David Reynolds had to take sick leave at the start of the year so we turned to Daniel Mackay to survey the international landscape in the first month and-a-half of Trump's term. Mackay readily admits that this is not his area of expertise, but he did a yeoman's job in appraising some of the historic changes occurring.


The recent confrontation between U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office has shocked the international community like a hypothermic plunge into the Barents Sea, highlighting the complex and evolving nature of U.S.-Russia relations. The confounding scene exposed geopolitical tensions shaping global politics; it also provides an entry point for a deeper examination of the historical context, current dynamics, and potential future trajectories of this critical relationship.


The Trump-Zelenskyy Confrontation: A Microcosm of Shifting Alliances

On February 28, 2025, what was intended to be a diplomatic meeting between the leaders of the United States and Ukraine devolved into a heated exchange that played out in front of the world's media. President Trump and Vice President Vance berated President Zelenskyy for what they perceived as a lack of gratitude for American support, with Trump going so far as to threaten abandoning Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. This extraordinary incident not only underscores the fragility of international alliances but also signals a potential realignment of U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration.

The confrontation centered around several key issues:

  1. Gratitude for U.S. support: Trump and Vance accused Zelenskyy of being insufficiently thankful for American aid.
  2. Peace negotiations: The U.S. leaders pushed for Ukraine to engage in peace talks with Russia, a stance that Zelenskyy resisted.
  3. Diplomatic decorum: Vance accused Zelenskyy of being "disrespectful" in the Oval Office.
  4. Geopolitical leverage: Trump suggested that Ukraine lacked leverage in its current position and needed U.S. support to gain any advantage.

The dustup signifies broad shifts occurring in global politics, particularly in the triangular relationship between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. It also highlights the potential for a significant realignment of U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration, with implications that extend far beyond these three nations.


Historical Context: The Cold War and Its Aftermath

To understand the current state of U.S.-Russia relations and the potential for realignment, it is crucial to examine the historical context, particularly the Cold War era and its aftermath.


The Cold War: A Global Struggle

The Cold War, which lasted from the end of World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, was characterized by ideological, economic, and military competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. This period saw the world divided into two opposing camps, with both superpowers vying for global influence and supremacy.


The Cold War had far-reaching consequences that reshaped the global landscape in multiple dimensions. At its core, the conflict manifested in proxy wars that resulted in significant loss of life. The Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975) stand as stark examples of this deadly competition, with the former leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the latter claiming millions of Vietnamese lives and nearly 60,000 American soldiers. These conflicts were fueled by an intense arms race, as both superpowers engaged in a costly and dangerous nuclear arms buildup, pushing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.


The rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union extended beyond military confrontation, permeating into technological and scientific realms. This competition culminated in the space race, with both nations vying for supremacy in space exploration. The ultimate achievement of this era was the moon landing, which not only marked a pinnacle of human scientific achievement but also served as a powerful symbol of American technological prowess.


Underpinning these military and technological contests was a fundamental ideological divide that split the world between capitalist and communist ideologies. This schism profoundly affected political systems and alliances globally, as nations aligned themselves with one superpower or the other, or attempted to navigate a precarious path of non-alignment. The ideological battle extended into the economic sphere, with the United States championing free-market capitalism while the Soviet Union advocated for centrally planned economies. This economic competition shaped development strategies and trade relations worldwide, leaving a lasting impact on global economic structures that persists to this day.


Post-Cold War Era: Attempts at Cooperation


The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a watershed moment in U.S.-Russia relations, initially sparking optimism for a new era of cooperation. However, this hope soon gave way to a complex tapestry of challenges and tensions as both nations navigated the uncharted waters of the post-Cold War world.


A major source of friction emerged with NATO's eastward expansion into former Soviet bloc countries. This move, while seen as a security guarantee by new member states like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, became a significant point of contention between Russia and the West. Moscow viewed this expansion as a threat to its security interests, particularly as NATO moved closer to Russia's borders. The 1999 inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, followed by the Baltic states in 2004, set the stage for future geopolitical tensions. Russian President Vladimir Putin would later cite NATO expansion as a key grievance in his foreign policy decisions, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea.


Simultaneously, Russia embarked on painful economic reforms throughout the 1990s. These transitions, aimed at transforming the centrally planned economy into a market-based system, led to widespread social upheaval and political instability. The "shock therapy" approach, advocated by advisors like Jeffrey Sachs and embraced by Russian reformers, resulted in rapid privatization and liberalization. While this led to the emergence of a new class of wealthy oligarchs, it also caused severe economic hardship for many Russians. The 1998 Russian financial crisis, which saw the ruble collapse and the government default on its debt, exemplified the challenges of this transition period.


In parallel with economic reforms, the U.S. supported efforts to establish democratic institutions in Russia. Programs funded by USAID and other organizations aimed to strengthen civil society, independent media, and electoral processes. However, these democratization initiatives yielded mixed results. While Russia saw a flourishing of political parties and media outlets in the early 1990s, the tumultuous presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the subsequent rise of Vladimir Putin led to a gradual consolidation of power and erosion of democratic norms. The 1993 constitutional crisis, which culminated in Yeltsin using military force against the parliament, highlighted the fragility of Russia's nascent democratic institutions.


Despite these tensions, both nations engaged in productive negotiations to reduce their nuclear arsenals. These efforts resulted in significant arms control agreements, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II). START I, signed in 1991 and implemented in 1994, led to substantial reductions in deployed nuclear warheads and delivery systems. START II, signed in 1993, aimed to further reduce strategic nuclear weapons, though it ultimately never entered into force due to deteriorating relations. These agreements demonstrated a shared commitment to reducing the threat of nuclear conflict, even as other areas of the relationship became strained.


Perhaps the most visible and enduring symbol of post-Cold War cooperation emerged in space exploration. The International Space Station (ISS) became a testament to what could be achieved when the two former rivals worked together. The 1993 agreement to merge the American Space Station Freedom and the Russian Mir-2 projects into the ISS laid the groundwork for this unprecedented collaboration. Since the first module's launch in 1998, the ISS has hosted astronauts and cosmonauts working side by side, conducting scientific research and pushing the boundaries of human space exploration. This cooperation has endured even through periods of terrestrial tension, with recent agreements extending joint missions until at least 2025.


These developments illustrate the complex and often contradictory nature of U.S.-Russia relations in the post-Soviet era. While areas of cooperation emerged, particularly in arms control and space exploration, underlying tensions persisted and grew. The optimism of the early 1990s gave way to a more complicated reality, as diverging interests and interpretations of the post-Cold War order led to renewed competition and conflict. The legacy of this period continues to shape U.S.-Russia relations today, serving as both a reminder of the potential for cooperation and a cautionary tale about the challenges of overcoming decades of mistrust and rivalry.


The Specter of Nuclear Proliferation in an Uncertain World

As the United States' commitment to defending its traditional allies comes into question, the world faces a potentially dangerous shift towards greater nuclear proliferation. Countries that have long relied on U.S. security guarantees may now feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, fundamentally altering the global security landscape.


The Erosion of Trust and Its Consequences

The recent confrontation between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy starkly reminds the nation of the fragility of international alliances. As the U.S. appears to waver in its commitments, nations that have historically restrained themselves from pursuing nuclear weapons due to American security assurances are now reassessing their positions.


Germany and South Korea stand out as prime examples of countries that may feel increasing pressure to develop nuclear capabilities. Both nations have sophisticated technological infrastructures and face regional threats that could justify such a move in the absence of reliable U.S. protection.


The potential for nuclear proliferation extends beyond Saudi Arabia, with several other nations potentially reconsidering their non-nuclear stances in light of evolving regional dynamics and perceived security threats.


Japan, with its advanced technological capabilities and growing concerns about North Korea and China, may be compelled to reevaluate its long-standing non-nuclear policy. This shift is influenced by Japan's strategic position and its reliance on U.S. security guarantees, which have been a cornerstone of its defense strategy since the end of World War II. Recent discussions and guidelines aimed at strengthening U.S. extended nuclear deterrence for Japan reflect a changing security environment, where Japan's involvement in nuclear decision-making is becoming more pronounced.


Similarly, Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions are primarily driven by fears of a nuclear-armed Iran. The Kingdom has been clear about its desire to develop nuclear capabilities, with its leadership stating that it would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran were to acquire them. This stance is further complicated by Saudi Arabia's vast uranium reserves and its cooperation with China on uranium ore production, which underscores its capacity to pursue a nuclear program if needed.


Turkey, positioned at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East, might view nuclear weapons as a means to assert regional power and balance against other nuclear-capable states in its vicinity. Australia, while traditionally aligned with the United States, could reconsider its nuclear stance if American commitments in the Asia-Pacific region were to waver. This potential shift underscores the complex interplay between alliance structures, regional security dynamics, and nuclear deterrence strategies.


The Domino Effect of Proliferation

The decision by any of these nations to pursue nuclear weapons could trigger a domino effect – the Baba Yaga that frightened the United States into military involvement in both Korea and Vietnam – with neighboring countries feeling compelled to follow suit to maintain strategic balance. This could lead to a rapid and destabilizing spread of nuclear capabilities across regions that have long been non-nuclear.


Challenges to Non-Proliferation Efforts

The potential wave of nuclear proliferation poses significant challenges to existing non-proliferation frameworks:


The potential wave of nuclear proliferation poses significant challenges to existing non-proliferation frameworks, threatening to unravel decades of careful diplomacy and international cooperation. At the heart of this challenge lies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. If multiple signatories were to withdraw from the NPT, citing changing security dynamics or perceived threats, it could severely weaken the treaty's effectiveness and legitimacy. Such withdrawals would not only reduce the treaty's membership but also potentially encourage other nations to follow suit, creating a domino effect that could rapidly erode the global norm against nuclear weapons acquisition.


This erosion of norms would have cascading effects on other crucial elements of the non-proliferation regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, which play a vital role in verifying compliance with non-proliferation commitments, may become less effective as more countries develop dual-use nuclear technologies. As the number of nations with advanced nuclear capabilities increases, the IAEA's resources and mandate could be stretched thin, potentially compromising its ability to detect and deter clandestine nuclear activities.


Furthermore, regional nuclear-free zone agreements, such as those in Southeast Asia and Latin America, could begin to unravel. These agreements have been instrumental in maintaining regional stability and reducing the risk of nuclear arms races in specific geographic areas. However, if nations within these zones perceive a growing nuclear threat or a weakening of security guarantees, they may reconsider their commitments to remain nuclear-free. The collapse of these regional agreements would not only increase the risk of proliferation within these areas but also undermine the broader global effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.


Implications for Global Stability

A world with more nuclear-armed states presents a myriad of interconnected risks that could fundamentally alter the global security landscape. The increased number of nuclear arsenals would significantly raise the likelihood of nuclear accidents or unauthorized use, as more actors would be involved in the management and control of these weapons. This proliferation of nuclear materials and technology would also heighten the risk of these falling into the hands of non-state actors, including terrorist organizations, potentially leading to catastrophic consequences.


The multiplication of nuclear-armed states would inevitably result in more complex and unpredictable crisis management scenarios. Traditional deterrence models, developed during the Cold War era of bipolar nuclear competition, may prove inadequate in a multi-polar nuclear world. This complexity could lead to misunderstandings, miscalculations, and escalations during times of tension, increasing the risk of nuclear conflict.


Moreover, the proliferation of nuclear weapons could paradoxically weaken conventional deterrence. As more states acquire nuclear capabilities, they might feel emboldened to engage in low-level conflicts or aggressive actions, believing that their nuclear arsenal would shield them from significant retaliation. This dynamic could lead to an increase in regional instabilities and more frequent low-intensity conflicts, further complicating global security.


As the international community grapples with these interconnected challenges, the need for renewed diplomatic efforts and innovative security arrangements becomes ever more pressing. The potential realignment of U.S.-Russia relations must be considered within this broader context of global nuclear security and the urgent need to prevent a new era of widespread proliferation. Addressing these risks will require not only strengthening existing non-proliferation frameworks but also developing new approaches to arms control, crisis management, and regional security that are adapted to the realities of a potentially multi-polar nuclear world.


Special Interests and the Perpetuation of Antagonism

The adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Russia has benefited various special interests over the decades. Understanding these interests is crucial to comprehending the forces that have shaped and continue to influence this relationship.


The Military Industrial Corporate Complex

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's prescient warning about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address identified the network of defense contractors, military personnel, and related industries that determines U.S. foreign policy and defense spending, with far-reaching consequences for global geopolitics.


The ongoing tensions with Russia have provided a convenient rationale for maintaining high levels of military expenditure, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that benefits various stakeholders within the complex. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon have reaped enormous profits from lucrative contracts for weapons systems and military equipment, their financial success further entrenching their influence in policy-making circles. This economic incentive aligns with the interests of military personnel, who can justify the maintenance of a large standing force and extensive overseas deployments based on the perceived threat from Russia.


The military-industrial complex's influence extends beyond direct military spending, permeating the realm of ideas and policy formation. Think tanks and policy organizations focused on national security and foreign policy have built their reputations and funding bases on analyzing and responding to the Russian threat. This intellectual infrastructure provides a steady stream of analysis that often reinforces the need for military preparedness and intervention, further justifying the complex's existence and expansion.


Politicians, too, have found the military-industrial complex a useful ally in their pursuit of power. By invoking the specter of Russian aggression, they can bolster their credentials as strong leaders on national security issues, appealing to voters' fears and patriotic sentiments. This symbiotic relationship between political ambitions and the interests of the military-industrial complex creates a powerful lobby for continued high levels of defense spending and an interventionist foreign policy.


The result is a self-reinforcing system where economic interests, military strategy, policy analysis, and political ambitions all converge to maintain a state of perpetual military readiness and global intervention, often at the expense of other national priorities and diplomatic alternatives. Eisenhower's warning remains as relevant today as it was over six decades ago, reminding us of the need for vigilance in maintaining a balance between national security and the broader interests of society.


Corporate Interests

Corporate interests, extending beyond the defense sector, have significantly shaped the U.S.-Russia relationship, often benefiting from the inherent tensions. Energy companies provide a prime example. Competition over global energy markets has consistently influenced relations, with U.S. companies frequently maneuvering to limit Russian influence in key regions, particularly in Europe. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, designed to transport natural gas directly from Russia to Germany, became a focal point of contention, with the U.S. imposing sanctions to impede its completion, ostensibly to protect European energy security but also to promote sales of American liquefied natural gas. Financial institutions, too, have navigated a complex landscape, particularly in the wake of sanctions imposed on Russia following its actions in Ukraine. While some firms with deep ties to Russian markets have faced challenges and financial losses, others have found opportunities in advising on restructuring or facilitating transactions that comply with the new regulatory environment. Technology companies represent another area of competition, with the race for technological supremacy, particularly in fields like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, framed partly in terms of strategic rivalry with Russia. Concerns about Russian cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns have led to increased investment in cybersecurity defenses and research, benefiting companies specializing in these areas. Media organizations, while not always directly benefiting financially, have often seen increased viewership and readership during times of heightened tension with Russia. Dramatic news stories about Russian military activities, political interference, or diplomatic clashes tend to capture public attention, creating a demand for up-to-the-minute coverage and analysis.


Geopolitical Interests

Geopolitical interests also play a crucial role in perpetuating the complex dynamic between the U.S. and Russia. NATO members in Eastern Europe, having emerged from the shadow of Soviet domination, have consistently sought protection under the NATO umbrella. This desire has, in turn, justified the alliance's continued existence and expansion, solidifying U.S. influence in the region and providing a counterweight to Russian power. China, as a rising power with its own strategic ambitions, has at times benefited from the distraction provided by U.S.-Russia tensions, allowing it to pursue its interests more freely in regions like Central Asia and Africa. By cultivating a close relationship with Russia while simultaneously competing with the U.S., China has effectively positioned itself as a key player in a multi-polar world. Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, have skillfully leveraged U.S.-Russia competition to advance their regional interests. For example, Saudi Arabia has sought to balance its relationship with the U.S. by maintaining ties with Russia on issues such as oil production, while Israel has coordinated with Russia to avoid unintended conflicts in Syria. Non-aligned nations, such as India, have often been able to play the U.S. and Russia against each other to secure better deals in areas like defense procurement and energy supplies. By maintaining strategic autonomy and cultivating relationships with both powers, these nations have maximized their leverage and diversified their strategic options. These diverse and often competing interests help explain why, despite periodic attempts at rapprochement, tensions between the U.S. and Russia have persisted long after the Cold War's end.


Post-Soviet Efforts at Economic Cooperation

The period immediately following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 presented a unique opportunity to redefine U.S.-Russia relations, sparking significant efforts aimed at fostering a more cooperative partnership. Economic cooperation and assistance formed a cornerstone of this endeavor. Western nations, led by the U.S., extended economic aid to Russia as it grappled with the transition from a centrally planned to a market-based economy. Western economists, including Jeffrey Sachs, provided technical advice, advocating for rapid privatization and market reforms. International financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank offered loans and assistance to stabilize the Russian economy, often with conditions attached to promote fiscal discipline and structural adjustment. American companies were encouraged to invest in the newly opened Russian market, seeking to capitalize on opportunities in sectors ranging from energy to consumer goods. Educational exchanges, exemplified by programs like the Fulbright Scholarship, aimed to foster cultural understanding and build people-to-people connections between the two countries.


Political and Security Cooperation

Political and security cooperation also emerged as a key priority. Efforts were made to integrate Russia into Western-led international institutions and security frameworks. The NATO-Russia Council, established in 2002, sought to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues, albeit with limited success. Russia joined the G7 group of advanced economies in 1997, transforming it into the G8, symbolizing its growing integration into the global economic order. Arms control negotiations continued, with both nations working to reduce their nuclear arsenals through the START process, although this progress would later stall amid rising tensions. Counter-terrorism cooperation also emerged, particularly after the September 11 attacks, with Russia supporting U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and sharing intelligence on terrorist threats.


Cultural and Scientific Collaboration

Cultural and scientific collaboration provided another avenue for building bridges. People-to-people contacts were actively encouraged to foster mutual understanding and break down Cold War-era stereotypes. Space cooperation, epitomized by the Shuttle-Mir program and later the International Space Station, became a powerful symbol of scientific collaboration, demonstrating the potential for joint endeavors in the pursuit of knowledge. Cultural exchanges flourished, with museums, theaters, and other cultural institutions increasing their exchanges and joint projects. Educational partnerships between universities in both countries expanded, fostering academic collaboration and student mobility.


Trump's Realignment Strategy: Motivations and Challenges

Despite these multifaceted efforts, the envisioned lasting partnership between the U.S. and Russia ultimately failed to materialize, with several factors contributing to the deterioration of relations. NATO expansion, viewed by Russia as an encroachment on its sphere of influence, emerged as a major source of contention. The 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo, undertaken without UN Security Council approval and despite Russian objections, further strained relations. U.S. plans to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, ostensibly to counter threats from Iran, were perceived by Russia as a strategic challenge. Russian leadership interpreted U.S. support for pro-democracy movements in former Soviet states, often dubbed "color revolutions," as attempts to undermine its influence in its near abroad. Many Russians felt that the Western-style economic reforms advocated in the 1990s had failed to deliver promised prosperity, leading to widespread disappointment and disillusionment with the West. These simmering tensions ultimately set the stage for the more adversarial relationship that developed in the 2000s and 2010s, culminating in the current geopolitical landscape characterized by renewed competition and mistrust.


Motivations for Realignment

President Trump's apparent willingness to pursue a more cooperative stance with Russia marks a significant departure from the policies of his predecessors, driven by a combination of strategic calculations and personal diplomacy. A primary motivation behind this realignment strategy is the desire to counter China's growing influence on the world stage. The Trump administration views China as the primary geopolitical challenger to U.S. interests, and seeks to prevent a closer alliance between Moscow and Beijing, potentially weakening their strategic partnership. By improving relations with Russia, the U.S. hopes to create a wedge between the two powers, thereby gaining leverage in its competition with China. Trump has also expressed a desire to end "endless wars" and resolve long-standing conflicts, such as those in Ukraine and Syria, where Russia plays a significant role. By engaging with Russia, the U.S. hopes to find common ground and de-escalate tensions in these regions, paving the way for political settlements and reduced military involvement.


Challenges to Realignment

A potential realignment of U.S.-Russia relations has global consequences, particularly for China. As the world's second-largest economy and a rising power, China's relationship with both the U.S. and Russia is crucial. A U.S.-Russia rapprochement could isolate China, potentially pushing it to seek new alliances or adopt a more aggressive posture. Changes in U.S.-Russia trade relations could affect China's economic interests, particularly in Central Asia and the Arctic. A re-aligned relationship could impact the race for technological supremacy, in which China is a key player.


China

A potential realignment of U.S.-Russia relations has global consequences, particularly for China. As the world's second-largest economy and a rising power, China's relationship with both the U.S. and Russia is crucial. A U.S.-Russia rapprochement could isolate China, potentially pushing it to seek new alliances or adopt a more aggressive posture. Changes in U.S.-Russia trade relations could affect China's economic interests, particularly in Central Asia and the Arctic. A re-aligned relationship could impact the race for technological supremacy, in which China is a key player.


European Union and NATO

For the European Union and NATO, the transatlantic alliance has been a cornerstone of Western security since World War II. Improved U.S.-Russia relations could lead to questions about NATO's purpose and structure. Eastern European countries, like Poland and the Baltic states, may feel vulnerable if U.S. commitment to their security wanes. A shift in U.S. policy could accelerate efforts for greater European strategic autonomy. The dynamics of European energy dependence on Russia could change, affecting economic and political relationships.


Middle East

In the Middle East, a region long marked by U.S.-Russia competition, a U.S.-Russia understanding could lead to a new approach to resolving the Syrian conflict. The two powers' approach to Iran's nuclear program and regional influence might evolve. Israel's strategic calculations could shift if it perceives changes in U.S. or Russian policies towards the region. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states might reassess their reliance on U.S. security guarantees and their relationships with Russia.


Asia-Pacific

The Asia-Pacific region, increasingly central to global geopolitics, sees key players like Japan and South Korea potentially diversifying their strategic relationships if they perceive a shift in U.S. priorities. India, with good relations with both the U.S. and Russia, might see new opportunities in a re-aligned landscape. Southeast Asian countries, often caught between major powers, might need to recalibrate their foreign policies. These potential realignments illustrate the shifting dynamics and complexities of global power in the 21st century.


An Uneasy Future

Will Trump's realignment strategy work? This, of course, is a question for future historians. In changing how the game has been played for the past eight decades, the risks are high. The players very well may strike back. Further, Zelenskyy's warning about Putin's untrustworthiness are pertinent. Instead of contributing a new game board characterized by peace and business transactions, Trump may be establishing the foundation for the expansion of a new supra-Russia state. Warnings that such are Putin's ultimate aims – the recreation of the "Third Rome" of the Czarist Russian Empire – have certainly appeared in the press for decades now. What, though, is the truth and how will it unfold across a geopolitical landscape that is likely to include many new nuclear powers?


The time is an uneasy one. We may be on the brink of catastrophe or peaceful prosperity; it is hard to be reassured when politics are expressed through antics and the media manufactures stories resulting in either/or possibilities that inevitably lead to the existential "To be or not to be." Will it be thus? To be continued...