UB political scientist: Renewed U.S. and Russia relationship might have deeper geostrategic goals

BUFFALO, N.Y. – President Donald Trump sent shockwaves across the globe when it was announced that he had a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A result of the discussion was that both world leaders agreed to meet and discuss peace talks to end the three-year Russian invasion of Ukraine. European countries and Ukraine are skeptical and anxious as to what the U.S. and Russia discussion might yield.  

Jacob Kathman, PhD, professor and chair of political science at the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, is an expert on international relations and conflict management. He believes that the Trump administration is making risky moves, with an opponent that seeks to displace the U.S. as a global leader.

Kathman offers perspective on what reestablishing a relationship between the U.S. and Russia might mean for both countries, Europe and Ukraine. 

Is this a good thing that President Trump and Putin are talking again and signaling a willingness to reestablish normal relations?  

This depends on the perspective that you take. If taken from the perspective of Russia, yes, this is likely a very good thing. It is much easier to negotiate with the U.S. alone than it is to confront a unified U.S., Ukraine and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). From the perspective of Ukraine and much of Europe, no, this is not a good thing. Generally speaking, the NATO alliance has been arrayed in opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. When a collection of countries is in lockstep with one another, it is good practice in negotiations to include all stakeholders at the table. It is only in this way that the stakeholders can reach suitable settlement. If the U.S. has the best interests of Europe and Ukraine at heart, it would demand that NATO and Ukraine have a seat at the table in these negotiations. As a matter of course, this would give the U.S. more bargaining leverage in negotiating a conclusion of the war with Russia. Instead, the U.S. has chosen to go it alone, sacrificing leverage in negotiations. This indicates one of two things. It could be that the American administration is generally incompetent in its approach to pursuing its shared interests with its European allies, because seasoned negotiators do not unilaterally sacrifice leverage at the very start of negotiations. Or it could be that the Trump administration is beginning a dramatic shift in strategic priorities, devaluing the NATO alliance in favor of Russia’s wishes.

To be clear, Russia seeks to displace the U.S. as a global leader. NATO has represented American geostrategic interests for the last eight decades and has helped to maintain historic stability on the European continent during that time. Partiality to Russia in this conflict is akin to ceding American global leadership in favor of a rival that wishes to unseat the U.S. from its global position.

Do you believe that the United States and Russia are truly trying to deescalate conflict between each other and in Ukraine?

This is hard to know. President Trump has indeed made many statements to indicate that he wishes the war to end. However, the terms of termination are a central concern, and it has not be evident that the president has a clear grasp on what terms to pursue in achieving a cessation that is acceptable to all parties and satisfies the rules-based global system that was largely created by the U.S. following World War II. However, it is this very rules-based system that President Trump appears to rebel against, even while Democratic and Republican administrations alike have considered this system to be supportive of American interests.

Why did President Biden have a frozen relationship with Russia?

Russia has violated the most basic foundations of the rules-based international order that was created and defended by the U.S. This is that countries may not threaten/invade/overtake the territorial sovereignty of other countries. Russia under Putin has repeatedly flouted these rules. It has invaded Georgia, it engaged in brutal war crimes in Chechnya, it invaded an annexed Crimea, and it engaged in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This is not to mention its various interventions in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, all of which have had dismal human rights practices. Russia’s aggressiveness has frozen its relationship with most of the world, not simply the Biden administration.