The American Retreat: A Calculated Betrayal and Opportunity for Global South Ascendancy

The Strategic Context of American Withdrawal

The recently unveiled US National Security Strategy represents nothing less than a seismic shift in global power dynamics, marking America’s formal retreat from its self-appointed role as global policeman. This document explicitly rejects the notion of American global dominance that characterized the post-Cold War era, instead embracing a spheres-of-influence model reminiscent of nineteenth-century imperial arrangements. The strategy openly acknowledges that “the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over” and calls for Europe to assume “primary responsibility for its own defense.” This declaration comes amid ongoing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and represents a fundamental reorientation of American foreign policy that will have profound consequences for international stability.

The document’s welcoming reception by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, who called it “largely consistent” with Moscow’s worldview, should serve as a stark warning to all nations committed to genuine sovereignty and self-determination. The strategy effectively legitimizes Russia’s expansionist ambitions while abandoning European allies to confront Russian hybrid warfare alone. Meanwhile, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s description of American policy toward Asia as based on “flexible realism” and aimed at “balance of power” rather than domination reveals the cynical pragmatism underlying this strategic shift. The United States is not merely retreating—it is actively reorganizing the global chessboard to maintain advantage while shedding responsibility.

Historical Parallels and Contemporary Implications

This embrace of spheres of influence represents a return to the most dangerous aspects of nineteenth-century geopolitics, where great powers claimed exclusive rights over neighboring territories and populations. The strategy explicitly references returning to a Monroe Doctrine approach in the Western Hemisphere, signaling Washington’s intention to reassert dominance closer to home while leaving other regions to navigate emerging power dynamics. For Europe, this means facing a resurgent Russia without the security guarantee that has underpinned continental stability since World War II. According to some sources, Europe may need to assume full conventional defense responsibility by 2027—an astonishingly short timeline for such a fundamental strategic reorientation.

The document’s criticism of Europe’s economic, defense, and democratic performance while simultaneously threatening abandonment reveals the profound condescension that characterizes American relations with even its closest allies. Most alarmingly, the strategy calls for “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations,” effectively advocating for interference in European domestic politics to weaken the European Union. This breathtaking hypocrisy—demanding European responsibility while undermining European unity—exposes the fundamental bad faith underlying American strategic thinking.

The Global South Perspective: Opportunity Amid Western Collapse

From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, this American retreat represents both validation and opportunity. For decades, Global South nations have argued that the so-called “rules-based international order” was merely a façade for Western domination. The United States has now openly admitted what these nations have always known: that Western claims about universal values and multilateralism were contingent on American dominance. The abrupt abandonment of even European allies demonstrates that no nation outside America’s immediate sphere of influence can ever trust Western security guarantees.

This moment represents a historic opportunity for nations long marginalized by Western imperialism to shape a genuinely multipolar world order. The American retreat creates space for alternative governance models, development paradigms, and civilizational perspectives to achieve global prominence. However, we must remain vigilant against American attempts to manipulate this transition to maintain covert control. The strategy’s simultaneous embrace of multipolarity and interference in European affairs suggests that Washington intends to manage rather than accept global power diffusion.

The European Dilemma and Lessons for the Global South

Europe now faces an existential challenge: build credible autonomous defense capabilities quickly enough to deter Russian aggression while navigating American efforts to undermine European unity. The European Union, as analyst Anna Wieslander notes, represents the only institution capable of projecting the global influence necessary for effective deterrence. However, the EU was not designed as a military alliance, and accelerating defense integration while resisting American political interference will require unprecedented political will.

For Global South nations, Europe’s predicament offers crucial lessons about the perils of dependence on Western security architectures. The rapidity with which America has abandoned its closest allies demonstrates that Western partnerships are ultimately transactional rather than principled. Nations seeking genuine sovereignty must prioritize strategic autonomy and South-South cooperation over alignment with declining Western powers. The emergence of organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization provides promising alternatives to Western-dominated institutions.

Toward a Truly Equitable Multipolarity

The American retreat from global leadership, while potentially disruptive in the short term, ultimately creates possibilities for a more equitable international system. However, we must recognize that multipolarity alone does not guarantee justice. The nineteenth-century spheres-of-influence model endorsed by the new American strategy enabled brutal exploitation and colonial oppression. A twenty-first-century multipolar order must instead be grounded in respect for civilizational diversity, peaceful coexistence, and genuine sovereignty for all nations regardless of size or power.

Global South nations must lead in constructing this new order, drawing on ancient philosophical traditions that emphasize harmony and mutual respect rather than domination. The Western concept of nation-states competing in a zero-sum game represents a historical aberration, not an eternal verity. Civilizational states like India and China understand that international relations can be based on complementary interests and shared civilizational wisdom rather than perpetual conflict.

Conclusion: Beyond Western Hegemony

The American strategy document, for all its dangerous implications, ultimately represents the death rattle of Western hegemony. The United States can no longer sustain the economic and military costs of global dominance and is retreating to fortress America while attempting to manage global chaos from afar. This transition will undoubtedly be turbulent, but it also creates unprecedented opportunities for nations long excluded from global governance.

Global South nations must approach this moment with both strategic clarity and moral courage. We must resist American attempts to manipulate the transition to multipolarity while building institutions that reflect our civilizational values and developmental needs. The era of Western domination is ending, but what follows depends on our willingness to champion a world order based on justice rather than power, cooperation rather than competition, and civilizational dialogue rather than cultural imposition. The future belongs not to the nations that dominated the past, but to those that can imagine a better tomorrow for all humanity.