NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Seated beside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the eve of the NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump did more than field reporters’ questions. His remarks ranged across Iran, Ukraine, NATO, Turkey, Greenland and China, touching nearly every front of American strategic interest.
To most commentators, the press conference looked like another freewheeling exchange with reporters. To a strategist, it looked like something else entirely: the public emergence of an American grand strategy.
I spent years working on strategy and policy at the national level in the Pentagon. Grand strategies rarely announce themselves in formal National Security Strategy documents; more often, they emerge through repeated decisions and presidential statements that gradually expose an underlying logic, and that logic was unusually visible in Ankara this week.
TRUMP CALLS OUT NATO AHEAD OF SUMMIT, CALLING IT ‘RIDICULOUS’ FOR US TO PERSIST ON ‘ONE SIDED PATH’
Deterrence before diplomacy
The first principle is deterrence before diplomacy. Trump’s frustration with NATO allies over the Iran war was unmistakable. He told reporters that “Italy turned us down and Germany turned us down and France turned us down,” then asked why the United States should keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars on allies who “are not there for us.”
That was classic Trump, but it was more than a grievance. It revealed how he measures alliances: not by communiqués or polite statements, but by whether allies show up when America acts. In Trump’s mind, loyalty is operational, not sentimental.
The broader point is sound: Diplomacy without credible power rarely succeeds. Force restores deterrence, deterrence creates leverage, and leverage creates the conditions for negotiation. Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang are all watching whether America still has the will to act.
Grand strategies rarely announce themselves in formal National Security Strategy documents; more often, they emerge through repeated decisions and presidential statements that gradually expose an underlying logic, and that logic was unusually visible in Ankara this week.
The same logic carried into Trump’s discussion of Ukraine. If credible strength creates diplomatic leverage with Iran, he appears to believe it can also help end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.
Ending wars from strength
DON’T LOOK NOW, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY HAVE SAVED UKRAINE. JUST ASK THE RUSSIANS
The second principle is that wars must be concluded from positions of strength rather than managed indefinitely. Trump said he had spoken with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “I think they both want to make a deal,” he told reporters, adding that he hoped the war would be settled “hopefully soon.”
No serious strategist should assume peace is simple, imminent or cost-free. Russia remains the aggressor, and any settlement that rewards conquest would invite more danger, not less. Still, grand strategy seeks outcomes rather than endless commitment; the real question is whether diplomacy is backed by enough leverage to produce a durable and just settlement.
Alliances as multipliers, not dependencies
The third principle is that alliances must become multipliers, not dependencies. NATO remains indispensable, but no alliance stays healthy if one nation carries a disproportionate share of the burden while others expect permanent American underwriting.
That is why NATO’s defense-industrial announcements in Ankara matter. European allies sought to show Trump they are turning higher defense spending into real military capability. The Netherlands, for instance, is investing with Britain in new amphibious ships, joining 10 allies to replace aging AWACS aircraft, and leading European production of American Stinger, AMRAAM and PAC-3 missiles. That is more than accounting. It is strategic capacity.
The Ukraine war has exposed an uncomfortable reality: Modern wars are won by industrial endurance, not tactics alone. Missiles must be replaced, interceptors manufactured, and production automated for speed rather than headlines. Grand strategy requires factories and the political will to sustain output; defense spending that never becomes deployable combat power is merely a budget line.
Geography still shapes strategy
The fourth principle is that geography still shapes strategy, even in an age increasingly defined by advanced computing systems, cyber operations and space capabilities. Turkey is a difficult ally, but it is also strategically indispensable, sitting at the crossroads of the Black Sea, the Middle East and NATO’s southern flank.
That explains Trump’s willingness to revisit U.S.-Turkish defense issues. He said the United States is “going to be taking the sanctions off,” referring to penalties imposed after Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 system, and called the question of selling Turkey F-35 fighter jets “certainly something we will consider.” Turkey’s Russian purchase created real security problems, and Israel and Congress both have objections. But the strategic logic is plain: Geography has consequences.
The same is true in the Arctic. Trump’s renewed Greenland remarks were controversial, but they fit the same pattern. He said Greenland “should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark,” arguing Denmark does little for a territory vital to American security. Greenland once anchored America’s Cold War shield against Soviet bombers; today, it sits astride Arctic sea routes contested by Russia and eyed by China, making its geography more consequential, not less.
Strategic prioritization and the China question
Every successful grand strategy requires disciplined prioritization. America cannot do everything everywhere forever. Every carrier strike group, Patriot battery and trained brigade committed in one theater is unavailable somewhere else. Grand strategy is the disciplined ordering of finite national resources.
That brings the discussion back to China. As Europe assumes greater responsibility for its own defense, America gains the flexibility to focus on the defining competition of this century: Communist China, which may become the most consequential objective of Trump’s emerging strategic framework.
Beijing is fusing machine-learning systems, autonomous platforms, cyber capabilities and advanced manufacturing into a strategy to challenge American leadership. In “Preparing for World War III,” I argued that Ukraine, the Middle East, the Arctic, North Korea and China’s military rise cannot be viewed in isolation; they are connected demands on finite American power. In “The New AI Cold War,” I argued that machine intelligence is becoming the central arena of that competition, and America cannot prevail if it stays overextended while capable allies underinvest in their own defense.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The future balance of power will not be determined by rhetoric alone. It will be shaped by industrial capacity, technological advantage, alliance reliability and national will.
Whether one supports President Trump’s policies or not, strategists should recognize what is taking shape. Grand strategies rarely announce themselves in a single speech; they emerge through repeated decisions that gradually reveal an underlying logic. Ankara suggested that such a logic now exists: deterrence backed by industrial strength, alliances built on reciprocity, geography respected rather than ignored, and American power organized around the defining competition of this century.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
America may be witnessing the emergence of a grand strategy before it has been formally written. Grand strategies are not ultimately measured by speeches, summits or press conferences. They are measured by whether they preserve peace, deter aggression, strengthen alliances and secure the nation for the generation that follows.
Ankara offered a glimpse of that strategy. History will determine whether it succeeds.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ROBERT MAGINNIS
Read the full article here
