Trump’s Normalization Initiative with Russia: Initial Strategic Implications
The Trump administration’s move to renew direct political dialogue with Russia (without coordination with Ukraine and European countries) is part of a series of vigorous steps reshaping the global political order and carrying strategic implications for Israel and its regional environment. At the overarching strategic level, it appears that Trump aims to replicate Nixon’s 1972 initiative—bringing Russia closer to the United States to distance it from China. He seems to be severing the link between normalizing American-Russian relations and ending the war in Ukraine. This move has created a painful rift between the United States, Europe, and Ukraine, raising concerns about the future of one key aspect of the U.S. special relationship: the democratic alliance.
Ukraine’s Dilemma and the Changing Global Order
The Zelensky administration faces a difficult dilemma: either enter the dialogue from a position of severe disadvantage, amid concerns that Trump is helping Russia establish a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, or continue fighting while relying on Europe—whose ability to replace American security aid remains uncertain. If the American initiative succeeds, it could also heighten strategic pressure on Tehran, which depends on the joint backing of Moscow and Beijing.
Saudi Arabia’s central role in structuring the dialogue between major powers signals Riyadh’s growing global influence, further demonstrated by its ability to sway the U.S. administration on matters uncomfortable for Israel. The Trump administration is moving quickly to restore political dialogue with Moscow, altering the dynamics of the war in Ukraine and likely leading to a reorganization of global power structures.
The American Initiative and Its Background
In a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12, Trump discussed a broad range of topics, including Ukraine, the Middle East, energy, artificial intelligence, and the status of the dollar. In a lengthy tweet, Trump praised Putin—who had been boycotted by the previous administration—and appealed to a key theme in Russian historical consciousness: the memory of the “Great Patriotic War” and the World War II alliance. Trump stated that he and Putin agreed to continue cooperation and initiate negotiations guided by “common sense”—a phrase he emphasized with capital letters, which Putin also adopted.
On February 18, senior U.S. and Russian officials, including Foreign Ministers Rubio and Lavrov, U.S. National Security Advisor Waltz, and other high-level envoys, met in Saudi Arabia for negotiations. They agreed to prepare for a summit between Trump and Putin, initiate talks on Ukraine, and explore the renewal of U.S.-Russia trade relations. Both sides committed to restoring diplomatic channels, including appointing new ambassadors. In recent years, diplomatic ties had been reduced to a minimum, with embassies remaining open but consular services and diplomatic staff significantly cut. Secretary of State Rubio referred to “extraordinary opportunities” to revive economic ties, particularly through renewed American investment in Russia’s energy and mineral sectors, including in the Arctic.
European Reactions and Strategic Consequences
Earlier, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J. Sufficient Vance asserted that Europe’s primary challenge was not Russia or China, but its own democratic values and hostility toward populist movements such as Alternative for Germany and Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hagueth made it clear (February 12, at the Ramstein Forum on NATO’s aid to Ukraine) that the United States did not support Ukraine’s NATO membership and would not insist on Ukraine reclaiming all Russian-occupied territories. He suggested that Europe should bear the burden of any future security arrangements—reflecting a broader American shift in focus toward China.
The administration’s decisions were made without prior coordination with Ukraine or European allies. After his conversation with Putin, Trump called Zelensky “to update him.” Simultaneously, the administration presented Ukraine with a draft agreement demanding control over its mineral resources as compensation for past U.S. aid under the Biden administration. Zelensky refused, arguing the proposal violated the Ukrainian constitution and offered no security guarantees. The U.S. and Russia also refused to invite Ukraine to negotiations in Saudi Arabia, prompting Zelensky to declare that Ukraine would not recognize any agreements reached without its participation.
The administration’s approach to Moscow—particularly Vice President Vance’s statements at the Munich Conference and U.S. envoy Kellogg’s assertion that Europe had no place at the negotiating table—sparked political and emotional upheaval across Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron convened two emergency summits (February 17 and 19) with key European and NATO leaders to explore a new European security framework. Discussions included a proposed $700 billion aid package for Ukraine and plans for an independent European military force, with some officials raising the possibility of European troop deployments in Ukraine.
The U.S. initiative with Russia, along with its broader diplomatic moves, aligns with the Trump administration’s strategy of “disruptive diplomacy”—an intentional effort to reshape the rules of global engagement.
