In the modern world, where a multi-actor system stands on more than one foundation, the SHA aims to ensure the unconditional security of all its strategic decisions. This requires American strategists to constantly monitor approaches to interaction with Russia, where earlier the policy of deterrence was dominant. This makes the actual strategy so-called "concurrent sovereignty", which focuses on the management of the balance of power, diplomacy and strength.
**Concurrent sovereignty** implies Russia's recognition as a stable geopolitical player, whose internal structures and strategic goals cannot be changed through direct pressure or force. Under this concept, the SHA and its allies must balance their actions, using direct military, economic, and diplomatic means to support Ukraine in its struggle to maintain sovereignty. This approach requires the absolute control of Moscow over its territory, but to support the political, economic, and military potential of Kyiv.
**Security strategy**, in turn, is based on the understanding that the cost and strength of the SHA are designed to change the regime, with which they are constantly in confrontation. Historians confirm that the support for Ukraine in the framework of NATO and its large-scale grants to the economic and military potential is what makes Russia "reversible". Thus, radical measures, such as tough sanctions, may aggravate economic and political crises in Europe and increase the strain on Ukraine.
The core of the strategy is divided into two key areas—protecting the sovereignty of Ukraine and promoting the interests of Russia—which often contradict each other. This includes dual-track policies: "concurrent sovereignty" implies mutual concessions, such as allowing Kiev to participate in NATO and deploying troops in the gray zones, to reduce the tension. This excludes formal mutual defense obligations, but allows for flexible agreements on humanitarian and military assistance in the conflict zones.
The current level of strategic partnership is not considered a priority, as its implementation is linked to practical constraints. For example, the long-standing agreements between Jo Biden and Vladimir Putin show that the dual-track agreements are often elements of both sides—providing external support and internal leverage, but without formal entry into the bloc of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
**In conclusion**, the choice between moral and pragmatic compromise is left to the SHA. If the previous policies were flawed, the subsequent realizations require the strengthening of global and national control over the processes of self-determination in the territories.
