Trump's Foreign Policy Gamble
STRATEGY CENTRAL
For and By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth – March 20, 2025
The Laughter Heard Around the World
When Russian President Vladimir Putin was informed he was running late for his scheduled call with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday, his response was telling: a smile, followed by laughter shared with those around him at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs congress in Moscow. The moment, captured on video and widely circulated on social media, spoke volumes about the curious dynamics of the Trump-Putin relationship. As noted by Pekka Kallioniemi, a nonresident research fellow at the International Centre for Defense and Security, "They're literally making fun of Trump and his convoy."[1]
This was not an isolated incident. Putin has a history of keeping American officials waiting, including Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who reportedly waited eight hours while Putin met with Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko.2 Though the Trump administration denied these reports, the pattern reveals something significant about how Putin views his American counterpart – not as an equal to be respected, but as someone to be managed.
The March 2025 phone call, initially scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. ET but delayed by an hour, was ostensibly to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine after three years of devastating conflict. What emerged instead was a stark reminder of the imbalance in what Trump has characterized as a potentially productive relationship.
During their two-hour phone call on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin discussed potential steps toward a ceasefire in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Trump administration sought a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire as an initial move toward a lasting peace agreement. However, President Putin declined this proposal, agreeing only to a 30-day halt on attacks targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Additionally, Putin demanded that all foreign military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine cease, a condition deemed unacceptable by Ukraine and its allies.
This sliver of compromise mostly benefits Russia as Ukraine has been highly effective at targeting Russian power nodes. Worse than no compromise, Putin kept Trump waiting, offered nothing, and made the American President look weak as he tried to tout the phone call as a success. Watching our President demure to a man clearly not that into him is like witnessing a tragic one-sided romance—except the stakes involve nuclear weapons instead of prom tickets.
The Odd Couple: An Asymmetric Relationship
The relationship between Trump and Putin defies conventional understanding of great power dynamics. Russia, with an economy smaller than Italy's, commands extraordinary deference from the American president. As The Economist aptly noted, "It is odd that Mr. Trump seems so ready to give [what Putin wants] to him."[3]
Despite Russia's relatively weak economic position, is extremely isolated internationally, and can’t beat a much weaker opponent militarily, Trump consistently treats Putin as if Russia holds the stronger hand in the high-stakes poker game of international affairs. This persistent pattern raises fundamental questions about Trump's approach to foreign policy and America's long-term strategic interests.
Trump's admiration for Putin is well-documented, dating back to his first term. What makes this relationship particularly unusual is that it appears to run counter to traditional American geopolitical interests. As Foreign Policy magazine observed, "Trump's decision to break with the camp of liberal Western democracies may bring about the sudden acceleration of a long-overdue process of readjusting the international order."[4] The new order is likely to dimmish American power projection, global trading network, and make the world a less safe place.
The Trump Foreign Policy Doctrine: Autocrats Over Allies
Trump's broader foreign policy approach appears to favor autocratic regimes over traditional democratic allies. This preference manifests in several ways:
Withdrawal from traditional alliances: Questioning NATO's relevance, demanding European nations take full responsibility for Ukraine's security, and characterizing the war as something that "doesn't have much of an effect on us because we have a big, beautiful ocean in between."[5]
Praise for authoritarian leaders: Frequent expressions of admiration for strong-arm tactics employed by leaders in Russia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. He has publicly heaped distain on democracies leaders.
Transactional diplomacy: Viewing international relations primarily through the lens of immediate economic advantage rather than long-term strategic partnerships.
Retreat from international institutions: Withdrawing from key United Nations institutions and other multilateral frameworks.
This approach represents a dramatic departure from decades of bipartisan American foreign policy that prioritized democratic alliances as the cornerstone of U.S. global influence. The decision to pursue closer ties with Russia at the potential expense of traditional alliances carries few potential benefits and many significant risks.
Best-Case Scenario: A New Strategic Realignment
While the risks of Trump's Russia-friendly approach are significant, it's worth considering what the best possible outcome might look like if the strategy succeeds. Proponents of closer U.S.-Russia relations envision a fundamental restructuring of the global order that could potentially serve American interests in several ways:
Countering Chinese Influence
The most compelling strategic argument for a U.S.-Russia rapprochement is the potential to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Despite their "no-limits partnership," Russia and China have historically been uneasy neighbors with competing interests in Central Asia, the Far East, and global influence. By bringing Russia into America's orbit, the U.S. could potentially isolate China diplomatically and economically, enhancing America's position in what many see as the defining geopolitical competition of the 21st century.
In this scenario, Russia would serve as a counterweight to Chinese power in Eurasia, possibly even facilitating American efforts to contain Chinese expansion. While Russia currently depends more on China than it ever will on America, a fundamental shift in relations could change this dynamic over time.
Energy Cooperation and Market Stability
Russia possesses vast natural resources, particularly in energy. Closer cooperation could potentially lead to more stable global energy markets. By coordinating with Russia rather than competing against it, the U.S. and its allies might secure more reliable energy supplies at predictable prices, reducing market volatility.
Additionally, cooperation on energy development, particularly in the Arctic, could yield significant economic benefits. Trump has specifically highlighted the potential for joint ventures in Arctic gas exploration as an opportunity for American investment.
Resolving Frozen Conflicts
A genuine U.S.-Russia alliance might create opportunities to resolve numerous "frozen conflicts" that have persisted across Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. From Transnistria to South Ossetia, many of these conflicts persist partly because of great power competition. In this optimistic scenario, a new U.S.-Russia understanding could lead to comprehensive settlements that bring greater stability to these regions.
A New Security Architecture for Europe
Advocates for rapprochement argue that NATO expansion created unnecessary tension with Russia. A reset in relations could potentially lead to a new European security architecture that accommodates legitimate Russian security concerns while still protecting the sovereignty of European nations.
This might include neutrality arrangements for buffer states, verifiable arms control agreements, and new multilateral security frameworks. Under this vision, Europe might achieve greater strategic autonomy, reducing its dependence on American security guarantees while maintaining peaceful relations with Russia.
Counter-Terrorism and Non-Proliferation
Russia and the United States share concerns about radical Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Closer cooperation could potentially enhance intelligence sharing, joint operations against terrorist groups, and more effective efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Putin has repeatedly signaled willingness to cooperate on counter-terrorism, and a genuine alliance could make both nations safer from these threats.
Significant Risks
Undermining the rules-based international order: Accepting Russia's territorial aggression against Ukraine sets a dangerous precedent that might embolden other revisionist powers……like China.
Fracturing Western alliances: The approach is already driving wedges between the U.S. and European allies, who are unlikely to follow Trump in accommodating Russian aggression.
Declining U.S. global influence: As traditional allies lose faith in American security guarantees, U.S. soft power and diplomatic influence may diminish.
Nuclear proliferation: Countries that no longer trust U.S. security commitments may pursue their own nuclear deterrents, leading to a more dangerous world.
Economic consequences: Diminished trust in American leadership could impact everything from trade relationships to the willingness of foreign investors to hold U.S. debt.
Emboldening adversaries: Signals of American retreat may encourage not just Russia but China and other competitors to more aggressively assert their interests against American allies.
Most Dangerous Outcomes
Among the potential negative consequences, several deserve particular attention due to their far-reaching implications:
Global Financial Implications
If the United States continues to prioritize relationships with autocratic regimes over its traditional allies and partners, it may face serious economic consequences. Nations that have historically been reliable purchasers of U.S. debt might diversify their holdings, potentially triggering a debt crisis. As of early 2025, foreign holders own approximately $7.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities.[8] Any significant reduction in foreign appetite for this debt could force higher interest rates and constrain U.S. fiscal policy.
Furthermore, American products could face shrinking markets abroad if traditional trading partners seek more reliable economic relationships elsewhere. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other democratic allies collectively represent massive export markets for U.S. goods and services.
Nuclear Proliferation
Perhaps the most dangerous potential outcome is accelerated nuclear proliferation. Countries that have relied on American security guarantees might conclude that nuclear weapons are the only reliable insurance policy against aggression. South Korea, Japan, and potentially several Middle Eastern states might reconsider their non-nuclear status if American security commitments appear unreliable.
Foreign Policy analyst Nicholas Bequelin notes that "Democracies such as those in Europe—whose economic weight has significantly declined relative to other powers and which remain unable to guarantee their own security—have long been shielded from these vulnerabilities by the United States' commitment to democratic solidarity. Now, they risk slipping further down the global hierarchy."[9] Germany has already begun exploring building nuclear weapons and many others who feel suddenly exposed will follow.
The End of American Credibility
A world in which America's word is not trusted represents a fundamental shift in global affairs. Since World War II, U.S. security guarantees have underpinned global stability and economic prosperity. The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, the attractiveness of U.S. markets, and American diplomatic influence all depend on the credibility of U.S. commitments.
The Trump administration's apparent willingness to abandon commitments to Ukraine, despite previous security assurances, sends a troubling message to other American partners and allies. As former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson observed regarding Putin's treatment of Trump, "Putin is laughing at us."[10]
The Putin Strategy: Playing the Long Game
Putin's approach to Trump reveals sophisticated strategic thinking. As The Economist explains, "Mr. Putin wants the American president to believe that, as statesmen, they have bigger fish to fry than squabbling over a forlorn place like Ukraine."[11] By dangling the prospect of cooperation on issues like Iran, the Middle East, or potential business opportunities, Putin aims to secure concrete concessions on Ukraine with minimal reciprocal commitments.
This strategy plays to Trump's well-known desire for deals and headline-grabbing diplomatic "wins." However, as The Economist warns, "All this is a fantasy designed to tempt Mr. Trump into giving Mr. Putin what he wants in Ukraine in return for empty promises."12
The reality is that Russia now depends more on China than it ever will on America. Russia's economy remains relatively small, its technological base is limited, and it offers few genuine opportunities for mutually beneficial economic partnership with the United States. What Putin primarily seeks is American accommodation of Russian security interests, particularly in what Russia considers its "near abroad."
Trump's Subservience: Puzzling Behavior
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the Trump-Putin relationship is Trump's consistent deference to the Russian leader. Despite Putin's public displays of disrespect—like the laughing incident during the scheduled call—Trump continues to seek Putin's approval and cooperation.
This behavior raises troubling questions. Some analysts, like Foreign Policy's Nicholas Bequelin, suggest that Trump's admiration for strongman rule puts him "at odds with democratically elected leaders while earning him, at least rhetorically, the support of autocratic regimes. This backing, in turn, can be leveraged to further weaken democratic checks and balances at home."[13]
Whatever the explanation, the practical effect is a U.S. foreign policy that frequently aligns more closely with Russian interests than with traditional American strategic objectives. As former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer noted, "One price of Trump's concessions to Putin over past six weeks: Putin sees Trump as weak, has no problem keeping him waiting."[14]
Conclusion: A Dangerous Gamble
Trump's approach to Putin and Russia represents a high-stakes gamble with America's position in the world. By prioritizing relationships with autocratic regimes over traditional alliances, the administration risks undermining the international system that has served American interests for decades.
The image of Putin laughing as he kept the American president waiting encapsulates a troubling dynamic: an American president seemingly eager to accommodate a geopolitical competitor at the expense of very clear US national security interests.
As Foreign Policy magazine suggests, "Whether intended or not, Trump's decision to break with the camp of liberal Western democracies may bring about the sudden acceleration of a long-overdue process of readjusting the international order to reflect the real distribution of power in today's world."[15]
The question remains whether this realignment will ultimately serve American interests—or primarily benefit those, like Putin, who have long sought to diminish American global influence and fragment Western alliances. The laughter in Moscow suggests Putin, at least, believes he knows the answer.
Bibliography
Bequelin, Nicholas. "The Key to Understanding Trump's Chaotic Foreign Policy." Foreign Policy, March 18, 2025.
"Europe's Best Bet for Protecting Postwar Ukraine." Foreign Policy, March 19, 2025.
Mehrara, Maya. "WATCH: Putin Laughs Upon Being Told He's Running Late for Trump Call." Newsweek, March 18, 2025.
"The Trap Vladimir Putin Set for Donald Trump." The Economist, March 19, 2025.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. "Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities." 2025.
NOTES PAGE
[1]: Maya Mehrara, "WATCH: Putin Laughs Upon Being Told He's Running Late for Trump Call," Newsweek, March 18, 2025.
[3]: "The Trap Vladimir Putin Set for Donald Trump," The Economist, March 19, 2025.
[4]: Nicholas Bequelin, "The Key to Understanding Trump's Chaotic Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, March 18, 2025.
[5]: "Europe's Best Bet for Protecting Postwar Ukraine," Foreign Policy, March 19, 2025.
[6]: "The Trap Vladimir Putin Set for Donald Trump," The Economist, March 19, 2025.
[8]: U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities," 2025.
[9]: Nicholas Bequelin, "The Key to Understanding Trump's Chaotic Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, March 18, 2025.
[10]: Maya Mehrara, "WATCH: Putin Laughs Upon Being Told He's Running Late for Trump Call," Newsweek, March 18, 2025.
[11]: "The Trap Vladimir Putin Set for Donald Trump," The Economist, March 19, 2025.
[13]: Nicholas Bequelin, "The Key to Understanding Trump's Chaotic Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, March 18, 2025.
[14]: Maya Mehrara, "WATCH: Putin Laughs Upon Being Told He's Running Late for Trump Call," Newsweek, March 18, 2025.
[15]: Nicholas Bequelin, "The Key to Understanding Trump's Chaotic Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, March 18, 2025.
Comments