Daniel Fried, longtime former U.S. State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy, stated this in an interview with Espreso TV."I'm not a big fan of the new national security strategy. It contains language about Europe that is simultaneously meaningless and provokes needless divisions. The entire document is permeated with a spirit of neo-isolationism and a peculiar ideological irritation toward Europe, which seems inappropriate given the Russian threat and the Chinese challenge. Despite this, the national security strategy does have better elements and useful formulations. For example, the strategy acknowledges that Europe is an important partner and friend of the United States, and that we need to work together with Europe," the diplomat commented.According to him, the document also emphasizes that Ukraine's survival as an independent and viable state is a key American interest. However, one would have preferred stronger language, a clearer description of the threat from Russia."But the question is not whether I like the document, but whether I could work with it if I were in the administration. And the answer is probably yes, I could. I suspect, based on experience working with such documents, that the initial draft was worse, and some people in the administration who adhere to a more Reaganite approach to strategy added language to make the document less harmful and more workable. I don't expect Ukrainians to be satisfied with it, and there are reasons to worry about where Trump will ultimately end up on the issue of negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. But this document itself is not wonderful, but not fatal either. In my opinion, it's something one can work with," Fried concluded.On December 5, Donald Trump's administration released a new national security strategy, which includes among its priorities the restoration of strategic relations with Russia, ending the war in Ukraine, and "restoring democracy" to Europe.