For years, Russia has pursued a long-term strategy aimed not at defeating Western democracies outright, but at weakening their ability to function, coordinate, and respond under stress. This strategy—often described as “active measures”—relies less on tanks and missiles than on erosion: degrading trust, fragmenting alliances, inflaming internal divisions, and making collective action harder when it matters most.
This isn’t speculative. It’s doctrinal. Russia’s modern approach to conflict assumes that war begins long before shots are fired, and that shaping the political, informational, and alliance environment is as important as battlefield readiness.
Before getting into the specifics, it’s important to be clear about something:
Donald Trump is not a genius.
Like all presidents, he is guided by advisers—but in his case, far more than most. What follows below does not require grand strategy, intellectual rigor, or complex planning on his part. It requires only that he continue to act as he always has. Viewed from that perspective, the outcomes described below are not the product of brilliance or design, but of temperament, impulse, and the amplification of those traits through power.
Read what follows with that in mind—and notice what becomes evident. Seen through that lens, the question is not whether the United States is currently at war, but whether it is being positioned poorly for one.
There’s an old saying in Hollywood:
“If you cast it right, the film directs itself.”
In that sense, Donald Trump is the perfect person to cast for this movie—not because of any performance required, but because he needs no transformation to play the role.
And that brings us to Donald Trump.
Russia’s Objective: A West That Can’t Act Together
Russia’s strategic interest has been remarkably consistent:
-
weaken NATO
-
undermine transatlantic trust
-
encourage isolationism in the United States
-
make allies doubt American reliability
-
ensure that, in a crisis, coordination is slow, hesitant, or fractured
A strong, united alliance structure is Russia’s greatest deterrent. A divided one is its greatest opportunity.
Active measures don’t require American leaders to “work for Russia.” They only require leaders who undervalue alliances, distrust institutions, and frame cooperation as weakness.
The point is to destabilize: distrust, chaos, evoke pain (via economy, healthcare, government services, travel, protestors abused...esp., by government forces).
The point is to make people not believe in the truth.
Because once everyone is lying, or believed to be lying, the biggest liar wins.
Trump as POTUS45: Isolationism as Disruption
During Trump’s first term, the damage was often described as rhetorical or transactional. But the pattern was clear:
-
NATO was publicly undermined and treated as a burden rather than a strategic asset.
-
Longstanding alliances were reframed as exploitative relationships.
-
Trade wars and tariff threats were used indiscriminately against allies.
-
International agreements were abandoned without replacement strategies.
This didn’t just weaken diplomacy—it introduced uncertainty. Allies began planning around the possibility that the United States might not show up when needed.
From Russia’s perspective, that uncertainty alone was a win.
POTUS47: From Disruption to Degradation
In Trump’s second term, the pattern has not softened—it has sharpened.
The economic instability, the repeated threats toward allies, the flirtation with withdrawing or hollowing out NATO commitments, and the open hostility toward multilateral institutions all send the same message: the United States is unreliable.
Even when no formal withdrawal occurs, the signal matters. Allies hedge. Defense coordination weakens. Shared planning becomes cautious. Mutual confidence erodes.
And critically, this erosion happens before any conflict begins.
That is exactly how active measures succeed.
Intent vs. Effect: The Only Distinction That Matters
The most important clarification is this: intent is not the operative variable.
The question is not whether Trump consciously intends to assist Russia.
The question is whether his actions:
-
weaken alliance cohesion
-
degrade economic stability
-
isolate the United States diplomatically
-
normalize distrust of democratic institutions
-
reduce collective deterrence
On every one of those measures, the answer is yes.
A policy can align with an adversary’s strategic objectives even if the actor believes they are acting in America’s interest.
In strategic terms, effect outweighs motive.
Does Any of This Strengthen America Against Russian Influence?
If the goal were to harden the United States against Russian active measures, the approach would look very different:
-
reinforcing alliances rather than threatening them
-
strengthening economic resilience rather than destabilizing it
-
investing in democratic legitimacy rather than attacking it
-
coordinating cyber, intelligence, and defense efforts multilaterally
-
presenting a predictable, rule-based posture that deters aggression
Instead, we are seeing the opposite: fragmentation, personalization of power, and strategic loneliness.
Those conditions don’t make America stronger. They make it easier to pressure, easier to isolate, and harder to support.
The Strategic Bottom Line
Whether by ideology, temperament, grievance, or miscalculation, Donald Trump’s approach as president aligns far more closely with Russia’s long-standing active-measures objectives than with any coherent strategy for countering them.
That doesn’t require secret coordination.
It doesn’t require espionage.
It only requires a worldview that treats alliances as liabilities, institutions as obstacles, and cooperation as weakness.
History is clear on this point: nations do not lose wars only on battlefields. They lose them when they enter crises alone, distrusted, divided, and poorly coordinated.
If a future conflict comes—and Russia’s doctrine assumes it will—the question will not be whether America is strong in isolation.
It will be whether it still has friends willing and able to stand with it.
Right now, that answer is becoming less certain by the day.
None of this however, requires preparing for war in the traditional sense. Modern conflict rarely begins with armies crossing borders. It unfolds through non-military pressure: cyber operations, economic coercion, information warfare, election interference, diplomatic isolation, and the steady erosion of trust in institutions.
Strengthening democratic resilience, restoring alliances, and enforcing constitutional limits are not acts of militarization—they are the most effective defenses against these ongoing, non-kinetic attacks that exploit division and complacency long before any shooting starts.
Recent times have showed us we have concerns about other kinds of "warfare" than traditional kinetic forms we've been used to for thousands of years.
Now with AI? Things will only get more convoluted and complicated. There has never been a better time for bringing people together. Neighbors, states, nations and the sooner the better. Before it's too late.
Notably, the Trump Justice Department has now established an AI-focused litigation task force, signaling that artificial intelligence is being folded directly into federal enforcement and legal strategy rather than treated as a neutral administrative tool.
There has been widespread concern about the use of AI; however, when it is deployed by trained professionals, governed by meaningful checks and balances, and grounded in high-quality data, the results—often achieved in remarkably little time—can be genuinely impressive.
At the same time, there is serious concern about the large number of experienced personnel the Trump administration and DOGE have removed from government positions, many of whom have been replaced by individuals with significantly less capability and virtually no institutional knowledge. In theory, AI could help offset some of that loss. In practice, however, this also raises the risk that those now in place may lack the training necessary to use such tools responsibly. Even so, AI may still partially mitigate an otherwise degraded system.
The complicating reality is that this is not occurring in isolation—Russia, among others, is also actively integrating AI into its own strategic and governmental operations.
For a clear example of some of the complexities of these issues (sans the AI environment), check out the series, "An Undeclared War," (trailer). It's fiction, but it's entertaining, disturbing, informing and, it gives you a concept of how complicated things are about to get. Certainly, in the cyber world. And this came out three years ago before AI was so prevalent. What's next?
Remember “deep fakes”? I wondered at the time how long it would take for the technology to become irrelevant; the answer was about two years, as it was overtaken by the far larger reality of AI.
So...
So, what does a democracy do when its own leadership advances conditions it was designed to resist, has worked hard since its inception to protect itself from?
Ultimately, this requires setting aside labels and loyalties long enough to judge outcomes rather than intentions, acknowledging that the United States is a democracy—a constitutional, liberal democracy in the classical sense, not a partisan caricature—and recognizing that constitutional limits, national strength, and accountable government are shared concerns, then pressing those entrusted with power, especially Congress and the courts, to move past disingenuous and most especially manufactured complacency and the long-held, foolish belief that we are still operating under normal conditions, and finally, FINALLY, to exercise the authority they already have to protect our republic, ALL of our republic, as well as its alliances.
I wish us all the very best in this!
Oh, and in the end? Even short-lived regimes can cast long shadows. The aftermath often lasts years, sometimes decades.
History has shown us this before. See: the Nuremberg Trials.
None of this requires belief in secret coordination, nor does it depend on whether these outcomes are framed by supporters as “realignment,” “leverage,” or “tough love.” Those interpretations are not ignored here; they are weighed and found strategically insufficient. Alliances are not abstractions but living systems sustained by predictability, trust, and shared commitments, and when those are repeatedly strained, the damage is cumulative regardless of intent.
Whether one prefers the language of isolationism or selective disengagement, the observable effects remain the same: weakened coordination, delayed collective responses, and adversaries granted opportunity rather than deterrence. Strategy is judged by results, not branding, and measured against that standard, the question is no longer theoretical. It is already being answered in real time.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment