The world order is being reshuffled, and the United States is the first country to formally acknowledge this reality.

Humiliation of Europe by the United States sparks outrage: "Betrayal". Is Russia no longer the top enemy? Hidden dangers in the words

The world order is being reshuffled, and the United States is the first country to formally acknowledge this reality. Washington's new strategy has allowed it to step back from the role of a "global security guarantor" and return to a position as an opportunist in all international affairs. Europe is left in a state of confusion: it has been labeled a "declining region" and is being asked to pay for its own security. Russia has also drawn conclusions from this shift, trying to turn this change into an opportunity for itself. But if the United States no longer takes on the troubles of other countries, then where should the current countries go? Who can we rely on?

The United States is overburdened

The release of the U.S. new National Security Strategy was not accompanied by a high-profile statement, but its essence completely overturned the global balance of power. Washington finally bid farewell to the role of a "global democratic guardian" and explicitly admitted this in the document.

The United States claims that in the future, its national interests will take precedence over all values, and any investment must yield returns; if this principle conflicts with its global dominance, then such dominance "can be sacrificed." This is the first time in decades that the United States has openly abandoned the role of a "pillar supporting the international order."

Europe has become the biggest victim of this strategic adjustment. The strategy document states that the European continent "is losing cohesion," its population structure and economic strength are both declining, and it is gradually becoming a region unable to protect itself. Political scientist Gleb Kuznetsov emphasized that the new National Security Strategy has, for the first time, listed the demographic composition of allies as a measure of their reliability:

The 2025 National Security Strategy openly questions the future of NATO from a demographic perspective: "In a few decades, the demographic composition of some NATO member states will be primarily non-European ethnic groups." It can be concluded that how these countries view their international positioning and their perspective on the U.S. alliance in the future is unknown.

The United States demands that European countries bear the cost of defense spending themselves, stop the eastward expansion of NATO, and solve their own problems without relying on American assistance. The old promise of "unity" has been replaced by instructions for Europe to "grow up."

Russia is only briefly mentioned in this strategy document. The United States has not listed it as the top opponent, which obviously follows the new principle - "We will not try to reshape the world according to our own will, but rather go with the flow."

The document lists "quickly ending the war in Ukraine" as a priority task, aiming to ease the tension in Europe and restore strategic predictability. The document clearly states: America's core interest lies in achieving a ceasefire before the conflict spirals out of control and affects the European economy. This is the first time in years that Washington has spoken about Russia in a pragmatic and calculating tone.

The real target of this strategy is China. The United States plans to build a new diplomatic and strategic framework around the competition with China. The document even describes China as "an entity mistakenly integrated into the global economic system." Based on this understanding, the United States will focus on technological controls, supply chain security, competition for rare mineral resources, and control over maritime routes. At the same time, the U.S. has made strong statements on "preventing conflicts in the Taiwan Strait," although China has long taken no aggressive actions on this issue except for issuing routine statements.

In short, the United States is restructuring in a "cost-conscious" manner, preparing for a long-term struggle to defend its own interests.

"America, you betrayed us!"

America's new strategy has plunged Europe into extreme panic. The White House directly stated in the document that the European continent is losing stability, facing aging and shrinking populations, and is incapable of standing on its own.

The United States requires European countries to pay for their own defense, abandoning the old model of relying on American security guarantees. The eastward expansion of NATO has also been put on hold. For the EU, this is equivalent to being "excluded from the game."

The U.S. National Security Strategy questions the future of Europe and predicts its decline:

The crisis of civilization in Europe is more severe than mere economic recession. If the current trend continues, the European continent in twenty years will look completely different.

Under these circumstances, the capitals of European countries quickly interpreted the current situation, in short, just one sentence: "America, you betrayed us!"

Europeans believe that Washington is withdrawing from the European geopolitical stage while easing its stance towards Russia. Indeed, the strategy document does not mention the phrase "must strategically defeat Russia," but instead clearly states that America's interest lies in quickly ending the war in Ukraine, eliminating the risks facing Europe, and restoring the predictability of the situation. From the perspective of the EU, this is tantamount to a signal that the U.S. may be showing favoritism toward Russia.

At the same time, the discourse about a "backdoor deal between the U.S. and China" is spreading in Europe. Although Washington claims to contain China, Europeans read another meaning from the document — that the U.S. will bypass Brussels and directly negotiate with China, prioritizing its own interests over those of its allies. As a result, European policy-making has begun to be based on the assumption of "American betrayal."

Naturally, Russia has reacted in the opposite way — a sense of almost joyous expectation is spreading. Political scientist Marat Bashirov even proposed the idea of a "possible military and political cooperation plan between Russia and the U.S." He believes that Washington is ready to reach a major agreement with Moscow:

Umerov has reached a consensus with the U.S. on a security framework and safeguards acceptable to both sides and Ukraine. This is crucial for eliminating the root causes of the war. As for the Europeans, they are just side players... Umerov's negotiations with the U.S. are still ongoing today, meaning that this is the third consecutive day of talks. During the negotiations, Umerov called Kyiv to report the situation and returned to the negotiation table and said that Zelensky did not agree to the relevant proposal. At this point, the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau suddenly opened an investigation against Skorokhod, and we immediately launched a large-scale missile and drone strike on Ukraine... All these things, you still dare to say there is no joint military and political plan between Russia and the U.S.?

Europe believes that the U.S. is turning towards Russia and China; and Russia, already having established cooperative relations with China, is eagerly expecting to bring its former rival, the U.S., into its camp, even having "opened its arms" to welcome it.

But is this really in line with reality?

(Image caption: Presenting the current situation from the perspective of a famous meme.)

Cruel American Self-interest

The core of the U.S. new strategy is neither to form alliances with other countries nor to act as a "peace broker," but to make cold-hearted national self-interest the core principle and conscious guideline of foreign policy. This is like the reality of "you cannot have both fish and bear's paw" — except that the previous slogan was "If you have not yet achieved democracy, we will immediately send troops," and now it has been simplified to a straightforward command: "Pay the bill."

The sudden talk of humanitarianism by the U.S., calling for "a quick end to the Ukraine conflict," is not because Trump had a sudden heart attack and paid attention to the special military operation news, but because the Ukraine issue has no profit for the White House anymore, and has completely lost its value. Over two years, Washington has extracted maximum benefits from this war: strengthening the cohesion of NATO, binding Europe with debts and military obligations, prompting large European companies to move abroad, destroying Germany's industrial energy base, pushing Russia out of the European market, dragging the EU economy down, and reviving the U.S. military-industrial complex.

In short, the U.S. has hit multiple "targets" with just one "pawn" — Ukraine. Now that this pawn has exhausted its utility, it is logical to abandon it. This also explains why the U.S. is now adopting a more moderate tone, expressing "humanitarian concern," talking about the risks of escalation of the conflict, and even smugly thinking, "Don't we deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?"

But this does not mean that the U.S. has turned to pacifism. Its real intention is to transfer the subsequent costs of the Ukraine war to other relevant parties. The U.S. is shifting its strategic focus to the real core of the competition — the competition with China, and a new international order will gradually take shape around this competition.

Certainly, European politicians are greatly promoting the sentiment of tragedy — "Oh my god! These treacherous Americans have turned to certain countries and left us behind!" — which is beneficial for them.

But the U.S. National Security Strategy clearly states in black and white:

President Trump single-handedly overturned the U.S. erroneous perception of certain countries that had persisted for over three decades — that opening the U.S. market, encouraging U.S. companies to invest in these countries, and promoting industrial transfer to these countries would lead to these countries integrating into the so-called 'rules-based international order.' However, this vision has not become a reality.

Integrating these countries into the global economic system was recognized by the U.S. as a strategic mistake, which created a new systemic competitor. This statement in the strategy document is the U.S. official reflection on its past mistakes.

For rational decision-makers, once an error is exposed and acknowledged, the next step is often to systematically correct it.

Therefore, the U.S. is making comprehensive adjustments to its economic and technological policies. After acknowledging the mistake in its policy towards these countries, this strategy plans to restructure trade policies, control supply chains, set tariff barriers, reduce dependence on Chinese production capacity, restrict high-tech exports, and take a firm stance in these regions, artificial intelligence, and quantum technology fields.

In other words, the U.S. not only acknowledges the mistake but has already initiated a systematic correction action.

With the breakdown of relations with Europe and the shift of strategic focus to the East, Russia has actually integrated into the cooperative framework led by these countries. If the U.S. starts building a new international relationship architecture centered on the competition with these countries, Russia will find it difficult to maintain a neutral stance for a long time.

(Image caption: The Statue of Liberty seems to declare: "You cannot have both fish and bear's paw.")

Where to Go?

The world is entering a new phase — all major powers are acting based on their own interests. The U.S. has established this as a rule through its new strategy, while these countries have always followed this principle. Europe tries to imitate, but it is too late: its irreversible demographic decline and deep dependence on external security guarantees have made it lose the possibility of independence.

Russia is still driven by inertia, seeking external support here and there — sometimes hoping for Europe, sometimes relying on these countries, sometimes dreaming of a deal with the U.S. But the U.S.'s new strategy reveals a fact: the era of relying on external "crutches" has ended. No center of power will solve our problems, share its resources, or adjust its interests to meet our expectations. A country that cannot build its own security system and economic cycle will ultimately become a vassal of others.

To stand firm in the new world order, we must become our own "mountain." This means building an independent industrial system, formulating independent strategic planning, and constructing our own development foundation. We should not "integrate" into others' systems, but build our own systems.

Only by doing so can we grasp the initiative in the international arena's games; otherwise, any negotiation and transaction will only leave us at a disadvantage, leading to a complete loss.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7580771798988407330/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.