Donald Trump’s accession to the US presidency was sure to throw some curveballs at the global status quo. Leaders like President Donald Trump do pose a challenge to the institutional approach of international relations as they bring in individualism and agency to its practice. Trump has campaigned heavily on his promise of ending the Ukraine war and pulling the US out of ‘wasteful endeavours abroad’ and now in office he seems keenly intent to keep those promises. This is clearly evident by the pace at which the US State Department is acting, literally steamrolling the European allies and even Ukraine itself in order to settle the conflict. A sentiment further confirmed by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself when he stated that it would be impractical for Ukraine to expect a complete restoration of its pre-2014 borders.
This essentially provides a voluminous leeway for Russia, and it couldn’t have arrived at a better time. Russia has been engaged in an unwinnable conflict of attrition in Ukraine for the past 3 years. In addition, the war in Ukraine no longer serves any specific strategic purpose anymore. Ukraine’s NATO membership has been ruled out and in the current scenario, completely overrunning the nation isn’t reasonably possible through conventional warfare. Russia has achieved, in realistic terms, what it can achieve in Ukraine. Donetsk and Luhansk are, for all intents and purposes, being integrated as Russian Republics. An expedited settlement to the conflict with an open minded US on the other side of the table is a dream come true. Russia is acting on it by such a short notice and productive meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavarov and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Saudi Arabia along with the positive statements and commentary that followed. The contenders are not only at the table, they are eager to find an end to the war. Lavrov has said that the “US understands Russia’s position better now” which is a positive direction in their bilateral relationship.
Ukraine is an important issue for both the nations. For one it is a wasteful war with no legitimate goals in sight and for the other ending it would be a great headline and a major foreign policy win for the administration. Secretary of state Rubio has commented that these negotiations open the door for further engagement on issues of common interest. But herein lies the question as to what issues of common interest can the both nations can actually engage on? Russia and the US are essentially polarised on either side of a brewing reorganisation of the global order. While the US may try a rapprochement policy toward Russia, how would that possibly reconcile with Russia’s deepening links with China and Iran? Not only that, Russia and China along with fellow revisionist powers are collectively taking the lead against the western led “rules based order”. Engagement on BRICS, SCO are vital to Russian interests and its emerging position as a major global contender along with new found partners like Iran and China. Russia is at the very critical centre of a new bloc that is visibly emerging on the global arena, a cohort of nations which openly disregard the western US led geopolitical domination. Russian and Chinese leadership is central to BRICS which is also aligned to the future of a multipolar world and its envisaged goals of ’de-dollarisation’. In this scenario engagement with the US on Ukraine cannot be termed as a pivot in their bilateral relations. It is surely a positive development, but the actual impact and scope of this progress is quite limited to substantially altering any major change of either Russian or US policy on the global stage.
US and Russian relations have been in a state of bilateral freeze for over a decade since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Diplomatic, economic, security and cultural connections have been alienated. Both countries essentially have functional diplomatic ties and that is about it. An illustration in point can be the state of their bilateral arms and missile control treaties. Russia has pulled out of key bilateral arms control cooperation treaties with the US such as the Treaty on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in 2023, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) in 2019 which was a mutual pullout along with withdrawal from the New START treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Security cooperation between the two nations are virtually non-existent paired with historical and persistent distrust. They are essentially poised against each other on the global stage. Russia is trying to forge its own independent alliance system, seeking out partner regimes which are fundamentally anti-US eg. Iran and North Korea; or hold it at a cautious distance eg. China. This entire strategy of formulating an alternative bloc of nations is primarily to challenge the western alliance system’s hegemony in general and the US in particular. Their interests do not align in Europe, Asia, the Middle East or the newly emergent geopolitical arena of the Arctic. The Russian President Vladimir Putin’s underscoring of the RIC grouping (Russia, China, India) is key to his envisioned aims at challenging the US dollar as the global reserve currency. All this is trumped by the fact that ironically this is Donald Trump’s last term in the US presidency, which means that even if Russia does open itself to considering some cooperation with the US, there is no certainty of US policy stability. Who comes after Trump and what their priorities with Russia would be is very much up for speculation.
The bottomline is that the hyperbole of a new pivot in US-Russia relations are quite far fetched and are blatantly unfounded. Bilateral relations between the two are far too damaged and is furthermore riddled with extreme intrigue along with conflicting interests. Cooperation on Ukraine is not a truce but a cooperation of convenience and should be seen for what it is— an isolated practice of diplomatic cohesion between two powers which are not aligned in their worldviews, priorities or alliance systems. They are both on opposite sides of global realpolitik and realistically have barely any common ground.
