Moscow says a newly released United States national security strategy aligns with its own vision of global order and security priorities, marking an unusual moment of public approval from the Kremlin for a Washington policy document. Russian officials have welcomed the strategy’s tone and content, saying it reflects ideas long promoted by Moscow on strategic stability and the management of international security. The comments arrive amid ongoing fighting in Ukraine and strained relations between Russia and Western capitals. The security strategy, published by the White House, sets out broad objectives for United States foreign and defence policy over the coming years. The document places emphasis on strategic stability with Russia and adjusts the framing of Washington’s relationship with Moscow after years dominated by confrontation. Russian officials have pointed to sections they say open the door to dialogue and pragmatic engagement, a shift they argue aligns with their own approach to global security. Kremlin representatives have described the strategy as broadly consistent with Russian thinking on several core geopolitical issues. They have highlighted language that moves away from depicting Russia solely as an adversary and instead recognises the need for engagement on shared challenges. In Moscow, this has been presented as evidence that United States policymakers are reassessing earlier assumptions about Russia’s role in the international system. Attention has also focused on how the strategy addresses Europe and the war in Ukraine. According to reporting on the document, it identifies ending the conflict as a core interest while stressing the importance of preventing escalation and restoring strategic balance. Russian officials have seized on these elements, arguing that they mirror Moscow’s long stated calls for security arrangements that take account of its interests. The Kremlin’s reaction comes as military operations continue in Ukraine and diplomatic efforts remain limited. Russian officials have framed their response to the strategy within this wider context, suggesting that changes in Washington’s language could eventually influence the political environment surrounding the conflict. For now, the comments appear aimed as much at signalling openness to talks as at highlighting perceived divisions within the Western camp. The strategy has also prompted unease in parts of Europe, where officials are closely watching how Washington recalibrates its security priorities. Some European governments are wary that softer language towards Russia could complicate coordination within NATO and the European Union, particularly while the war in Ukraine continues. The divergence in reactions highlights the sensitivity of any perceived shift in United States policy towards Moscow. National security strategies serve as guiding documents rather than operational plans, but they are closely scrutinised by allies and rivals alike. In this case, the emphasis on stability and dialogue with Russia marks a contrast with previous strategies that placed greater stress on deterrence and competition. That contrast has been central to Moscow’s favourable reading of the text. Russian officials have used the moment to reinforce their narrative that global security should be based on negotiation and mutual recognition of interests rather than confrontation. They argue that the strategy’s language validates their calls for a new security architecture, even as fundamental disagreements with Washington remain unresolved. For the United States, the document reflects an attempt to balance competing priorities across multiple regions while managing risks linked to major powers. For Russia, its public reaction serves both domestic and international purposes, portraying Moscow as vindicated in its long held positions and positioning it as ready for dialogue. How this exchange translates into concrete policy shifts remains uncertain, but it has added a new note to an already complex relationship....