Human Security Centre Human Rights and International Security Research
1 April, 2025
by Oleksandra Zadesenets, Research Assistant
In February 2025, as a response to Trump’s endeavours to sign a mineral deal with Ukraine, Putin declared that he had a better bargain, offering the US president strategic minerals and collaboration on the development of rare earth metals, aluminium, and hydropower. This gambit manifests the unexpected twist in US-Russian relations after the long-standing “hot peace” of the 21st century, which at times has been regarded as more dangerous than the Cold War.
Despite the brief successes exemplified by the counterterrorism efforts, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the efforts to denuclearise Iran, joint Arctic and space exploration and cooperation on climate and healthcare issues, the US-Russia partnership never truly addressed the core security concerns of Washington and Moscow. Russia perceived the Westward inclination of its “near abroad” as an acute national security threat sponsored by the US, whilst the US regarded the Russian wars in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine as a treacherous breach of the world order. Any effort to cooperate on these matters resulted in a clash of values and interests, becoming a vicious cycle of Russian aggression and US rejection, which dissolved the partnership and aggravated the mutual mistrust.
The year 2021 became a turning point, leading to the cessation of the Russia-NATO mission due to suspicion of Russian espionage. The US-Russia relations reached unprecedented levels of post-Soviet tension following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, where the latter received substantial American military backing.
It would seem that nothing could have saved these relations. Yet, what has become a crucial factor in breaking the ice between these two powers in 2025? The answer is on the surface clear: Donald Trump is prepared to offer Putin a deal unlike anything seen before.
Trump’s New Deal
The essence of US-Russia tensions lies in the fundamental discrepancy between Putin’s vision of an assertive Russian role in shaping the global order and the supervisory position Russia was assigned in the NATO-Russia Council as well as in the broader unipolar world order — one without veto power or influence over decisions.
Unlike the Biden and Obama administrations that sought to reform and liberalise Russia, Trump recognises Russian historical exceptionalism, political uniqueness, and its identity as a beacon of Eurasian civilisation, which coincides with Russian self-perception.
Trump’s rhetoric calling for Russia’s return to the G7, encouraging respect for Putin, recalling Russian victory over Nazism and recognising the Kremlin’s role in shaping international relations deeply echoes the national interest defined by Putin as a pursuit by the multipolar world in the Munich speech and the “national sovereignty” principle declared by Lavrov. Hence, Trump’s agenda challenges the conventional American approach to Russia, endowing Moscow with unprecedented geopolitical leverage.
Trump’s appeasing stance towards Russia and the rejection of the Ukrainian alliance with NATO – Russia’s chief security concern – allows for Kremlin influence in NATO decision-making and the inclusion of Moscow in the geopolitical framework on the renewed terms, allocating Russia a decisive role it was ceaselessly striving to obtain. This emerging tendency resonates with the Russian vision of multipolarity, reflecting Putin’s words about the replacement of ‘the US power vertical’ and ‘the new vision of interdependence’.
Furthermore, the recent US refusal to recognise Russia as an aggressor in the Russo-Ukraine war before the United Nations shifts the responsibility for the war to former President Joe Biden and NATO, framing Russia as the victim. It questions the ICC arrest warrant for Putin, helping him to avoid punishment for the multiple war crimes in Ukraine, such as the Bucha massacre and the Siege of Azovstal.
The public reproach of Zelensky by JD Vance and Trump in the White House on the 28 March echoes with the Russian propaganda narrative about Zelensky being the illegitimate president and the sabotager of peace. It portrays Putin and Trump as the peacemakers in the Russo-Ukraine war while advocating for elections during wartime in Ukraine, creating opportunities for Russian interference in the Ukrainian electoral process.
On top of that, the claims of Trump’s Defence Secretary Hegseth about the impossibility of Ukrainian territories’ de-occupation underline the possibility for Russia to achieve its military objectives by political means.
Ultimately, Trump’s twist of labelling Putin a trustworthy actor enhances the latter’s reputation and the international image of Russia, concealing its inability to achieve its military goals and placing the country on “the right side of history”.
Another benefit coming in the package of Trump’s detenté is the US helping Russia to reduce its political and economic reliance on China amid EU sanctions, where the diversification of economic opportunities will play in Russia’s interest. The scarcity of Russian economic options allows China to dictate the course of Russian affairs. Additionally, the Russian war machine economy renders the continuation of war as a matter of Russian economic survival, which is not proven to be a long-term and robust strategy. As an ISW report demonstrates, the recent Russian attempts to scale back state expenditures on benefits for military personnel represent the unsustainability of such high military spending, emphasising that the Russian war in Ukraine is draining the country’s national wealth and driving up inflation.
With this in mind, it is also important to emphasise that the war effort conceals numerous internal tensions that could weaken Putin’s grip on power. In this regard, the price of a blood-shedding and economically draining war is lower than the price of peace, which could destabilise the Russian political regime. Putin can exploit Trump’s desire to finish the Russo-Ukrainian war to win a better bargaining position in negotiations without a genuine commitment to peace.
Hawkish Threats by Dovish Means: Russia as a Tool of Trump’s Geopolitical Strategy
In the short aftermath of Trump’s call to Putin on 18 February 2025, the US and Russia held a summit in Saudi Arabia that resulted in the expansion of diplomatic ties, reaffirming a notably conciliatory American stance toward Moscow. It marks a drastic departure from the foreign policy approaches of the former US administrations which positioned Washington as an internationalist beacon of the global defence of democracy and international order.
Trump’s high-stakes gamble is closely tied to his transactional approach to foreign policy, hinting that Russian strategic predisposition offers a unique benefit for the US national interest, worth a trade-off in international credibility.
The US deems China to be the only equal competitor, defining it as a major threat to national security and prioritising the deterrence of China as a key foreign policy goal. The surge of Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea to counter the Chinese maritime expansion marked a notable shift from engagement to strategic competition between China and the United States during Trump’s first cadence.
Chinese rising power is actively contesting the United States’ influence in the global arena. China resorts to swift economic, military and diplomatic manoeuvres to balance the United States, weakening the US-led institutions and military alliances. In the era of economic interdependence, China exploits economic ties to pressure the NATO allies and the QUAD initiative, encouraging these states to abstain from the belligerent unified stance against Beijing. The QUAD, in particular, plays a pivotal role in countering Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Consequently, the effectiveness of US deterrence against China remained contingent on the strength and cohesion of these alliances. The Chinese penetration into these institutions naturally calls for a change in the defence strategy.
During the Cold War, the US exploited the Sino-Soviet split, siding with China against the USSR. Accordingly, the actions of Trump can be seen as the reversed Nixon-Kissinger diplomatic triangle, where the Russia can be used to counter the China threat. Nevertheless, having considered this, how can one explain Trump’s hawkish stance towards Russia and China during his first presidency, represented by the trade wars against China, the imposition of sanctions on Russia and the supply of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine? What Trump employs this time can be seen as the modified diplomatic triangle, where the US seeks to deter China through appeasement rather than confrontation.
Given the preciousness of the Chinese partnership to Russia, Trump’s paradigm does not envisage the isolation of Moscow from Beijing. Instead, it gives a chance for the transition of the Russo-Chinese partnership to a new level, сalling on China to engage in negotiations for resolving the war in Ukraine and reinforcing their influence in international relations. As remarked by Temur Umarov, a research fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, Russia and China perceive international law as unfairly structured, excluding other nations from the decision-making processes on the global stage. The Chinese and Russian points of view intersect in the calling for the reformation of this system, rendering themselves the alternative power centres opposing Washington. The invitation of Russia and China to the negotiation table over the Russo-Ukraine war resolution would portray Russia and China as equal peacemakers rather than fuelers of this war, reshaping the balance of power in the world and satisfying their national interests.
In this foreign policy agenda, the normalisation with Russia serves as a mere tool to demonstrate American goodwill to China. The alienation of Ukraine by the US can indicate the diminishing of Taiwan’s role the US foreign policy, pushing China to mitigate the South China Sea conflict. It allows Trump to counter the same hawkish threats by dovish means, rendering his defence policy a mutually beneficial agreement for all parties.
The risks to international security followed by this approach, however, cannot be overstated. This approach downplays the role of the collective defence institutions and instead concentraes on the great power polarity. This calls for immediate actions from the European side to preserve its integrity.
Europe’s Call for Action
Both Trump and Putin see NATO as a threat to national security. For Trump, NATO affairs represent a chief factor in distracting American attention and resources from the most urgent threats represented by the Southern US border and China’s rising power.
Meanwhile, for Putin, NATO embodies a threat undermining Russian dominance in Eastern Europe, serving as an obstacle to the popularisation of Russian-led initiatives such as the Eurasian Economic Union. Most recently, NATO’s support for Ukraine directly counters Russian efforts to assert control over Ukraine.
In the Putin and Trump equation, the weakening of NATO’s role would align with their respective interests. For years, Russia endeavoured to build “the coalitions of resentment against the West” by destabilising the European Union, provoking military conflicts and disrupting the rules-based global order by covert strategies entrenching the divisions in Europe.
By imposing trade tariffs on the EU and halting the cyber counter offensives against Russia, Trump pivots to the Russian operations that had previously been central in the deterioration of Russia-NATO relations. It absolves Russian responsibility for the hybrid threats posed to Europe, exemplified by the cyberattacks on the European Parliament (2019), the influence on election outcomes and the polarisation of European societies.
The support of the Trump administration for the far-right European parties sympathetic to Putin, such as AfD in Germany and Reform UK, as well as the discreditation of Romanian electoral results, undermines the political subjectivity of Europe and gives fruitful results to the Russian disinformation campaigns. Thus, the possible decrease of the US role in NATO and the encouragement of the MAGA-friendly governments would lead to Russian victory on the hybrid battlefield, creating a power vacuum in Europe that China would be able to fill.
It threatens the legitimacy of European governments as the wave of hybrid threats would continue to rise, requiring Europe to respond with a prompt strategy. It is crucial for NATO member states to develop an adequate defence agenda independent of the US to hinder Russia and China’s role in shaping the European future.
