Q&A with Maria Zakharova on Outlaw US Empire’s New Imperial Policy Guidelines

Otherwise known as the National Security Strategy

With thanks to Karl Sanchez at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium

Maria Zakharova today was asked a few questions by Russian media about the Trump Gang’s newly revealed imperial plans. The Q&A session was actually rather short given the overall vastness of the topic. IMO, it’s essential to compare her answers and POV with those of other analysts. A selection of comments by other Russian officials as reported by Russian media follows.

Question: On December 4, the US President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled yet another and at the same time largely new US National Security Strategy. This time, it seems that the “Strategy” is moving away from the stereotypes and attitudes of previous similar American documents. The first and main question in this regard is: how will its provisions affect U.S. relations with Russia?

Maria Zakharova: In the new version of the US National Security Strategy, we note a number of provisions that indicate a serious rethinking of US foreign policy doctrine, which is especially noticeable in contrast to its previous version in 2022. First of all, attention is drawn to the revision of Washington’s previous bet on hegemony—the document directly states that earlier “the American elites made grave miscalculations” by making “a very erroneous and destructive bet on globalism.” Of course, time will show to what extent the Trump administration will be able to take into account this difficult statement for the United States. Nevertheless, as it seems, at the moment the very recognition of the bankruptcy of the globalist model is indicative.

As we understand it, this basic ideology also defines another key tenet of the Strategy: the call to “put an end to the perception of NATO as an ever-expanding alliance,” together with the task of “preventing such a reality.” In other words, for the first time, the United States is recording, if not a commitment not to expand the alliance, then at least officially questioning its eternally aggressively expansionist dynamics.

It is also important that Russia is mentioned in the document in the context of pan-European security, and there are no calls for systemic containment of our state and increasing economic pressure on us. Nevertheless, without naming Moscow directly, in the new version of the “Strategy”, Washington loudly outlined plans to achieve “energy dominance” by “reducing the influence of adversaries.” Behind these words, one can clearly see the desire to continue ousting Russia from global energy markets by any available means.

Question: What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about the military-political aspect of the new Strategy and, in particular, the stated goal of achieving strategic stability in relations with us?

Maria Zakharova: Despite the general pragmatic approach to the topic, we are witnessing a number of contradictory points. For example, we did not see any elements in the document that would allow us to understand the American vision of the “post-New START Treaty.” We are referring to the determination of parity in the central quantitative limits of nuclear weapons.

We also consider the provisions on the US Golden Dome global missile defence system to be streamlined. We are still waiting for specifics from the American side regarding the interdependence of strategic offensive and strategic defensive potentials.

Despite the strict upholding of US interests in the strategy, the document makes it possible to search for joint “common ground” with us. True, the likelihood of a change of course in the US national strategy under the next administrations also remains.

Question: It is impossible not to pay attention to the harsh criticism in the document of the liberal elites ruling in Europe for suppressing “undesirable” political forces. The migration policy of Brussels is even characterized as a threat of the civilizational disappearance of Europe. Does this indicate a split in the so-called “collective West”?

Maria Zakharova: As in the case of globalism, it is more about acknowledging the deepening contradictions between the United States and the EU, which culminated in Brussels’ openly sabotage policy with regard to Donald Trump’s peacemaking aspirations on the Ukrainian issue. There is an objective coincidence of Russia’s traditional views and the sensible assessments of the new US leadership on the truly alarming processes taking place in the Old World. In this regard, it remains to be hoped that the new American “Strategy” will have the same sobering effect on the European “party of war” as the recent statements by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin about the absurdity of the European “motivations” for preparing for some kind of “war with Russia.”

At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that certain provisions of the document regarding the Ukrainian crisis lay the foundation for continuing our joint constructive efforts with the Americans to find ways to peacefully resolve the conflict.

Question: How can you assess the thesis about the “revision” of the need for a US military presence in those regions “whose relative importance for American national security has decreased in recent years and decades”?

Maria Zakharova: The thesis reflects the concept of “America First,” but it should hardly be regarded as the United States’ refusal to maintain its military presence abroad, which, in turn, corresponds to another American idea, the so-called “peace by force.” For example, in the passages of the document on the Asia-Pacific region, the presence of conflict language towards the PRC is alarming, as well as calls for all major regional partners to provide the Pentagon with greater access to their ports and “other facilities.”

Question: The Strategy shows a shift in the focus of US foreign policy to the Western Hemisphere. This is stipulated as a “Trump amendment” to the notorious “Monroe Doctrine”. Doesn’t that sound threatening?

Maria Zakharova: The relevant passages sound more like a direct reference to the so-called Roosevelt Amendment, the doctrine of the 26th US President Theodore Roosevelt, who at one time proclaimed Washington’s right to invade Latin America under the pretext of “stabilising the domestic economic situation” of a particular country in the region. This is particularly alarming against the backdrop of the current tensions that the Pentagon is deliberately escalating around Venezuela. We hope that the White House will still be able to refrain from further sliding into a full-scale conflict that threatens to turn into unpredictable consequences for the entire Western Hemisphere. [My Emphasis]

A large amount of optimism was expressed along with a balancing degree of pessimism. The expression “New wine in Old bottles” seems to fit rather well. Overall, the new Imperial plan shows the continuing disdain to obey international law and thus perpetuate its label as the Outlaw US Empire. Recent actions by the Trump Gang show a lack of seriousness when it comes to genuinely negotiating an end to the war the Empire started and has lost in Ukraine—neither Witkoff or Kushner have the legal capabilities to negotiate on behalf of the Empire as they are merely personal emissaries of Donald Trump. That’s why the picture of the meeting’s participants told the real story. Alastair Crooke explained that well today during his chat with Judge Nap.

Russian concern over the escalation in the Empire’s plans toward China are well placed. Russia’s recent message by Ryabkov as reported by TASS to the Trump Gang not to FAFO with Venezuela:

“We express our solidarity with Venezuela, with whom we recently signed a strategic partnership and cooperation agreement,” the deputy foreign minister noted. “We support Venezuela, as it supports us, in many areas. In this hour of trial, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Caracas and the Venezuelan leadership. We hope that the Trump administration will refrain from further escalating the situation toward a full-scale conflict. We urge it to do so,” Ryabkov emphasized.

TASS also reported what Dmitry Medvedev wrote about the Empire’s new stance:

The updated US National Security Strategy signals a readiness to discuss security architecture, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said.

“This is not a friendly embrace, but a fairly clear signal: the US is ready to discuss security architecture rather than impose endless and meaningless sanctions (although the new restrictions on Russian oil mean a continuation of the previous course),” he wrote on his Max page. [Max is a new social media platform similar in organization to Telegram.]

The security official noted that for the first time in many years, the US document refers to Russia not as a “threat” but as a participant in the dialogue on stability. Medvedev also pointed out that the updated strategy includes a clause on halting NATO expansion and that Ukraine is not mentioned in this context.

“The strategy unexpectedly echoes what we have been saying for over a year: security must be shared and sovereignty respected,” Medvedev emphasized, recalling Russia’s longstanding proposal for negotiations. “Now, a window of opportunity for dialogue has been opened,” he concluded. [My Emphasis]

It appears the two Russians share similar assessments as the plan relates to Russia and that this view is also shared by the Kremlin as revealed by this RT report:

Trump’s policies are “a pretty big turnaround compared to what we had with the previous administrations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin in an interview which aired on Sunday. Peskov warned that the American “deep state” could attempt to undermine Trump’s approach, which is why Russia would “carefully monitor the implementation” of the strategy.

He went on to add that a lot of the changes “actually line up with our own vision.”

“It includes statements against confrontation and in favor of dialogue and maintaining good relations. This is also what Russian President Vladimir Putin is saying,” Peskov said.

He noted that the new NSS offers hope for “constructive work toward a peaceful resolution for Ukraine.” [Italics Original]

I’d call the new plan incremental change mostly towards Russia, not a “big turnaround” because the plan is global, nt just aimed at Russia. It remains hegemonic and not at all in the interests of Humanity. And as some have noted, it’s incomplete as it omits mention of other regions, Africa in particular. Not included in the report’s body was the admission made in the sub-headline:

The American “deep state” could attempt to undermine Trump’s approach, Dmitry Peskov has warned.

TASS’s report on Peskov’s statement noted this:

The Kremlin is going to review the updated US national security strategy in more detail and to analyze its provisions, the press secretary of the Russian President stressed. “Certainly, it should be considered, analyzed in more detail,” Peskov noted.

I’ve yet to read any comprehensive analysis or reply from China to the Empire’s new plot aside from a very short, two-paragraph blurb about trade that can be read here. The region most affected by the altered direction of US Imperialism is the Western Hemisphere where I’ve yet to look for reactions, although we already know what general line will be taken by nations with longstanding histories of resistance to the Outlaw’s actions.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!