Goldtent TA Paradise

PENTAGON 2026 National Defense Strategy document

1. Kewl2 says:

   January 24, 2026 - 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm

   From COVID & COFFEE — 01/24/2026

   Yesterday, NBC ran a remarkable and underreported story headlined, “Pentagon shifts focus away from China in new defense strategy.” The first sentence summed it up: “The Defense Department said in an influential strategy document published Friday that the U.S. military’s top focus is no longer on China but instead the homeland and Western Hemisphere.” That’s all they could find to criticize.

   image 13.png

   You would think, given everything happening this month, that the publication of the Pentagon’s comprehensive military strategy would make bigger news. Maybe the media is being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Anyway, here are the Department of War’s new priorities, straight from the public document:

   image 4.png

   You might think this list of priorities is common sense. But the previous National Defense Strategy (NDS) listed China and Russia as the military’s top priorities, along with climate change, and did not qualify deterrence as “not confrontational.”

   NBC’s narrative was that sliding China deterrence down to the second spot, below “defending the U.S. homeland,” was “shifting focus away” from the Asian giant. It’s dumb, but there it is.

   But now, climate change is completely gone. The focus is back on America First. Endless wars are in the junk drawer. Nation-building has vanished. Enemies have become potential trading partners. And somewhere, Canada’s prime minister is sobbing softly into his pillow.

   image 14.png

   This new document should not be confused with the White House’s similarly named National Security Strategy (NSS), released last month to dramatic effect. But, like the NSS, the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy was written for non-technical audiences, and I recommend that you skim it, at least. Even Portland readers. Here’s the link.

   Rather than carping about China moving one slot below protecting the homeland, NBC might have more usefully reported about how much NATO was deprioritized. But at least it got a Green Sweatshirt.

   The NDS pointed out that, even without the US, NATO still outspends Russia ten-to-one. So, the Pentagon concluded, “Our NATO allies are therefore strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense, with critical but more limited U.S. support.” In particular, it shoved the former comedian off on the Europeans: “This includes taking the lead in supporting Ukraine’s defense— this is Europe’s responsibility first and foremost.”

   That was the clearest way to say it yet: Ukraine is a you-problem.

   Mark my words: there will come a day when experts openly wonder how Europe sucked us into their unimaginably expensive Proxy War in Ukraine— even though it threatened zero U.S. interests. Never forget that they did it through a massive, covid-level propaganda operation— aimed straight at Democrat empathy. Feelings.

   ? Remember, this is the year of action. So it was unsurprising that, on the same day the new NDS released, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Joint Chiefs Chairman Issues Rare Invitation to Foreign Military Heads.” Right on the heels of releasing its new National Defense Strategy, the Pentagon also promptly convened an “unprecedented” summit of 34 Western Hemisphere countries, to discuss regional defense issues including border security, drug trafficking, securing local trade routes from the Arctic to South America, and the Panama Canal. The summit is scheduled for about two weeks from now. Short notice.

   image 5.png

   It was the latest surprise. Which explains why the media isn’t entirely sure how to report the summit. They don’t even seem sure exactly which countries were invited. More tellingly, the big military news platforms (like DefenseOne and Military Times) completely omitted the story, which suggests to me that they are keeping it on the down low, since the story is obviously one of the biggest military moves since the Venezuela operation to snatch President Maduro.

   As NBC described, the new defense strategy shifts the Pentagon’s top priority from China to protecting the homeland and controlling “vital regions stretching from the Arctic to South America” — the same geographic space for which Chairman Dan ‘Raising’ Caine is now convening a summit. So we just saw the Pentagon release a brand-new Defense Strategy then —in a historic first— summon all the countries related to the NDS’s top priority of Defending the Homeland.

   So, it’s not just words. They are dead serious about it.

   Here’s something fun to noodle about. It’s far too early, and there is far too little data to draw conclusions, but this “first ever” conference of Western Hemisphere countries —countries essential to US homeland defense— offers the faintest whisper of a NATO replacement. It’s a similar size; there are 32 NATO members, and Cain just ‘invited’ 34 Western Hemisphere countries. The groups share similar interests—NATO’s are in Europe, and this new ‘Group of 34’ is focused on the Americas. (The “Group of 34” is my name for it; nobody else has labeled them yet.)

   image 15.png

   Whatever it is, membership might not be completely optional. “We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America,” the NDS said, “but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests. And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests.” It then —cough— mentioned the Maduro operation.

   And, LOL, the NDS dumped Canada in with Central and South America, with no special credit for Canada’s NATO ally status, just another local neighbor to be managed, like Costa Rica. The price of not playing nice is starting to catch up with Ottawa. (Long before Trump 2.0, Canada has often been criticized for failing to even meet its 2% NATO obligations.)

   In any case, if the new ‘Group of 34’ is meant to become something like NATO, it wouldn’t necessarily be a NATO-clone, with Article 5-like mutual defense agreements and so on. NATO was formed in a different time, facing different threats. So if the “Group of 34” is, in fact, a proto?alliance, it’s logical that it would be built for a different era’s problems —cartels, migration, external great?power penetration— rather than copy?pasting NATO’s Cold War collective?defense template.

   Log in to Reply
   • Kewl2 says:

     January 24, 2026 - 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm

     NOTE: And, LOL, the NDS dumped Canada in with Central and South America, with no special credit for Canada’s NATO ally status, just another local neighbor to be managed, like Costa Rica. The price of not playing nice is starting to catch up with Ottawa. (Long before Trump 2.0, Canada has often been criticized for failing to even meet its 2% NATO obligations.)

     Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.