Policy Brief

Taken together, this approach reflects a more transactional, results-oriented foreign policy, the one aimed at deterring aggression, supporting allies, and maintaining stability, while avoiding overextension and encouraging partners to shoulder a greater share of the security burden.

Beyond its substantive content, the briefing played an important clarifying role. It consolidated and articulated the administration’s foreign policy approach within a more structured and disciplined framework. For allies and partners, it reduced ambiguity around U.S. intentions and provided a more predictable basis for cooperation, clearly indicating a shift toward a results-driven, institutionally grounded approach to American leadership.

Introduction: The primacy of American national interest

Secretary of State Marco Rubio opened his year-end briefing by clearly defining the central principle of U.S. foreign policy: “At the core, foreign policy needs to be the national interest of the United States.” He stressed that while his country remains engaged globally and attentive to a wide range of international challenges, foreign policy must ultimately advance objectives that make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. “So you have to first of all define what is the national interest, and then you have to apply it.”

This framework, he noted, requires disciplined prioritisation, acknowledging that even the most powerful state faces limits in resources, time, and political capacity. While Rubio argues that U.S. foreign policy requires a recalibration because “Many of the institutions, policies, [and] assumptions that our foreign policy was operating under were built upon a world that no longer existed,” the briefing does not consider how recent U.S. policy choices have contributed to this changing environment.

Within this context, Rubio addressed a broad spectrum of global issues, including U.S. policy toward China, developments in the Middle East, particularly the war in Gaza, relations with Venezuela and Latin America, and broader challenges to international stability. Across these cases, he emphasised a pragmatic, results-driven approach that combines engagement with restraint, and diplomacy with deterrence, guided by clear assessments of U.S. interests.

For European partners, the most consequential elements of the briefing concern transatlantic security, the war in Ukraine, NATO’s future role, and the broader U.S. approach to Russia. Rubio highlighted that the strength of the U.S.-Europe relationship is rooted not only in shared security interests but also in a common civilizational foundation. He noted that Europe and the United States share historical, cultural, and ideological principles—liberty, democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law—that underpin the transatlantic alliance. Preserving these shared values, he argued, is essential for sustaining long-term cohesion and credibility within NATO, warning that their erosion could strain the alliance even if formal defence commitments remain in place.

Therefore, this policy brief focuses on the aspects of Secretary Rubio’s remarks most relevant to Europe: U.S. policy toward the Russia–Ukraine war, expectations regarding NATO burden-sharing and defence investment, and Washington’s evolving strategy of deterrence, sanctions, and selective engagement with Russia. Together, these themes provide critical insight into how U.S. leadership, alliance management, and strategic prioritisation are likely to shape transatlantic relations in 2026 and beyond.

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Secretary of State’s briefing made clear that the war in Ukraine is unlikely to end in a decisive victory for either side. He emphasised diplomacy, realism about the battlefield, and the need for any peace agreement to be acceptable to both Kyiv and Moscow, with the U.S. acting as a mediator—“our job is not to force anything on anyone”—rather than as a determiner of outcomes.

He reiterated that the United States cannot force a deal on either Russia or Ukraine: “Any peace deal is one that Ukraine has to agree to because they’re a combatant. If Ukraine says, ‘We don’t agree to it,’ there won’t be peace.” This may concern European partners, who have relied on Washington to lead Ukraine’s defence and negotiations, as it suggests they will need to assume greater financial and political responsibility.

Rubio explained that the Trump administration is seeking to determine what Russia and Ukraine can realistically accept to help reach a peace agreement: “What we’re trying to figure out here is, what can Ukraine live with and what can Russia live with? We care about it. That’s why we’re involved in it.” At the same time, he stressed that the war is not the top priority for Washington, noting, “It’s not our war. It’s a war on another continent.”

Secretary Rubio highlighted the complexity of reaching a peace agreement, emphasising that progress depends on understanding the genuine objectives and red lines of both Russia and Ukraine. He noted that Russia’s initial war aims have not been fully achieved, and that the public positions of both sides may differ from their private intentions. Successful negotiations, he explained, require careful assessment of what each side can realistically accept, timing that allows for constructive outcomes, and recognition that delays result in continued casualties and destruction. Drawing a parallel to other conflicts, such as Gaza, Rubio underscored how shifts in circumstances can create opportunities for resolution, highlighting the need for patience, readiness, and adaptability in diplomatic efforts.

Rubio stressed that the United States remains committed to supporting Ukraine while maintaining pressure on Russia. He highlighted that Washington has already sanctioned the Russian Federation, including comprehensive oil sanctions: “We have sanctioned – the President has sanctioned the Russian Federation. He issued oil sanctions. All the oil sanctions everybody wanted him to do, he did them. He did them a month and a half ago.” This underscores that U.S. policy continues to focus on economic leverage to deter aggression, while being reluctant to direct escalation.

Rubio emphasised that U.S. involvement is currently unique, noting, “If we were not involved, no one would be talking to both sides… Nobody in Europe can do it.” While expressing hope for a timely resolution, he highlighted that Europe cannot substitute for U.S. mediation, implying that European partners will need to assume greater responsibility in supporting Ukraine politically, financially, and diplomatically if progress stalls.

Overall, Rubio framed the conflict in Ukraine as a test of U.S. and allied credibility, underscoring the need for continued support, realistic diplomacy, and strong coordination with partners. He also highlighted the unique U.S. role in facilitating negotiations, even while prioritising issues closer to American national interests.

Implication for Europe: Europe must actively share the burden in Ukraine and strengthen its diplomatic and operational role as the U.S. shifts toward mediation.

NATO and Security Partnerships

Rubio underlined that NATO remains central to U.S. security, calling Article 5 the foundation of collective defence. He stressed that the alliance is essential for responding to both conventional and hybrid threats.

If Europe had hoped that Rubio might scale back Trump’s push for 5 % defence spending, it did not happen. He made clear that the U.S.’s main request of its NATO allies is simply to increase their military spending. He highlighted that NATO unity is crucial to deterrence, credibility, and sharing the defence burden. He framed the alliance as a platform for strategic planning, intelligence sharing, and rapid response. The message to allies and enemies is clear: the U.S. remains committed, but effectiveness depends on partners stepping up and aligning capabilities.

Implication for Europe: Europe must invest more in defence, modernise forces, and enhance coordination to maintain credible deterrence and share the security burden.

Conclusion and Assessment

Secretary Rubio’s year-end briefing sets out a coherent vision of U.S. foreign policy that combines active engagement with strategic restraint. Washington remains committed to defending its interests, supporting allies, and shaping international outcomes, while limiting overextension. U.S. leadership continues, but it is increasingly conditioned on effectiveness and alignment with American priorities.

For Europe, particularly on Ukraine and NATO, the briefing confirms an existing reality. The United States is no longer positioning itself as the primary provider of military support, but rather as a diplomatic broker and strategic coordinator, while placing greater responsibility on European allies to strengthen defence capabilities and contribute more substantially to regional security.

Overall, the briefing underscores that U.S. strategy in 2026 will be pragmatic and results-driven. Alliances and diplomacy remain central tools, but they now operate within a framework of clearer conditions and shared responsibility. For European partners, the implication is straightforward: sustained security and influence will depend on greater European initiative, closer strategic alignment with the United States, and continued development of Europe’s own strategic capacity. How effectively Europe responds will shape the durability of the transatlantic partnership in the years ahead.

Implication for Europe: Europe must accelerate defence investment, enhance strategic coordination, and strengthen its capacity to act independently when required.

Actionable Takeaways and Recommendations for European Decision-Makers

• Prepare for a more transactional U.S. approach: European allies should anticipate that U.S. support will remain strong but conditional on measurable outcomes and shared responsibilities.
• Strengthen NATO contributions: Increasing defence spending, modernising forces, and enhancing operational coordination are essential to sustain deterrence credibility.
• Engage actively in Ukraine policy: Support for Kyiv remains critical, but Europe must share the burden and participate in diplomatic efforts as the U.S. focuses more on mediation than direct military leadership.
• Develop Europe’s strategic autonomy: While aligning with U.S. priorities, Europe should advance its own capabilities and decision-making to ensure long-term influence and stability.

• Robust Strategy for Russia: Sustain economic pressure, set clear red lines, and plan rapid, targeted responses to any escalation.

22 December 2025