«To lose the benefits of friendship» — the wording is deliberately vague. An end to military assistance? Refusal of Article 5 guarantees? Economic sanctions? The document does not specify. Uncertainty is used as a tool of pressure. But friendship that can be lost for non-payment has another name. It is called racketeering…
Technology export control creates new boundaries. «The Department will take leadership of efforts to promote the export and control of the American AI tech stack to trusted partners, such as Israel or others across the globe». The stack is a complete set of technologies, from hardware to software. «As one of our greatest competitive advantages, AI is a key industry that other countries want and need; in exchange, we will ensure that only trusted partners enjoy these technologies, and that untrusted foreign technology does not proliferate at the risk of our security or influence».
Israel is named first and only specifically. Ukraine is not named among the «trusted partners.» «In exchange» — again, transactional logic. Technology as a commodity sold for loyalty. The creation of technological blocs: allies against adversaries. You are either inside the American ecosystem or outside it.
Who stands behind this ideology? Marco Rubio signed the document as Secretary of State. The son of Cuban refugees, a former hawkish senator, now the executor of someone else’s will. But Rubio is the executor, not the architect. The 2024 American elections cost record sums. The Republican campaign received hundreds of millions from Silicon Valley tech billionaires. This is one factor, though not the only one.
Their ideology is based on three principles. The first is that everything is measured in numbers. If effectiveness cannot be measured in quarters, it does not matter. International law, historical justice, and the trust of allies are indicators that do not appear in quarterly reports. The second is that old systems are inherently ineffective. Pax Americana has existed for 80 years and is clearly an outdated system. A new paradigm is needed. Predictability, trust, and stability are wasted resources. The third is that the world is a zero-sum game. If Europe enjoys American security without paying in full, the US loses. Cooperation looks like weakness.
The problem with this technocratic logic is that geopolitics operates according to different rules. Countries cannot declare bankruptcy. Wars cannot be rolled back like a failed release. In startups, failure means losing money. In geopolitics, it means millions of deaths.
The ideology of the State Department strategy also has deeper roots – right-wing populism, cultural conservatism, economic nationalism. But technological money adds a specific tint. When American strategy sounds like an Orban speech, something has gone fatally wrong.
The end of transatlanticism
Let’s be honest, for the vast majority of NATO members, one thing holds them together – the American guarantee of Article 5. Without it, all that remains is a bureaucratic structure with headquarters in Brussels, meetings, communications, and procedures. The State Department document makes this guarantee conditional. Pay 5% of GDP – get protection. If you don’t pay, you «lose the benefits of friendship.»
Transatlanticism meant something fundamental: America guarantees Europe’s security regardless of short-term costs, because it serves the long-term interests of the United States. A stable Europe, a prosperous Europe, a democratic Europe — that is America’s strategic interest, which justifies the costs.
The document rejects this logic. «Transfer primary responsibility for conventional European defense to allies». Each country has a separate account. Each agreement must be profitable on a quarterly basis. Long-term interests are not taken into account because they cannot be measured in the short term.
When NATO becomes a club with membership fees instead of a mutual defense alliance, it ceases to be NATO. What remains is a form without content. Europeans are still pretending that everything is as it was before. They talk about strengthening the eastern flank, increasing spending, and joint defense. In reality, they are preparing for a world without American guarantees. They just don’t dare to say it out loud yet.
Greenland illustrates the new logic. Trump threatens allies (although he «toned down» the bellicose rhetoric in Davos). But he speaks confidently about purchase or annexation. As if it were the end of the 19th century. And the document creates a doctrinal justification — threats from one NATO country to another. The American president conspicuously and consistently covers everything with the threat from China and Russia. But here is the paradox: when U.S. NATO allies announce an operation to dispel Trump’s doubts and strengthen Arctic security, Trump responds with tariffs against those allies. And he mocks them, publishing their private messages. What is this if not the final killing of trust? And Denmark is just an accidental victim, proving by example that friendship can be lost even if you pay 5% of GDP. Simply because the predator was hungry, and the «chunk of ice» is in the Western Hemisphere.
«The projection of foreign power in the Western Hemisphere will once again be treated as a hostile act towards the United States». The logic is ironclad. If the projection of foreign power in the Western Hemisphere is a hostile act for the US, then why is the projection of foreign power in Eastern Europe not a hostile act for Russia? The document does not say this explicitly, but the implication is obvious. The Monroe Doctrine for the US. The sphere of influence doctrine for Russia. And remember Putin’s justification for the war in Ukraine – NATO expansion is a threat. So now every major power has its own region. It’s fair. It’s realistic. It’s a stability under new rules.
At the same Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said what Europeans are afraid to acknowledge aloud. The international order is dead. The old world will not return. Middle powers must build coalitions, or they will find themselves not at the negotiating table, but on the menu. Carney is pragmatic, without illusions. Canada is diversifying quickly – signing agreements with China, and Macron also called on the Chinese to increase investments in Europe. The tactic, given American behaviour, is understandable. But there is a problem. When balancing relations with Trump – a mental autocrat, but a president of democracy with safeguards – at the expense of China, a concentration camp state, a communist dystopia where people think only in terms of long-term strategy, something is wrong with this clock. Such diversification will inevitably come at a price that will undermine national interests in less than a generation.
There is another problem for Canada, purely geographical — they are part of the Western Hemisphere. Trump draws maps where Canada is part of the United States. A large territory, rich resources, two oceans — that’s good. But when your neighbor considers you to be within its sphere of influence, diversification with China will not save you. How does this work for a country that borders an aggressor? How does this work for a continent where Russian tanks can reach in a matter of days (and Vilnius and Tallinn in just a few hours)?
Coalitions are good for trade, energy, technology. But when an army comes, you don’t need a coalition with variable geometry. An ally that is prepared to fight is needed. NATO was supposed to be that ally. The State Department document says openly: no longer.
What should Ukraine do?
The State Department strategy signals the end of illusions. Illusions that America will stand «as long as it takes.» Illusions that the West will never abandon. Illusions that justice will prevail. The document states plainly: justice is not on the agenda. «Stability» is on the agenda. Stability through division into spheres of influence, where Ukraine is an obstacle on the path to something more important.
The old recipes have been exhausted. Appeals to Europe, working with Congress, domestic industry – all good, all said hundreds of times before. We need to think differently.
The first. Acknowledge that the document is not an anomaly. It is an ideology supported by millions of Americans. Whether it will win in the 2028 elections is a separate question. But right now it is in power. So we have no choice but to create facts on the ground – military successes, technological breakthroughs, achievements that make reversal impossible, even when politics changes.
The second. Radically change the narrative (and we are already halfway there). Europe still perceives Ukraine as a victim in need of charity. Not everyone – the countries of Northern Europe have long since stopped doing so. But in general, yes, charity is tiring for the fourth year in a row. Instead, Ukraine should be seen as an investment in Europe’s own security with the highest return. Every euro spent here saves ten on its own defense. Every 50,000 Russians killed per month, along with their equipment, as well as destroyed fighter jets on enemy territory, will not be weapons against Poland, Lithuania, or Germany. Every month of war here is a month of preparation there. Europeans must pay out of fear for their own future. The current chaos in the region opens a short window of opportunity for the aggressor to take active measures in the Baltic theater. There will be no better time for Russia to test NATO and make sure that it is dead.
The third. Use the American withdrawal as an opportunity, not only a threat. The United States is stepping back from Europe. A vacuum is being created, and someone has to fill it. Do not wait for Germany or France to mature into leadership. Offer ourselves as the backbone of a new European security architecture. Ukraine has what Europe does not. Experience of modern warfare. An army under fire. A military industry under bombardment. Knowledge of how to fight Russia and win. Sell this experience not as a plea, but as expertise that people pay for.
The fourth. Accelerate events instead of waiting. Europe is slow by nature. Consensus, procedures, coordination. While they are deciding, Russia is acting. Create situations that force Europe to decide quickly. Events that change the balance and force an immediate response. Set an example of the right response and direction of development.
The fifth. Do not wait for victory to be defined from outside. Define it ourselves. The West is afraid of the word «victory» because it entails obligations. Fewer than 10 countries in the world have recognised the aggression as genocide. The West speaks of a «fair peace» (fair for whom?), a «sustainable ceasefire», «security guarantees». Vague formulations that mean a postponed defeat wrapped in pretty packaging. Ukraine must define victory itself. Specifically, publicly, without room for interpretation. Once and forever. All occupied territories liberated, sovereignty restored. Russia, as a threat factor, erased from the map, disintegrated. Enslaved indigenous peoples freed from its grip. The issue of nuclear weapons remains, but the empire must collapse. Ukraine in NATO – and if NATO no longer exists, it forms a new alliance in Europe. Where we are first among equals. First – because our experience was earned in blood.
Another epitaph instead of conclusions
The Munich Agreement of 1938 was also considered a great deal. Chamberlain returned with a piece of paper signed by Hitler. He proclaimed peace for our time. A year later, the Second World War began not because Hitler deceived anyone, but because the logic of concessions leads mechanically to escalation. When great powers reach agreements over the heads of smaller ones, the smaller ones resist. Resistance leads to suppression. Suppression leads to conflict that no one can control anymore.
Rubio’s foreword to the State Department strategy ends with words about the president as a deal-maker. «At his core, President Trump is a deal-maker, and like any great deal-maker, his agenda is defined by realism».
Well, this is the epitaph of Pax Americana. Written by people who sincerely do not understand that they are burying a system which, despite all its flaws, prevented world wars for 80 years.
This is transactional nationalism in its purest form. All relationships are business deals. All allies are clients. The key question, very familiar to Ukrainian corrupt individuals, is: what’s in it for me? When this becomes the basis of a superpower’s foreign policy, the consequences are unpredictable.
When a technology company changes an industry, there are mechanisms for compensation: courts, the state, social systems. When you change the world order, there is no insurance. States cannot declare bankruptcy and restart. Wars cannot be rolled back. When everything falls apart, there is no backup.
Those who are changing things now sincerely believe they are right. They see inefficiency and want to optimize. They see bureaucracy and want to simplify. They fail to understand one thing. Geopolitical systems have their own logic. A complexity that does not submit to linear thinking. Munich in 1938 was an attempt to optimise. To give Hitler the Sudetenland, save lives, secure peace. A year later, a war began with tens of millions of victims.
