America First: Is Ukraine About to Pay the Price of Washington’s New Priorities?

Source: Author’s Facebook page

The United States has unveiled its updated national security strategy — a document many anticipated, but few will actually read. And that is a mistake: it clearly lays out where Washington intends to move first, and what priorities will shape American power in the coming years.

First, Washington returns to a simple principle: America’s interests come first. No romantic talk about “shared values,” only hard pragmatism. If this sounds harsh in today’s chaotic world, you probably haven’t read previous strategies.

Second, Russia is officially defined not as a threat to Ukraine, but as a threat to the entire Euro-Atlantic order. In other words, talk of a “reset” or “strategic stability” reflects the wishes of certain figures around Trump, not the collective position of U.S. institutions. The document states plainly: limit, contain, and strip Russia of the tools of influence.

Third, China takes first place. Everything else follows from that. The key conclusion for Ukraine is this: the war in Europe must not distract Washington from China. Which means the U.S. will not seek ideal solutions for Ukraine — only workable ones. Solutions that do not disrupt its larger global strategy.

What does this mean for Ukraine?

First, we matter — but we are not the centre of the stage.
America wants predictability on the European front. This is not about “peace on the aggressor’s terms,” but it is also not about endless turbulence. Washington needs a stable framework that does not drain its resources.

Second, the Ukrainian issue is now viewed through a China-first lens.
Whether we like it or not, this is the new reality. Any new negotiation format, security guarantee, or agreement will be evaluated through one lens: “Does this undermine the United States in its strategic confrontation with China?”

Third, security guarantees are no longer about pretty declarations.
Any new negotiation format, security framework, or agreement will be assessed by one test: “Does this in any way undercut the United States in its strategic contest with China?” The emphasis is on deterrence, not on restoring the world to its 1991 configuration.

Fourth, Ukraine must assert its own agency rather than wait to be saved.
The US strategy makes it clear that Washington will support those who do not generate internal chaos. Those who can hold the line — both on the battlefield and in domestic politics — will be treated as reliable partners.

And now, a word not about the text of the strategy, but about its underlying logic.

The Americans invest where there is a real chance of achieving results. Ukraine should not be seen as “a difficult case that we’re barely holding on to,” but as “a project that delivers even in wartime.”

In today’s world, those who are predictable are the ones who succeed. The new US strategy confirms what we already know: the strongest guarantees of security are our own capabilities — military, economic, and political — and only after that come documents, declarations, and diplomatic formats.

It was previously reported that the United States is demanding that European NATO members assume most of the Alliance’s conventional defence capabilities by 2027. The Pentagon told representatives of European delegations at a meeting in Washington that Europe is not moving fast enough in building its defence capabilities after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, European countries are preparing for a possible Russian invasion without US involvement, amid a reduction in the American military presence on the continent. NATO countries in Europe are already adapting defence plans and strengthening their own military capabilities.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.