Ruth Deyermond

Same.

But it's not used this precise way (some particular state/states we're criticising without naming) in any other National Security Strategy this century.

In 21st century US National Security Strategies, the use of "certain" to be critical of some particular state or group of states without naming them is unique to the 2025 NSS.

So I can only find one occasion this century before the 2025 NSS where "certain" is used to mean "specific state/group of states we're not going to mention for some reason". It's in Obama's 2010 NSS and it seems to be a way to be sensitive while also addressing a wider issue.

NSS 2000

NSS 2006

I can only find 3 uses of "certain" to mean "some particular states" in other National Security Strategies this century. The 2000 one has the same function as the 2010 ones above and 2006 one then immediately specifies which states.

"Certain" meaning "some particular" is used most frequently in Obama's 2010 NSS. It appears 9 times, but normally as a way to refer to things that don't need to be elaborated here because they're not the focus of the sentence/paragraph:

NSS 2006

NSS 2010

NSS 2000

NSS 2010

It's also used (again, infrequently) in an introductory sentence to refer to situations or properties of something, followed immediately by an explanation of what these certain things are:

Or in the same way in a conclusion. This is from the 2010 NSS:

National Security Strategy 2006

I've looked at the other NSSs published this century. "Certain" is rarely used (not at all in 2002, 2015 or 2017 NSSs), and even more rarely in the sense of "some particular". Where it is, it tends to refer to issues, sometimes in an introductory section where things are normally kept general:

I hadn't spotted this. Word use specifics aside, criticising states without naming them doesn't strike me as a common characteristic of US National Security Strategies. But it will be very familiar to regular readers of at least one state's foreign policy documents.

No-one in any govt or diplomatic role is going to say NATO is gone at this stage, but some may finally be starting to think it. But there will still be people who think we can just wait for the Trump administration to end.

Glad you found it interesting.

The Trump-era US is reshaping global order in the same way the racoon reshaped the shelves in that liquor store.

"Europe’s leaders privately warned that the United States may be preparing to pressure Ukraine into territorial concessions without offering real security guarantees." Their only clue was absolutely everything the Trump administration have been saying and doing since 20 January.

Thank you!

And it looks very much (at least to me) as if this is the only thing they've said about Russia because they want to be able to reframe the relationship as a partnership but it's not yet possible because they haven't finalised their deal with the Kremlin and because of domestic pushback.

Strategic stability between the two states with the largest number of nuclear weapons is a good aspiration because strategic instability is a threat to everyone. But it's useless or dangerous if it isn't grounded in a realistic assessment of the threat from Russia.

Thanks Ian. And yes, totally agree.

Thank you!

If anyone in Europe was still clinging to the idea that the Trump administration isn't immovably pro-Russian and hostile to Western institutions and values, they need to read the 2025 National Security Strategy and think again.

It was clear from the moment Trump's election win was announced that this would be a pro-Russian, anti-Europe administration. The 2025 National Security strategy, viewed in comparison with all its post-Cold War predecessors, shows that unambiguously.

Though it barely mentions Russia, the 2025 National Security Strategy tells us everything we need to know by blaming the continuation of the war on Europe, not Russia. Its wording reads as if it was dictated by the Russian government:

The 2025 NSS mentions Russia only 10 times. 7 of these are references to how Europe's (by implication, unreasonable) concerns about a Russian threat need to be managed. The only Trump administration policy on Russia itself, concerns the need to "reestablish strategic stability"

For the next 15 years of US National Security Strategies, Russia was identified as a threat. But in 2025, the only mention of Russia as a threat is when it discusses how European states see Russia:

For the first 20 years after the collapse of the USSR, National Security Strategies identified Russia as a potential partner if they democratised and stopped interfering in other states, and a problem for US security if they didn't.

Unsurprisingly, the 2022 Biden NSS is very clear about Russia as a threat to the US, its allies, and to international security. These are just a couple of its statements on Russia:

The most interesting comparison is with the 2017 National Security Strategy, published by the last Trumo administration. Back then, Russia was seen as a competitor and a threat to US interests:

The 2015 NSS was, of course, written in the immediate aftermath of Russia's 1st invasion of Ukraine. It was also during the pivot to Asia, when Europe was not a priority, so there were fewer mentions than normal. But it was clear on both the Russian threat and the US response:

This is the 2010 NSS, written at the peak of the Obama Reset. It's notable that even here, there is clear - if very diplomatically worded - criticism of Russian domestic failures and international behaviour, particularly in relation to its neighbours.

This is the George W. Bush 2006 NSS, written before relations with Russia really deteriorated: