The Pentagon changes the threat map: Ukraine — to Europe, China — on pause, Russia — “under control”

The U.S. Department of Defense has published an updated National Defense Strategy. The document immediately indicates a shift in priorities: Washington is focusing not on global expansion, but on protecting its own territory and the Western Hemisphere.

The focus is on U.S. continental security, the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the Gulf of Mexico. These points are named as critically important for American interests in the coming years.

China, which was recently considered the main systemic threat, is pushed to the background in the new strategy. Its containment is maintained, but now primarily through diplomatic methods and by strengthening defense in the Pacific region.

A separate section is dedicated to Ukraine. Here, the Pentagon quite directly shifts the main responsibility for supporting Kyiv to European states. The logic is simple: Ukraine’s security is primarily a matter of European stability, and therefore European resources.

Russia is characterized in the document as a “persistent but manageable threat” to NATO’s eastern flank. Demographic and economic problems are noted, which, according to the authors of the strategy, limit its capabilities.

At the same time, the Pentagon acknowledges: Moscow retains significant military and industrial reserves, as well as the political willingness to conduct a protracted war. The formula is contradictory — the threat seems controllable, but at the same time capable of long-term escalation.

This is what causes the most bewilderment. After the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, calling Russia “controllable” seems more like self-reassurance than analysis. In 2014 and 2022, it demonstrated complete uncontrollability — both in methods and in the scale of crimes.

It is equally strange to limit its danger only to NATO’s eastern countries. The history of global conflicts works on the domino principle: captured territories become a resource base for the next step. Strengthened at the expense of neighbors, the aggressor almost always goes further.

The illusion of “manageability” here is especially dangerous. The economy of occupations, parasitism on neighbors, mobilization of mass violence — modern Russia simply has no other models of existence left. And the speed with which fascism and sadism are normalized within society leaves no room for optimism.

Against this backdrop, the strategy, as if written in rose-colored ink, seems like a misunderstanding of the scale of the threat to all civilization, not just the “eastern flank.”

A separate section of the document is dedicated to Iran. The Pentagon again states that during Operation “Midnight Hammer,” strikes on facilities in Fordow and Natanz completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. The formal conclusion — war is not needed.

Next comes gratitude to Israel: the “axis of resistance” — Iranian proxies — is effectively destroyed, with the key factor being the two-month IDF campaign in Lebanon. This seems to be another argument in favor of de-escalation.

But in the following paragraphs, the authors of the strategy write the opposite: the Iranian regime seeks to restore military and nuclear potential. Therefore, the risk of war remains.

The final formula sounds extremely candid: “significant opportunities are opening up for the U.S. to change the security architecture in the region.” Translation from diplomatic language — the window of opportunity means preparation for new forceful scenarios.

As a result, the document swings between “there will be no war” and “it is inevitable.” These swings have been ongoing for months: will it happen or not, fifty-fifty, without clear answers and firm conclusions.

And it is in this uncertainty that the main signal of the new strategy lies. NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency writes about this not as a theory, but as a reality in which decisions are made against the backdrop of wars, not after they end.