|
Over Winter Break, I had the great satisfaction of humoring myself with a bit of personal time at the mall. While not my favorite place to be, as I much prefer the little silence and sanctity I can garner my own home, I decided a moment of mental clarity would greatly work to my advantage. Valley View Mall in the later hours of the morning is definitely one of the finer experiences in the Roanoke Valley, allowing me to freely traverse the building’s vast concourse without much hindrance from passersby.
While not much of an avid shopper, I have always found a humble reprieve from the constant nagging of everyday life between the simple folds of a book. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to treat myself to a new book and maybe a few other items. I entered Barnes & Noble, a store that has always served as a calming atmosphere. Hit immediately with the colloquially known “new book smell” and other scents such as freshly ground coffee beans and the ever-present aroma of pretzels, I felt free to browse books of my interests without interruption, of course. As I perused the enticing catalog of books, magazines, and toys on display, a bright-red hardcover caught my attention. On it, the single word “WAR” was scrawled across in all-capital white letters. My eyes journeyed to the bottom of the glossy jacket, which contained the author’s name: Bob Woodward. Intrigued, I meandered over to a vacant chair, where I set my coat down and opened the book. Inside, a map of the current situation in Ukraine was displayed, including all territorial advances through October. “Okay, now it’s definitely piqued my interest,” I thought as I methodically flipped through a few more pages. I glanced at the table of contents, which covered a vast number of topics including the War in Gaza, the domestic situation, Donald Trump’s resurgence, among many others. It wasn’t long before the pages pulled me from the peaceful hum of the bookstore into the stark realities of global conflict and political intrigue. “Alright,” I decided, “I’m absolutely buying this.” While waiting in line, I noticed a copy of TIME Magazine’s latest issue: “PERSON OF THE YEAR: DONALD TRUMP.” This was not necessarily out of place; TIME’s Person of the Year has been the victor of the presidential election for years. I figured I would purchase that too, along with the weekend publication of The Wall Street Journal. Approaching the checkout, my eclectic mix of selections certainly garnered a strange look from the cashier who was ringing me up, and for a brief moment. I wondered if she was silently crafting my political profile based solely on my reading material. Was I about to be pegged as a staunch conservative? Or just someone who takes their news seriously? Either way, I grabbed my items and walked out, leaving the mystery intact. Somehow, I figured, she knew it was a little bit of both. I left the mall around noon, granting me free rein to spend the rest of the day poring over my new acquisitions. I quickly became engrossed in Woodward’s book, which prompted reflections on several foreign policy challenges that have emerged in the wake of the presidential election. While I’ve been inundated with chapter and verse over which candidate was “better” or “more deserving of the win,” the reality remains that the victory has been bestowed upon the 45th President, Donald Trump. Nearly every American is well-acquainted with the domestic debates surrounding the election, yet few pause to consider its implications for international relations—most notably, the intense friction between the United States and Russia amid its escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War through a full-scale invasion in February 2022. Will Putin’s paranoia force his hand, or will President Trump’s characteristic volatility push Russia over “the red line?” Donald Trump, then a household-name business mogul, said in a 1989 interview that “instinct is far more important than any other ingredient if you have the right instincts. And the worst deals I’ve made have been ones where I didn’t follow my instinct.” That attitude, it seems, he has carried into the White House. Nearly 5,000 miles east of Washington, Vladimir Putin, the cautious, analytical, multi-term “modern tsar” of the Russian Federation, has often been characterized as paranoid, oligarchist and vehemently oriented towards restoring Russian territorial integrity in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. The meticulously pragmatic president has been benchmarked by his resonant megalomania and misguided savior complex. Despite a multitude of pleas from Biden and the West to de-escalate the situation before its onset, Putin deflected, simply saying that “we defend the interests of our countries, our peoples, and our relations are always primarily pragmatic in nature.” Trump’s instinct-driven “go for broke” tendencies and Putin’s calculated Amero-skepticism represent two clashing ideologies with the power to reshape not only U.S.-Russia relations but also the broader stability of European allies. It all comes down to the perpetuation of a strained, high-stakes relationship, renewed indifference toward allies, and the uncertainty surrounding U.S. support for Europe during Donald Trump’s rebirth as the 47th President. In 2017, after securing a significant underdog victory in the prior year’s election, Donald J. Trump, a New York native, was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. Immediately thrust into the pressures of the White House—pressures often at odds with his campaign promises—Trump’s first priority was not closing the border, deregulating the economy, or confronting China, but addressing growing concerns over Russia’s alleged interference in the election. If true, such interference could have potentially tipped the scales for either candidate, raising questions about the integrity of the election process itself. Questions that, as observed, have continued to this day. Trump’s initial perceptions of Putin were favorable; he admired his ability to assert control over such a vast nation and agreed with some of his more conservative policies of anti-LGBTQ governance and an integration of Eastern Orthodox ideals into the country. This praise of the ex-KGB head was old news by the time Trump even stepped foot on the campaign trail, as he once said on a 2007 CNN interview that “[Putin] has done – whether you like him or don’t like him – he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.” This unusual relationship also was not one-sided. During the race, Putin said of Trump that he was a “genius” and “the absolute leader of the presidential election.” They appeared on 60 Minutes in the same 2015 episode, and amassed some of the show’s highest ratings to date. In ironic contrast to Trump’s aforementioned characterization of his instincts, Putin said that Trump “doesn’t have the usual political instincts, but I think that can be a good thing.” In the same interview, Trump said that “I think that I would probably get along with [Putin] very well. And I don’t think you’d be having the kind of problems that you’re having right now.” So with this myriad praise, one must ask: is there any contention at all? Well, yes, and it stems from a few key factors. For starters, Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation made Trump's relationship with Putin a domestic liability. This limited Trump's ability to forge closer ties without facing bipartisan backlash. So in essence, President Trump was forced to give Putin the cold shoulder or risk suspicion of treason or collusion. This reaction, however, was not immediate, and drew even stronger criticism after the 2018 Helsinki Summit, when Trump appeared to side with Moscow over security concerns rather than points stipulated by U.S. intelligence. This damaged his public image even further, and led to adopting a tougher stance on Russia. Post-presidency, Trump has been a vocal opponent of Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine (albeit praising the strategy), and repeatedly claims that he would have prevented it if given the opportunity. Across the Arctic, this sentiment is echoed. Putin reportedly became disillusioned with Trump’s unpredictability and limited ability to deliver outcomes that were advantageous to Moscow. While Trump’s rhetoric was often favorable, many of his administration's actions—sanctions, support for Ukraine, and NATO strengthening—worked against Russia’s interests. Trump’s rage at Putin was cemented during the 2024 Election which, although a victory, served as a reminder of the Kremlin’s souring attitude toward a second Trump Administration. The Russian president expressed a semi-sarcastic will for Harris to come out on top, saying that “[Harris] laughs so expressively and infectiously. That means that she is doing well.” This comment was meant to be a gut punch, and served its purpose directly the way it was intended. only served to enrage her opponent. Although this election was a victory, the damage has absolutely been done, which leaves us with a nagging query: What is this new relationship going to look like? Washington and Moscow have already allegedly come to blows over the president-elect’s strategies in the years to come. Russia’s premier foreign agencies have already dismissed Trump’s peace plan, one that stipulates postponing Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and stationing British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, as a complete non-starter and vowed to leave the negotiation table if refusal to acquiesce to amendments continue. Trump, despite the Kremlin’s grievances, has not publicly released the plan, saying that it would become “worthless” if shared. With this gridlock, we are presented with two options for the future of US-Russia relations. The White House could opt for a more intimate relationship with Vladmir Putin, though some argue at the expense of allies, and mitigate the risk of the Kremlin seeking other allies in Iran or the People’s Republic of China. Conversely, President Trump could double down on his growing contempt for Putin, invigorate NATO and Ukraine, while simultaneously presenting a heightened sense of peril. Regardless of the situation’s outcome, one thing is certain: global dynamics are ever-changing, and the next four years will remain rock-solid evidence of that. |
Editors:Co-Editor-in-Chief: Archives
March 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed