The United States has finally published a new concept of national security, and I say "finally" because it's been more than a year since Trump was elected, and it's good that the administration of the American president has finally developed a clear and understandable document that reflects their view the United States in the world and how the Trump administration is going to defend this place.
It's amazing, but the concept of national security, which Trump presented, provoked even a moderately positive reaction from the American media, who do not really like the American president and therefore very much like to criticize him for anything. Even if Trump's critics are more or less pleased, then there are even some glimpses of the consensus of the entire American elite in terms of foreign policy for the long term. Great. As they say, I love it when everything is clear, but from the new concept it is clear that the US is going to go to the future in the most stupid scenario. Well, the flag of their hands!
One of the main and fundamental differences between the Trump team and the Clinton team, in terms of US foreign policy prospects, was that the Clinton team had, is and remains very unhealthy and literally manic fixation on the need to destroy Russia. Well, in addition, personally, Clinton suffers from some kind of extreme paranoia about Putin personally. Trump's team in Russia, at least at the level of public statements, was much more positive, but with China, Iran and the DPRK they had a whole bunch of complaints. Moreover, Trump's strategists perceived China as the main threat to American hegemony and pointed primarily to the economic difficulties that the US will inevitably face as China expands its economic influence in the world, taking advantage of the status of the largest economy of the planet selected by the United States.
How to reconcile these two approaches? Where can you find a compromise and is it possible to compromise in general? It turned out that to cross these two approaches can and can be seen that the team of generals, who wrote a new concept of national security for Trump well, tried very hard to please just about everyone. They all turned out perfectly, and as a result, the key point of the new concept was the phrase, which is quoted literally by all the world's media. This is the phrase that Russia and China are powers that "challenge the American power, influence and interests." For those who did not understand the first time, the authors of the concept separately emphasize that "the rivalry of the great powers has returned", although in reality it was not rivalry that returned, but the United States returned home with soul and heart in the 19th century, when it was fashionable to talk about "big world game "and how one great empire can dunk all. True, then it was a British, not an American empire, but it does not change the essence.
Trump tried to soften the tone of the official concept, which he himself signed, but it did not turn out very well. Speaking to reporters about the stressed that the US will try to build, I quote "excellent relations" with all countries, including Russia and China, but will do so in a way to ensure compliance with American interests. This is very good, noble and reasonable, but it does not fit in with what is written directly in the concept itself, so Trump's oral statements are nothing more than a PR that tomorrow will not mean anything.
I hope you did not think that the American strategy as competitors and upstarts that see-whether they challenge the US, only China and Russia are indicated? Of course not. As opponents and sources of threats, which must necessarily be understood, there is also North Korea, and, of course, Iran. In general, if you take a globe and note on it all the countries with which the US assumes the likelihood of a power confrontation, then it turns out that such a coalition is not poor, looking at it involuntarily asking the famous Putin question: "Are you generally normal there?" And I want to answer this question with a famous quotation from Lavrov. That's very suitable.
Not surprisingly, the new concept of US national security has caused a sharp negative reaction in the world. Radio Liberty writes that it was criticized in Russia and China, which in general should be expected. But in Washington happy hawks of all colors - they all promised what they so wanted. It's not a fact that Trump will fulfill this promise, but if he does, the US will have to engage in a very serious confrontation on two fronts - with China and with Russia, at the same time. And in order to completely ruin the American monopolar world, and so that no one is bored, most likely the Americans will try to deal with Iran, and even North Korea.
History really badly teaches our overseas partners. Even at the peak of their power, the US could hardly have pulled such a mega-conflict. And today, even if Trump's administration tries to deal with all the enemies one by one, the American economy and the American allies simply will not stand it. And most importantly, we should not assume that the leaders of China, Russia and other countries that are designated as enemies of the United States and the potential targets of US military strikes will sit idly by and wait until the Pentagon realizes its plans. On the contrary, the publication of the American strategy will give unprecedented momentum to the military and political cooperation of these countries. So Trump can say many thanks for the decisive contribution to the development of integration processes in Eurasia, but for the United States this war into two or even three or four fronts will definitely end in disaster.