President Obama’s Foreign Policy 4P 
State of Union Address to Congress by the President of The United States attracts the widest attention of domestic and foreign audiences. Different elements are important for different groups. Everything has its significance: content, messages, visuals, attendance, chronometric. Therefore, as always, assessments, comments and analysis are different and often contradictory.
Obviously domestic political context contributed to shaping President Obama’s January 2015 SOTU and its thematic chronometric. Two factors were particularly noteworthy: being in the concluding phase of his second term of presidency, the issue of presidential legacy is important while in recent midterm congressional elections Democratic party was defeated, and as a result, he had to address Republican congress, which has significant influence over the country’s domestic as well as foreign and national security policy.
In the turbulent global security environment, Obama’s 2015 SOTU had acquired strategic importance as it has sent signals to the American people, country’s partners and allies as well as the foes.As Obama highlighted “if there’s one thing this new century has taught us, it’s that we cannot separate our work at home from challenges beyond our shores”.
One of Obama’s key messages is that advanced US economy and prosperity of American people is the foundation of US “comeback” – US “have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth”.
SOTU 2015 outlined the central pillars of Obama’s foreign policy and his brand of “smarter kind of American leadership” – “wisely using all elements of … power to defeat new threats and protect our planet”; combination of military power with strong diplomacy; leveraging US power with coalition building; strong push for market-opening deals with Pacific Rim nations and Europe.
“As the demonstration the power of American strength and diplomacy for the purpose of upholding the principles”, Obama referred to US policy towards Russian aggression in Europe: supporting Ukraine’s democracy through imposing economic sanctions on Russia and reassuring NATO allies with additional military deployments. This policy is in line with the principles, Obama highlighted at his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture in 2009 at the beginning of his Presidency – “those nations that break rules and laws, … must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one”.
This has not been the policy choice of Obama with regard to Russia; rather this was unavoidable necessity as a result of complete failure of the reset policy, extended to Russia in 2009 notwithstanding one of the major disagreement between the US and Russia -brutal aggression in 2008 against Georgia.
Today Europe is again facing growing challenge posed by aggressive revanchist Russia to European and eventually global security.Trough his response and voiced messages, Obama demonstrated leadership and projected confidence towards the “frontline” (as he labeled them in SOTU) countries. These are countries who managed to break free from Russian sphere influence via joining NATO and EU but still are under security threat from Russia or countries like Georgia and Ukraine who are suffering from Russian aggression, fighting for their freedom and seeking security guarantees from the democratic world.
Should we be complacent by the “Russia … isolated, with its economy in tatters”? -Certainly NOT. Until Russia will be deprived capacity and capability to destabilize Europe and consequences of its aggression (particularly occupied territories) restored, thee will not be just and lasting peace in Europe and in the neighboring regions.
The strategic goal of the US foreign policy is not and should not be fighting Russia. Strategic goal of the American global leadership is to expand the boundaries of freedom and finalizing the process of making Europe whole and free and at peace. Success of this policy can bring enduring peace and security in Europe and therefore could be the logical foreign policy legacy of Obama.
Today Obama has all the necessary leverages and powers to achieve this goal in remaining two years of his presidency through clearly expressed commitments, supported by the sophisticated principled policies and engagement with allies and partners “with persistent, steady resolve”.“The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.” 
On their side, US’s European allies have to have their own foreign and security policy priorities aligned with the common values and principles, paramount of their individual interests, providing clear roadmap to the partner countries in trouble like Georgia and Ukraine.
Roadmap should include strong security reassurance and support and guarantees for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of these young democracies going through profound process of transformation and paving their path to the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies. Also strong emphasis should be devoted to the democratization and democratic institution building as the cornerstone of the successful statecraft, enduring security and growing prosperity. “It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security”.
Additionally, eventual and inevitable victory of the free world over Russian aggressive revanchism would give another chance to the Russian people to make their choice in favor of building liberal democracy, based on rule of law, not the law of ruler.
Obama nailed it: “now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next fifteen years, and for decades to come”. Now he has to walk the walk too.
 Bruce W. Jentlenson, American Foreign Policy, The Dynamics of Choice in 21st Century.
 Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize.