National security strategist analyzes Trump administration's new global policy

John Yang:

Good evening. I'm John Yang. White House envoys met again with Ukrainian officials in Miami today to discuss President Trump's proposed path to peace in Ukraine. It was their seventh meeting over two weeks, including a session this past Sunday that included Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The State Department said they've agreed on a key item, a peacekeeping arrangement for post-war Ukraine.

The administration's national security strategy, released this week, says ending the war is a core U.S. Interest in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia.

The congressionally mandated document reflects a shift from the stance of previous administrations, including Mr. Trump's first term.

Earlier, I spoke with Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft center for Strategy and Security. He helped write similar strategy statements under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. And in the first Trump term.

Matthew Kroenig, The Atlantic Council:

I think overall it was a good document with strengths, but also with weaknesses. So strengths, a good strategy should tell you what's new and different, and this one did that with the focus on the Western Hemisphere.

It also had some new ideas for new challenges, how the United States can maintain technological leadership. So I think those were the strengths. On the weaknesses, I think it downplayed democracy and human rights, which I think is a mistake, was probably too critical of our European allies and I think also downplayed the challenges we face from autocratic rivals like China.

John Yang:

You're at the Reagan National Defense Forum right now, and I suspect there are representatives from Europe. What are you hearing from them or from others at the forum about this document?

Matthew Kroenig:

Yes, mixed opinions on the document. One European ambassador I was speaking to last night said, you know, this seems to be a consistent message now following J.D. Vance's tough speech at the Munich Security Conference.

And so it would be irresponsible as a European official not to question America's commitment to Europe and to think about how Europe might need to go its own way.

John Yang:

On Europe, the document says that Europe faces the prospect of civilizational erasure because of immigration policies and suppression of political opposition. What's your reaction to that?

Matthew Kroenig:

Yes, well, I do think that's something of an extension of domestic politics for the so called New Right in the Republican Party. And so I think they see their enemies as liberals and progressives, that's in the United States but also in Europe. And so I think taking some of their domestic political positions and exporting those to Europe is what accounts for those passages.

John Yang:

You mentioned, the absence of talking about democracy and human rights. In their place, it seems to me the emphasis is on economic relationships around the world. What do you think of that?

Matthew Kroenig:

Our allies and partners in the Western Hemisphere have often felt like they are overlooked, that the United States has paid more attention to Europe, to the Middle East and to Asia. And so I think they see this new focus on the Western Hemisphere as overall a good thing. And there's also talk about economic partnerships.

So I think that makes a lot of sense. It's one of the strengths of the strategy and I think will be welcomed by the countries that are the recipients of that investment.

John Yang:

This document is not only different from previous presidents, it's also different from Mr. Trump's first administration. In that document, the world was framed as competition between those who favor repressive systems and those who favor free societies.

What do you make of that change?

Matthew Kroenig:

Well, you're right, that is a big change. The 2017 National Security Strategy, the main takeaway was great power competition with China and Russia. This one kind of downplays the threat from autocratic rivals. North Korea is not even mentioned. Russia and China are presented as not posing much of a challenge.

So I think the difference is the difference in personnel. And Trump won. He was new to Washington and so he was staffed by kind of traditional Reaganite Republicans for this administration. He does have some of those traditional Republicans, but he also has more in the so called restraint camp and populist camp.

And so I see the fingerprints of these different groups on this document.

John Yang:

What do you see as the practical impact of this document? It's something that Congress mandates that has to be produced. But what sort of its practical significance?

Matthew Kroenig:

It does have practical implications. Our allies and adversaries are carefully reading this document. As I mentioned, I was talking about it with several allies just over the past 24 hours. But then it also provides direction to the vast national security bureaucracies. Mid and lower level officials in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the intelligence community, want to know what they should be doing on a day to day basis. And so this document does provide an authoritative statement of the President's priorities.

John Yang:

How do you think this is being read in Beijing or in Moscow?

Matthew Kroenig:

Well, I think the answer may be different. It does talk a lot about maintaining deterrence in the Indo Pacific. It keeps our traditional policy with regard to Taiwan talks about winning the economic and technology competitions with China.

The Russia challenges presented almost as squabbling between Europe and Russia and almost positions the United States as a mediator trying to restore. So I suspect Putin will see that as a step forward from his point of view, compared to traditional strategies that I think correctly portrayed Russia more as a threat to Europe and a threat to the United States.

John Yang:

Matthew Krone from the Atlantic Council, thank you very much.

Matthew Kroenig:

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.