By Matt Underwood 
New US defense strategy calls Russia ‘manageable threat,’ resets military priorities. It seems the US is shifting its perspective on who poses the greatest dangers, with a new defense strategy emerging that labels Russia as a “manageable threat.” This is a significant pivot, and the rationale behind it is complex, layered, and certainly invites a lot of questioning. This new strategy apparently involves a retreat from “interventionalism,” those prolonged engagements, regime change operations, and nation-building exercises that have defined much of America’s recent military history.
The declaration that Russia is a “manageable threat” raises many eyebrows. Considering the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, it’s hard to deny that Russia’s military capabilities have been exposed, and that their capacity to project power has been, shall we say, diminished. The struggles on the ground in Ukraine suggest that Russia isn’t the superpower many once thought it was. And really, let’s be honest, Russia’s military performance has been, well, less than stellar. The war in Ukraine has highlighted their weaknesses, even with allies and support.
This reassessment might also be influenced by the fact that the US is still helping Ukraine fight Russia, though the extent of that support is also being debated. If this support is withdrawn, or even reduced, that could change the calculus of the threat assessment. This means providing significant weaponry and support to Ukraine, which could potentially alter the power dynamics in the region.
Now, while Russia’s capabilities may have been overblown, that doesn’t necessarily mean the US can afford to relax. Russia still possesses a significant nuclear arsenal, which complicates things considerably. The existence of these weapons is a factor that makes direct military confrontation a dangerous game. Thus, even a “manageable” threat can be extraordinarily dangerous.
The new strategy appears to be moving away from involvement in foreign conflicts. It suggests a move away from those “endless wars.” One of the key aspects of this shift is the emphasis on not getting bogged down in large-scale engagements abroad. The commitment to avoid “regime change” and “nation-building” efforts suggests a reluctance to repeat the costly interventions of the past.
The re-evaluation of the threat landscape has also prompted a closer look at the US’s strategic priorities. The new strategy seemingly refocuses attention on potential threats closer to home, such as threats to critical infrastructure, cyber-attacks, and internal divisions. It looks like allies like Canada, Mexico, and nations in Europe might find themselves under closer scrutiny, or even viewed as potentially troublesome.
The new defense strategy appears to be a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine. Russia’s difficulties in Ukraine have given rise to the perception that Russia is a more manageable threat. This might also suggest that the US is considering a more restrained approach to dealing with Russia in the future. The strategy could signal a willingness to de-escalate tensions and prioritize areas where cooperation is possible, even if there are persistent disagreements.
Of course, the shifting threat landscape and the new strategic priorities have a direct impact on the deployment of military resources. This means the US military will focus more on protecting its own borders, defending against cyberattacks, and maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent. It may also lead to investments in technologies and capabilities needed to face threats at home and abroad.
This strategic reset has also raised questions about America’s role in the world. The emphasis on avoiding large-scale military interventions could be seen as a retreat from global leadership. The focus on domestic priorities and regional threats might be interpreted as a sign of isolationism, although it’s more likely a strategic adjustment in the face of evolving threats and constrained resources. The future is uncertain and how this strategy plays out will definitely impact international relations and the security of the globe.