Trump-Europe-Ukraine Meeting: Selling Division of Labor and Strategic Sequencing

August 20, 2025 (NEO – Brian Berletic) - Following the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and the following meeting of European leaders, the Ukrainian president and President Trump in Washington, a predictable US policy had begun to take shape.

As stated as early as February of this year by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking to European leaders at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Europe was tasked with taking over Washington’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine by ramping up NATO spending, arms production, and the transfer of material support to Ukraine, allowing the US to pivot to the Asia-Pacific prioritizing the containment of China there. 

Secretary Hegseth was clear that the conflict would be frozen, not ended, and that European and non-European troops (not American troops) would be transferred into Ukraine to ensure a freeze, followed by Europe reorganizing and rebuilding Ukraine’s armed forces. 

As Secretary Hegseth explained, “the reality of scarcity” prevents the US from engaging directly and fully in two great-power conflicts with both Russia and China simultaneously, requiring the freezing of one conflict while the US pursues another. 

The very fact the US seeks to confront China in the Asia-Pacific in the same manner it has confronted Russia in Ukraine, demonstrates a complete lack of interest in actual peace with either (or any) nation. The US believes that if it can contain China sooner, it can circle back to confront and contain Russia later. 

The Marathon Initiative’s 2024 paper, “Strategic Sequencing, Revisited,” by Wess Mitchel, a former Trump administration official, stated explicitly: 

The idea of sequencing is simply to concentrate resources against one opponent in order to weaken its disruptive energies before turning to another, either to deter or defeat it.

Mitchel also used the term “division of labor” in regards to US “allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific,” a term Secretary Hegseth would repeat verbatim in Brussels earlier this year, revealing “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing” as tandem policies Washington is pursuing. 

First Principles: America’s Pursuit of Primacy 

At the end of the Cold War, as the New York Times (NYT) reported in its 1992 article, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring no Rivals Develop,” the US sought to create “a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.” 

The same article would note Washington’s rejection of “collective internationalism,” referred to today as “multipolarism.” 

Driving US ambitions to contain Russia and China both in the 1990s and today are not legitimate national security concerns, but rather the preservation of US “interests” abroad, within and along the borders of both nations in a manner the US itself would never tolerate another nation doing to it.   

US “strategic sequencing” is not confined to just Russia and China either. This, together with various implementations of “division of labor,” are designed to exploit and weaken any nation that challenges American primacy. 

While the immediate focus is on the Asia-Pacific, nations in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa are also being strategically targeted. The destabilization of Syria, the persistent pressure on Iran, and ongoing efforts to isolate nations across the rest of the multipolar world who maintain ties with Russia and China (like Thailand and Cambodia in Southeast Asia) are all part of this larger plan. 

Washington’s goal is to prevent the formation of any cohesive, multipolar alliance that could effectively counter its hegemonic ambitions. By picking off nations one by one or a few at a time, the US hopes to maintain its dominance and prevent a unified front from ever materializing.

As long as primacy remains the unifying principle of US foreign policy, “pursuing peace” is simply a means of buying time to rectify setbacks in one region while doubling down in another. 

Ukraine is America’s War, And America’s Alone 

Regarding the war in Ukraine itself, despite recent comments by the Trump administration describing it as “Biden’s war,” or claiming “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately,” the war is in fact a product of US foreign policy spanning multiple presidential administrations, including President Trump’s first term in office. 

The US currently commands Ukraine’s armed forces, as revealed in a NYT article published earlier this year. Since 2014, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has assumed control of and directs Ukraine’s intelligence services, the NYT also reported.  

Thus, the conflict in Ukraine can only be ended when the US decides to do so or is forced to do so by Russia. 

Understanding these basic first principles of US foreign policy regarding the conflict in Ukraine is essential in successfully navigating the propaganda the US and its client states are using to perform an attempted “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing.” 

Continuity of Agenda Under Trump 

Since coming to office, the Trump administration itself has continued every conflict and confrontation inherited from the previous Biden administration in pursuit of global primacy including the US proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, a confrontation with Iran escalated to outright war this past June, and the continued expansion of America’s military footprint in the Asia-Pacific region along China’s periphery and even within its borders on the island province of Taiwan. 

America’s policy regarding  Russia specifically is described in detail in the 2019 RAND Corporation paper titled, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.”

The paper lists economic measures including “hinder petroleum exports,” “reduce natural gas exports and hinder pipeline expansions,” and “impose sanctions,” – measures that had been pursued by the US at the time the paper was published and ever since including under the first Trump administration, the subsequent Biden administration and now during President Trump’s second  term in office. 

Geopolitical measures listed by the RAND paper included, “provide lethal aid to Ukraine,” which began under the first Trump administration, “increase support to the Syrian rebels,” which manifested itself late last year in the successful US overthrow of the Syrian government, “promote regime change in Belarus,” which Russia has so far successfully neutralized, and “exploit tensions in the South Caucasus,” which is unfolding currently under the Trump administration in the form of a 99 year lease on territory potentially placing US troops along both Russia’s and Iran’s borders.  

Together, these policies represent a continued attempt by the US to encircle, contain, undermine, and over-extend the Russian Federation, ultimately seeking to precipitate a Soviet Union-style collapse even as the US feigns interest in “peace” with Russia in Ukraine.

As in the Past, So in the Future 

Regardless of setbacks and limitations, as long as the US continues pursuing primacy over the nations of the globe rather than constructive cooperation with them, any US overture of “peace” with nations it has labeled “adversaries” and “threats” represents an established pattern of pausing, reorganizing, rearming, and reinitiating hostilities – not any genuine shift in policy.  

The most recent example of this was the US regime-change war waged on Syria. Following Russia’s intervention in 2015, the war was brought to a pause. The US used this pause to rearm and reorganize its proxies in and around Syria while Syria’s allies, Russia and Iran, were drawn into a series of costly conflicts elsewhere. Once Russia and Iran were sufficiently overextended, the US reinitiated fighting in late 2024, quickly and successfully overthrowing the Syrian government.

The collapse of Syria was followed by US-Israeli military operations carried out against Iran itself combined with a still-ongoing push to eliminate what is left of Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. 

A pause in Washington’s proxy war on Russia in Ukraine will simply see US efforts shift elsewhere. 

As Secretary Hegseth laid out in February, any pause would be accompanied by European troops occupying Ukraine just as the US and Turkey occupied Syria. It would also include the rearming and reorganizing of Ukraine’s military – as was mentioned specifically during the recent US-European-Ukrainian meeting in Washington – and the reinitiation of hostilities at a later time when factors lean back in Washington’s favor. 

Not only is this what Secretary Hegseth’s statements regarding a “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing” imply, it is what the US has done all throughout the Cold War and ever since. 

During the Bush Jr. administration, it is admitted that the US pursued regime change in several Eastern European nations as well as Georgia in the Caucasus region. In 2003, the US successfully overthrew the Georgian government just as it did the Ukrainian government in 2014. Just as it did in Ukraine, the US began reorganizing and building up Georgia’s military and in 2008, as an EU investigation concluded, Georgia initiated a short, failed war against Russian forces. 

The next year, under the Obama administration, the US sought a “reset” in US-Russian relations with then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clintion literally presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a physical “reset” button as a symbol of the new relationship. 

In reality – the US simply sought time and space to prepare the next series of provocations – which it did – from 2011 onward dividing and destroying much of the Arab World including targeting Russian allies Libya and Syria, and the aforementioned successful toppling of the Ukrainian government in 2014, along with the US “pivot to Asia” which began under the Obama administration and continues to this day.  

Not only do recent US policies appear to represent just the latest in this cycle of posing as seeking peace while preparing for the next series of confrontations, the US has all but said freezing the conflict in Ukraine is meant to give the US time and space to prioritize containing China first with the implication being the US will return to antagonize Russia in Ukraine afterwards. 

Only time will tell to what degree Russia accommodates or disrupts attempts by the US to implement a “division of labor” regarding Ukraine to perform a process of “strategic sequencing” to defeat Russia, China and their allies in detail, and whether or not the rest of the multipolar world will unite sufficiently to aid Russia or allow themselves to be divided and distracted by similar US efforts to disrupt and destabilize their respective nations.

Russia’s calculus will be based on either its confidence in continuing the Special Military Operation (SMO) to its full conclusion, collapsing Ukraine’s military and removing the US-installed client regime placed in Kiev from 2014 onward, or the necessity to agree to a pause Moscow feels it can make better use of than the collective West and face off against the US and its proxies in the future from an even stronger position.

It may be that Russia seeks to free up resources for its own “pivot” to aid allies like Iran and China as the US itself turns its attention further east. Unlike the US, however, Russia lacks the long list of client states it can enlist to mind one conflict while pivoting to the other as Washington can and is doing. 

The future of the multipolar world may depend as much on aiding nations in preventing their political capture and exploitation by the US as it does on multipolar nations cooperating with one another as they defend themselves against US encroachment, coercion, and capture. 

The ultimate test for Russia and the emerging multipolar world lies not just in their ability to endure US designs aimed at each of them individually, but in their capacity to turn this strategy against Washington. If Russia can conclude its SMO in Ukraine decisively while simultaneously strengthening its alliances with nations like China and Iran, it can render the “division of labor” useless. 

Similarly, if China can use this period to solidify its regional influence and deepen its ties with nations outside the collective West, the US will find its pivot to the Asia-Pacific far less effective. 

The current geopolitical landscape is a high-stakes game of geopolitical chess, and while the US believes it can corner its rivals one by one, a coordinated checkmate from the multipolar world could end the game for good. Success means a world defined by peace, stability, and prosperity amid a global balance of power. Failure means forfeiting our collective future to a handful of special interests in the US who have already demonstrated for a century the means and desire to destroy it. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.