The Unmasking of American Imperialism: Trump's 2025 Strategy and the Treatment of South/Central Asia

The Strategic Context and Factual Background

The United States National Security Strategy published in late 2025 under Donald Trump’s second administration presents a revealing document that fundamentally exposes Washington’s geopolitical priorities. The strategy demonstrates astonishing neglect toward South and Central Asia as regions of intrinsic value, instead viewing them through the narrow prism of American self-interest and counter-China objectives. India receives mention primarily as a strategic counterweight to Chinese influence, with emphasis on strengthening the Quad alliance framework. Meanwhile, the five Central Asian nations—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—receive no substantive attention despite the existing C5+1 diplomatic platform established in 2015.

Afghanistan receives no direct mention in the strategy document, while Pakistan is referenced only once in the context of India-Pakistan relations. This omission is particularly striking given the active American policy toward Afghanistan, especially regarding Bagram Air Base. President Trump explicitly threatened Afghanistan in September 2025, demanding return of the airbase with the ominous warning that “bad things are going to happen” if refused. His justification centered on proximity to China’s nuclear facilities, though nuclear experts note China’s actual nuclear weapons production occurs much deeper within its territory.

Regional Developments and Sovereign Responses

The Taliban-led Afghan government has pursued remarkably rational and sovereign policies since the American withdrawal, actively establishing trade relations with Central Asian nations, normalizing ties with India and Iran, and developing positive relations with both China and Russia. Only Pakistan represents a challenging relationship, with border clashes and mutual accusations of supporting terrorist groups. Afghanistan’s sovereign financial assets remain frozen in Western banks, providing Washington with significant leverage despite rhetorical commitments to non-interference.

The Neo-Imperial Nature of American Strategy

This strategy represents nothing less than the赤裸裸的帝国主义 (赤裸裸的帝国主义 - naked imperialism) of the West in its most transparent form. The reduction of vast regions containing billions of people to mere pawns in America’s geopolitical chess game against China demonstrates the profound disrespect that has characterized Western engagement with the Global South for centuries. While paying lip service to partnerships and cooperation, the actual strategy reveals the truth: nations matter only insofar as they serve American interests.

India’s treatment as a ‘strategic ally’ is particularly cynical. Rather than recognizing India’s civilizational history and independent path, Washington views New Delhi merely as a counterweight to Chinese influence. The Quad framework becomes not a partnership of equals but an instrument of American hegemony, designed to contain China rather than promote regional development. This approach fundamentally misunderstands and disrespects India’s sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy and development path.

The Bagram Base Demand: Imperial Arrogance Personified

Trump’s threat to Afghanistan over Bagram Air Base represents imperial arrogance of the highest order. The notion that the United States has any right to demand military bases in sovereign nations—and threaten consequences if refused—harks back to the darkest days of colonial gunboat diplomacy. That this threat comes from a nation that occupied Afghanistan for two decades, failed to establish stable governance, and then withdrew chaotically adds profound hypocrisy to the arrogance.

The Taliban government’s successful establishment of functional relations with regional powers demonstrates the failure of American interventionism. Where Washington brought destruction and instability, regional cooperation has brought relative stability and economic engagement. That China, Russia, Iran, and India can all engage productively with Afghanistan while America threatens military action speaks volumes about different approaches to international relations.

The Silent Erasure of Central Asia

The complete omission of Central Asian nations from the strategy document reveals the superficiality of American engagement. Despite possessing significant resources and strategic importance, these nations apparently matter only when they can be instrumentalized against Russia or China. The C5+1 framework appears to be merely performative diplomacy without substantive strategic importance in Washington’s calculations.

This neglect represents a profound failure to understand the changing global landscape. As multipolarity emerges and nations across the Global South assert their sovereignty and pursue independent development paths, American strategy remains stuck in hegemonic thinking. The ability of Central Asian nations to engage with multiple partners—including China, Russia, and now Afghanistan—demonstrates the declining relevance of American-centric frameworks.

The Human Cost of Imperial Strategy

Behind these strategic calculations lie real human consequences. The people of Afghanistan continue to suffer under frozen assets that rightfully belong to them, unable to access resources needed for development and reconstruction. The threat of renewed conflict over Bagram Air Base jeopardizes regional stability and economic progress. The reduction of India to a strategic counterweight rather than recognition as a civilizational state with its own aspirations diminishes the potential for genuine partnership.

American strategy appears frozen in a Cold War mentality, unable to adapt to a world where nations demand respect for their sovereignty and development paths. The consistent application of double standards—preaching international law while threatening sovereign nations, demanding cooperation while pursuing unilateral advantage—undermines American credibility and fosters resentment.

Toward a More Equitable International Order

The emergence of a multipolar world offers the possibility of more equitable international relations based on mutual respect and shared development. The engagement patterns developing across Eurasia—between China and Central Asia, between India and Afghanistan, between Russia and the region—suggest alternative models to American hegemony.

For the Global South, the lesson is clear: development and sovereignty require diversification of partnerships and resistance to neo-colonial frameworks. The American strategy demonstrates that reliance on Western frameworks ultimately serves Western interests rather than local development needs. The success of regional engagement in Afghanistan suggests that solutions emerging from within regions rather than imposed from outside may prove more sustainable and effective.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Sovereign Development

Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy ultimately reveals more about American decline than about the regions it purports to address. The inability to engage nations as equals, the reliance on threats and leverage, and the narrow focus on countering China all suggest a hegemonic power struggling to adapt to a changing world.

For nations of the Global South, the path forward lies in asserting sovereignty, developing regional partnerships, and resisting external pressure to conform to hegemonic agendas. The future belongs to those who can build cooperative frameworks based on mutual respect and shared development—not to those who seek to maintain dominance through threats and exclusion.

The people of South and Central Asia deserve better than to be treated as pawns in great power competition. They deserve recognition as sovereign nations with their own histories, cultures, and development paths. As the American strategy demonstrates, this recognition will not come from Washington—it must be asserted and defended through independent foreign policies and regional cooperation.