Recently, the US Defense Strategy 2026 (National Defense Strategy, NDS 2026) — a basic strategic document of the American state — was published. It outlines how the United States plans to use military force, what interests it considers vital, and which commitments it is ready to abandon. The document identifies priority threats, key theaters of military operations, and missions no longer considered justified. Essentially, it is an internal instruction for the entire US national security system, but its significance goes far beyond domestic policy, making this document a subject of separate analysis.
The formal author of the document is the US Department of Defense. However, the actual authorship is much broader. The strategy was developed by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon in interaction with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strategic defense units, analytical and intelligence structures. The political client and bearer of the document’s logic is the President of the United States. The NDS text repeatedly emphasizes that the strategy directly follows from the presidential National Security Strategy (NSS) and serves as a tool for implementing this course.
The timing of this strategy is crucial. The document explicitly states that the US has entered one of the most dangerous security environments in its history, with an increasing risk of simultaneous major wars in several regions of the world.
The previous US defense strategy was formulated in the early 2020s, in a completely different political and security context. Its logic was based on the assumption that the US could simultaneously maintain a global military presence, be the key security guarantor for allies in different regions, restrain several strategic rivals concurrently, while maintaining internal stability and technological superiority.
This strategy remained within the framework of post-Cold War thinking. It combined great power competition with readiness for limited interventions, stabilization missions, and prolonged military presence “on the periphery.” Even when acknowledging China’s rise or Russia’s aggressiveness, the basic assumption remained unchanged: the US has enough resources to be a global guarantor of order.
This assumption broke down by the mid-2020s. Russia’s war against Ukraine shattered the notion of controlled regional conflicts. China ceased to be merely a “long-term challenge” and became a state capable of simultaneously posing military, technological, and economic challenges. The Middle East continued to be a source of instability, and the nuclear and missile programs of authoritarian regimes stopped being hypothetical threats.
The authors openly acknowledge the cumulative effect of post-Cold War decisions. Resources were scattered over decades on “rudderless wars,” the defense industry degraded, modernization was postponed, and strategic adversaries gained time and space to build strength. The key change is that now all these factors operate simultaneously rather than sequentially, creating a layered crisis effect.
In the previous strategic model, the US could afford to shift its focus: “first here, then there.” By the mid-2020s, such logic no longer aligned with reality. Simultaneously, internal limitations became apparent. The American defense industry was not prepared for prolonged high-tempo production. The armed forces faced a recruitment crisis. The political system encountered deep internal divisions. And American society itself felt vulnerable regarding its territory: borders, airspace, infrastructure, cyber environment.
Collectively, this led to a key conclusion that formed the basis of NDS 2026. The US can no longer afford a strategy based on the assumption of unlimited resources. The US can no longer be a global interventionist, a guarantor of all alliances, and simultaneously ensure absolute security of its own territory. This realization became the starting point of a new strategic shift.
Thus, NDS 2026 is a document of strategic self-contraction, arising from the realization that the attempt to remain a global “protector” does not enhance but undermines American security. The longer the US tries to be everywhere and for everyone, the faster it loses the ability to guarantee the protection of its own territory and key interests.
Therefore, the strategy rewrites the very logic of prioritizing choices. Previously, the question was “where and how should the US act,” but now it is formulated differently: “What must the US protect under any circumstances, and what are they ready to abandon?”
Consequently, the new strategy moves away from the long-standing policy of global interventionism and puts US domestic security and regional dominance at the center, rather than maintaining a universal world order.
A Break with Interventionism or a Turn to America First as a State Survival Mechanism in the New Era of Major Conflicts
One of the toughest aspects of the strategy is its approach to the legacy of the post-Cold War era. The document directly criticizes decades of wars aimed at regime change, stabilizing distant regions, and “nation-building.” These campaigns are no longer described as necessary or morally justified. On the contrary, they are presented as strategic distractions that exhausted the military, delayed modernization, and diluted priorities.
This is a fundamental change. Previously, interventions were justified by the language of values, human rights, or global stability, but in NDS 2026 these arguments virtually disappear. They are replaced by the pragmatic question: does this make America safer? The answer provided by the document is unequivocal: in most cases, no.
A different logic begins. It signifies a rethinking of why and for whom this power is used to “fix” the world. Here is where the transition from criticizing the old model to forming the old/new idea of America First occurs. In NDS 2026, it is first formulated as a systemic state strategy with a clear internal logic.
The first and main priority of the US Defense Strategy 2026 is articulated unequivocally: defend the U.S. homeland. The document explicitly states that no external commitments make sense if the state cannot guarantee the security of its own territory.
Importantly, the strategy under “home protection” understands not only nuclear deterrence in the classical sense. It refers to a comprehensive architecture of internal security that encompasses borders, air and maritime space, cyberspace, space, critical infrastructure, and the resilience of state institutions. The document explicitly states that the borders of the USA are a matter of national security, not just a matter of migration or law enforcement policy. Threats from transnational criminal structures, illegal flows, and cartels are no longer separated from military risks. They are considered an element of a broader spectrum of asymmetric threats capable of undermining the state from within.
Separately, NDS 2026 emphasizes the changing nature of threats. The strategy is based on the vulnerability of the modern state lying not in the lack of military power but in excessive openness and technological dependence. That is why significant attention is paid to the protection of airspace and critical infrastructure.
The experience of modern wars has shown that even countries with powerful armies can be paralyzed by the mass use of cheap means of destruction. From drones and medium-range missiles to cyberattacks on energy, transport, and communication. These threats are no longer considered secondary or “non-standard,” they are integrated into the concept of full-scale war.
It is from this logic that the heightened attention to missile defense, drone counteraction, and infrastructure protection arises. The document talks about the necessity of multi-level systems capable of responding not only to high-tech strikes but also to massive, cheap, and exhausting attacks that can overload classical defense systems. The protection of the rear, logistics, and civilian objects in NDS 2026 is effectively equated to combat missions.
Nuclear deterrence in this architecture is also brought back to the center of strategic thinking but in a fundamentally different role. It is no longer presented as an abstract symbol of status or a remnant of the Cold War. The document considers the nuclear component as a practical tool for preventing blackmail and escalation, which must be modernized, reliable, and convincing. At the same time, it is emphasized that nuclear deterrence cannot compensate for weaknesses in conventional and asymmetric areas. Therefore, the strategy strongly advocates for the protection of airspace, cyberspace, and internal resilience.
Together, this block forms the hard core of the America First logic. The protection of the USA is understood not as a narrow military task, but as a comprehensive state function that precedes any external missions. It is from this priority that all subsequent decisions arise—from regional thinking to rethinking the role of allies.
Regional Thinking: Areas of Vital Interest to the USA
One of the fundamental changes fixed in the U.S. Defense Strategy 2026 is the transition from a global, dispersed approach to a clearly defined regional thinking. The strategy proceeds from the notion that the United States cannot and should not dominate everywhere. Instead, they must guarantee unconditional superiority in a limited number of areas that directly impact their security, economy, and ability to act as a superpower.
The first and undisputed such space is the Western Hemisphere. The document essentially revives the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, but adapted to the 21st century. It’s not about ideological dominance or direct intervention, but about strict control of access to key territories, communications, and infrastructure. Sea routes, the Panama Canal, critical ports, air routes, space, and underwater infrastructure are considered elements of a unified defense space of the USA.
In NDS 2026, it is stated that any attempt at hostile military, political, or technological entrenchment in the Western Hemisphere is regarded as a direct threat to national security. This pertains not only to state actors but also to transnational structures that might be used to undermine stability, pressure borders, or access critical infrastructure. In this logic, the Western Hemisphere is not “one of the regions” but the foundational rear of American power that must be maximally protected and inaccessible to competitors.
The second key area is the Indo-Pacific region. It is here, according to the strategy’s assessment, that the question of the global balance of power of the 21st century is being decided. China is identified in NDS 2026 as the main long-term competitor. It is the only state capable of not only challenging the US in the military sphere but also rewriting the rules of the international system to its advantage. This refers to a combination of military might, technological development, economic influence, and the ability to create alternative institutions.
In this context, the Strategy emphasizes the need for deterrence through superiority rather than constant intervention. The US aims not to control the region directly, but to create a configuration of forces where no state can establish dominance. Special attention is given to maritime communications, the first island chain, access to critical waters, and the ability to quickly respond to attempts to forcibly revise the status quo.
Importantly, NDS 2026 does not present war as an inevitability. The document consistently emphasizes that the US goal is not confrontation for confrontation’s sake, but preventing any state’s dominance in key regions. This is classic geopolitical thinking, where stability is achieved not through universal institutions or declarations, but through a balance of power, access, and capabilities.
Allies as a Variable, or What Does the New International System Without Illusions Mean for the World?
No matter what anyone says, the US Defense Strategy 2026 is not a declaration of new American isolationism. It’s more like a survival guide for a superpower that has realized the limits of its capabilities. It enshrines America First as a state logic, focusing on the refusal of global interventionism and concentrating power in key regions.
Is this a betrayal of allies? Hardly. In previous decades, American strategy was built around the alliance system as a foundational element. In NDS 2026, this approach changes. While allies remain important, they are no longer the foundation of American security.
The concept of “burden-sharing” is presented in the document not as a moral demand or an act of solidarity, but as a tool to relieve the burden from the US. Allies must take primary responsibility for regional threats. American involvement is critical but limited, conditional, and selective.
This means that alliances no longer guarantee automatic U.S. involvement. Support depends on how much partners’ actions align with American interests and priorities. And for the first time, this is stated not veiled, but directly.
For the world, this is bad news. It signifies the end of the comforting illusion that someone else will always guarantee order. Now, essentially, each must take care of their own security. But this is not a new geopolitical construct. The world emerging from this strategy has existed before. We are returning to a world of harsher competition, where power once again becomes the primary language of politics. International institutions do not disappear, but they lose the ability to restrain conflicts without real military force behind them.
For many countries, this means growing uncertainty. Guarantees become conditional, commitments selective, and stability a derivative of the balance of power. It’s a world with fewer universal rules and more regional hierarchies. Where new empires divide spheres of influence, dependent spaces, and rare earth metals, cloaking themselves with nuclear shields and entangling each other with digital bonds. Welcome to a world that increasingly resembles the latter half of the 19th century in its logic.
