The relationship between the United States and Russia has been characterized by significant tension and a lack of cooperation over the past decades, particularly since Vladimir Putin’s 2007 address at the Munich Security Conference. This moment marked a definitive shift in Russia’s stance towards the American-led international order, as Moscow expressed its unwillingness to uncritically accept the post-Cold War status quo.
The deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations can be traced back to Russia’s perception of the American interventions in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003, along with Washington’s advice for Russia’s reform process. By 2007, Russia’s hopes of maintaining a great power status through partnership with the United States were dashed. Instead, Moscow began using all means at its disposal to pressure the United States into recognizing Russia’s terms for a revised international system.
The 2016 Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation codified Russia’s stance, demanding an equal-footing dialogue with the U.S. and decrying any form of American pressure. Conversely, the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy labeled Russia as a challenger to American power, influence, and interests, further cementing the adversarial nature of the relationship.
Donald Trump’s presidency introduced an element of unpredictability into U.S.-Russia relations. During his campaign, Trump broke from the bipartisan consensus that viewed Russian resurgence as a threat. He signaled a willingness to engage pragmatically with Moscow, a stance misinterpreted by both the Kremlin and his domestic opponents as accommodation.
In office, Trump’s actions reflected a competitive rather than accommodating stance towards Russia, including selling weapons to Ukraine and promoting American energy exports to Europe. Despite this, his administration faced significant resistance from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who were committed to a confrontational approach toward Russia.
Congressional opposition played a critical role in shaping U.S. policy towards Russia during Trump’s tenure. The imposition of sanctions and legislative measures restricted Trump’s ability to unilaterally improve relations with Moscow. This bipartisan stance, driven by a view that Russia must be punished for its international and domestic actions, left little room for diplomatic flexibility.
The U.S. Congress institutionalized sanctions and prevented Trump from lifting them without legislative approval, reflecting a deep mistrust of both Trump and Russia. This legislative approach has locked U.S. policy into a confrontational stance, depriving the president of significant leverage in dealing with the Kremlin.
Initially, Moscow hoped Trump’s presidency would lead to improved ties, but this expectation was quickly dashed. Trump’s appointments to key national security positions included individuals skeptical of Russia, and his administration continued to intensify sanctions and support actions contrary to Russian interests.
Despite Trump’s personal disposition towards better relations with Moscow, the resistance from Congress and the national security establishment limited any significant policy shifts. Consequently, Russia shifted its strategy, using the disruption caused by Trump to advance its interests and leverage global instability to strengthen its position.
Key U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have adjusted to the reality of strained U.S.-Russia relations. Countries like Germany, France, and Japan have sought to balance their national interests with their commitments to the U.S. while managing their interactions with Russia.
Germany, for instance, continues its economic engagement with Russia, particularly in energy, despite American sanctions and pressures. This pragmatic approach reflects the complex interdependencies and the significant economic stakes involved.
The Middle East has been a significant theater for the strategic competition between the United States and Russia, with both nations pursuing differing policies and objectives.
The U.S. has traditionally maintained a strong military and political presence in the Middle East, driven by interests in regional stability, counterterrorism, and the security of its allies, particularly Israel and the Gulf States. American policy has emphasized containing Iranian influence, supporting the peace process between Israel and Palestine, and maintaining open energy markets.
Key components of U.S. policy in the region include:
Counterterrorism: The U.S. has led international coalitions against terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, conducting military operations and providing support to regional allies.
– Iran Containment: The U.S. has implemented sanctions and pursued diplomatic isolation against Iran to limit its nuclear program and regional influence.
– Support for Allies: Military aid and defense cooperation with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States are cornerstones of U.S. policy, aimed at ensuring their security against regional threats.
Russia’s reassertion in the Middle East has been marked by a strategic and opportunistic approach, seeking to expand its influence and challenge U.S. dominance.
Key components of Russian policy in the region include:
– Support for Syria: Russia’s military intervention in Syria in 2015 was a pivotal moment, aimed at supporting the Assad regime against rebel groups and ISIS. This intervention has solidified Russia’s role as a key power broker in Syria and the wider region.
– Iran Partnership:Unlike the U.S., Russia maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, collaborating on military and economic fronts. This relationship enhances Russia’s leverage in the region and counterbalances U.S. influence.
– Diplomatic Engagement: Russia has positioned itself as a mediator in regional conflicts, engaging with a wide range of actors, including Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf States. This diplomatic outreach aims to portray Russia as an indispensable player in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
The future of U.S.-Russia relations under a potential second Trump presidency remains uncertain. While Trump’s inclination for pragmatic engagement could offer some opportunities for dialogue, the entrenched bipartisan skepticism towards Russia and the institutionalized sanctions regime would likely continue to constrain significant policy changes.
Moreover, the broader international context, including U.S. relations with China and the evolving geopolitical dynamics, will influence the trajectory of U.S.-Russia relations. Any substantial improvement in bilateral ties would require addressing the underlying issues of mutual distrust and conflicting interests that have defined the relationship for decades.
Donald Trump suggested during a fundraising event that he would have bombed Moscow in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and attacked Beijing if China invaded Taiwan on his watch, according to a Washington Post report. The comments surprised some of the donors at the event.
James Gilmore, who served as Mr. Trump’s ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, told reporters in Taiwan earlier this month that Mr. Trump isn’t an isolationist but that he’s simply trying to get allies to put more emphasis on their own defense.
“I believe that President Trump will be supportive of Taiwan when he becomes president. He was in his first term,” he said, according to Reuters. China claims Taiwan is its own territory over the objections of the Taiwanese government. The Trump White House did support Taiwan, including via arms sales which have continued under the Biden administration.
Mr. Trump has rarely mentioned Ukraine in recent months. Last year, he claimed that he would have the war “settled” in less than a day. In February, he wrote on Truth Social: “We should never give money anymore without the hope of a payback, or without ‘strings’ attached.” In April, he said: “As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, but it is also important to us! GET MOVING EUROPE!”
Mr. Trump praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping as recently as February. Appearing on Fox News, he was asked if he’s planning on upping the pressure in the trade war with China that he started in his first term. While he said he wasn’t looking to restart the trade war, he also said that he would consider imposing tariffs of more than 60 percent.
“Look, I want China to do great, I do. And I like President Xi a lot, he was a very good friend of mine during my term,” he told Fox. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump said he told European leaders that he would tell Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to countries who don’t spend enough on their own defense.
During a rally in the Bronx last week, Mr. Trump referenced several authoritarian leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that they were “at the top of their game, whether you like it or not.” “The world is going to respect us again” if he’s re-elected, he claimed.
The “bomb” revelation was made in a Washington Post report on Trump’s recent fundraising tour, during which he’s tested “the boundaries of federal campaign finance laws,” according to experts. At a fundraiser in New York earlier this month, Mr. Trump told the attendees he wanted to hear what they had on their minds, hearing opinions on former UN Ambassador and his final Republican primary opponent Nikki Haley and several issues connected to Israel, according to The Post.
Mr. Trump has routinely promised tax cuts and other policies that will be beneficial to the wealthy donors attending his fundraisers. The former president has at times surprised his own aides by asking for so much money.
But Trump advisers told the paper that the former president often makes similar policy promises to major donors behind closed doors as he does in public, and there’s no evidence that a specific promise has been connected to a particular donation.
“As Joe Biden’s backers in Hollywood and Silicon Valley are withholding their support for Biden’s failing campaign, donors across the country are maximizing their efforts to reelect President Trump because they realize we cannot afford another four years of Joe Biden’s terrible policies,” a Trump spokesperson told The Post.
The Independent has contacted the Trump campaign for comment.
While Mr. Trump was reluctant to take part in fundraisers during the 2016 campaign, the former president has taken an active role in raising money this time around. During the 2020 campaign, he would reluctantly attend fundraisers, advisers told The Post.
The Biden campaign raised less cash than the Trump campaign for the first time last month. In April, the Biden campaign raised more than $51m, far below the $90m haul it took in in March. The haul was also significantly lower than the $76m raised by the Trump campaign and the Republican Party, after the former president boosted his effort with the Republican National Committee (RNC) and attended major fundraisers.
But Democrats still lead Republicans in overall cash, and Mr. Biden himself has significantly more cash than Mr. Trump. The Biden campaign reported having $84m at the end of April, while Mr. Trump reported having $49m .
The persistent conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine highlight the unique position and responsibility of both the United States and Russia. As major global powers, they possess the diplomatic, military, and economic influence necessary to drive meaningful resolutions in these regions. Thus, it is crucial for the U.S. and Russia to collaborate in seeking peace and stability.
From the perspective of international relations theories, both Realism and Liberalism offer insights into why U.S.-Russia cooperation is essential. Realism emphasizes the importance of balance of power and strategic interests. The U.S. and Russia, through cooperation, can effectively manage regional power dynamics, reducing the likelihood of further escalation and creating a stable geopolitical environment. For instance, their coordinated efforts could help mitigate the proxy conflicts in Syria, where their competing interests have prolonged the war.
On the other hand, Liberalism stresses the significance of international institutions and cooperative norms. Joint U.S.-Russia initiatives within frameworks like the United Nations could foster multilateral approaches to conflict resolution, as seen in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear program, where both nations played pivotal roles. Such collaboration not only addresses immediate conflicts but also strengthens global governance structures, promoting long-term peace and stability.
A lesser-discussed yet critical aspect is the application of Constructivist theory, which focuses on the power of ideas, identities, and shared norms. Building a narrative of U.S.-Russia cooperation could reshape global perceptions and reduce mutual distrust. Historical precedents like the Cold War-era détente, where despite ideological differences, both nations engaged in arms control agreements and diplomatic dialogues, demonstrate the potential for significant breakthroughs.
In conclusion, the U.S. and Russia, by leveraging their combined influence and embracing a mix of Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist strategies, can play a transformative role in resolving conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. Their collaboration is not just a strategic necessity but a moral imperative to ensure global peace and stability.
