Russia views the U.S. escalation in Venezuela as a strategic opportunity to finalize a “global bargain” on Ukraine. By equating American intervention in its “backyard” with Russian actions in Eurasia, the Kremlin aims to secure a transactional peace that formalizes its influence over the ex-Soviet neighborhood.
Trump’s 2025 peace push centers on a transactional deal trading Ukrainian NATO aspirations for long-term U.S. security guarantees. The framework involves potential territorial concessions in Donbas and a national referendum, shifting away from previous demands for full Russian withdrawal to prioritize a rapid, comprehensive end to the war.
In a December 2025 address, Vladimir Putin declared Russia’s nuclear forces “92% modernized,” showcasing high-tech weapons like the Oreshnik, Burevestnik, and Poseidon. With the New START treaty nearing expiration and Oreshnik missiles now deployed in Belarus, Moscow is leveraging strategic uncertainty and doomsday capabilities to deter Western interference and gain diplomatic advantage in Ukraine.
The Ukraine conflict has prompted a broader geopolitical realignment, notably through China’s economic integration with Russia’s Far East. This integration is accelerating due to Moscow’s vulnerabilities and supports Beijing’s long-term positioning, irrespective of Russia’s political stability.
The intersection of commercial interests and diplomatic decision-making is a defining feature of current American foreign policy, as evidenced by dropped prosecutions, controversial pardons, and Gulf investments. These cases highlight the influence of personal business relationships on international relations, raising questions about conflict of interest, transparency, and strategic coherence.
In a critical assessment for Kyiv Post, Bohdan Nahaylo claims that Donald Trump’s approach to the Ukraine war signifies a catastrophic failure of U.S. leadership. He argues that Trump, instead of being a diplomatic strategist, acts as “Putin’s greatest asset,” favoring a dangerous policy of appeasement that undermines long-term American security for a temporary diplomatic gain. Nahaylo suggests that while Ukraine may suffer territorial losses, Trump will ultimately be judged harshly in history for abandoning democratic values and eroding the post-1945 international order.
The October 2025 summit in Moscow between Vladimir Putin and Ahmed al-Sharaa highlights a shift in Russia’s diplomatic strategy following the collapse of the Ba’athist regime in Syria. Contrary to predictions of diminished Russian influence, the Kremlin has adapted its approach, favoring transactional pragmatism over ideological loyalty. By engaging with former adversaries, Russia seeks to preserve its strategic interests in the Mediterranean, underscoring that its foreign policy is primarily motivated by practical concerns.
The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) has upset the longstanding transatlantic consensus, alarming nations like Germany and Poland while appealing to Russia. The 33-page document frames European integration as a threat to civilization and emphasizes “patriotic” nationalism, undermining NATO’s ideological foundations even as member countries reach record defense spending levels.
American foreign policy towards India illustrates that punitive measures against key partners often result in the opposite of intended outcomes. During Putin’s ceremonial visit to India in December 2025, Washington faced the uncomfortable truth that its economic coercion was reinforcing the relationships it aims to weaken.
As Europe supports Ukraine, three other post-Soviet states remain dangerously exposed to Russian coercion and aggression. Russian efforts to destabilize these states are already underway, raising a significant challenge for European decisionmakers.
Countries have come to rely on a network of cables and pipes under the sea for their energy and communications. A coordinated attack on this network could have devastating consequences. But that is difficult business in a very challenging environment.
