Trump’s return to the Oval Office and translation of rhetoric into actions and subsequent developments set forth the permissive environment for potential rapprochement with Russia.Reaching a peace deal on the Ukraine conflict will certainly have irreversible impacts on the global geopolitical landscape, European security and the Global South, specifically Pakistan, Almas Haider Naqvi writes.
Trump’s protectionism, transactionalism, and retreat from global politics are accelerating the formation of a post-America multipolar world order. The outcomes of his foreign policy are likely to disrupt traditional security alliances and diplomatic practices. Trump’s swift actions are hastening a global geopolitical reshuffle and redefining the security architecture. The era of American-led international rules, norms, and values appears to be coming to an end.
America’s turnaround policy raises critical questions: How will a potential US-Russia thaw impact existing alliances and strategic rivalries? What will the future of the transatlantic alliance look like? What price will Moscow have to pay for a victory in Ukraine? Do Trump’s “transactional diplomacy” and “tactical moves” aim for economic leverage or follow a broader strategy? To what extent will Trump’s appeasement and accommodation convince Moscow to distance itself from Beijing, and how will this affect the relevance of BRICS? More specifically, how will this rapprochement impact Pakistan’s relations with Russia?
Let’s address these questions briefly.
The transatlantic alliance is likely to be the immediate casualty. Europe will have to increase its defense spending within NATO to keep the security alliance intact. Trump has made it clear that he is unwilling to fund European security, insisting that “free riders” must pay for their own defense, whether within NATO or a new European security architecture. Germany, for instance, has sought a nuclear umbrella from France and the UK. However, without US involvement, any European security framework would remain vulnerable due to a lack of coherent approaches and commitment to collective security.
Washington’s outreach for peace with Moscow, aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict and normalizing bilateral relations, signifies a recognition of Russia’s security concerns and its role as a leading player in the European theater. The end of the US-Russia Cold War in Ukraine also marks the failure of NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, leaving no alternative but to accept Ukraine as a buffer state. The future of NATO itself seems bleak.
The price Moscow will pay for its victory in Ukraine remains to be seen and will depend on the outcome of negotiations and the terms of any peace deal. For instance, as part of a rare-earth deal, Russia may have to tolerate a US presence in Ukraine, which Trump views as essential for Ukraine’s security. Moscow will approach such deals cautiously. While Trump’s concessions to Russia may aim to weaken the Sino-Russian nexus, the Kremlin is unlikely to compromise its strategic autonomy. Russia will not sacrifice its relationship with China for improved ties with the US.
Despite fragmented European support for Kiev under a “coalition of the willing,” Ukraine lacks leverage without US backing. Its only bargaining chip may be offering rare-earth resources in exchange for security guarantees, which Trump is unwilling to provide beyond a symbolic presence. While Trump’s moves appear transactional, aimed at securing economic benefits, they also carry strategic value.
For Washington, the Sino-Russian nexus could be costlier than the accommodation of Moscow. Such a move could be interpreted as relaxing with Moscow, and then Washington will have the opportunity to focus on China.
The US-Russia rapprochement presents a complex challenge for Pakistan’s foreign policy in a multipolar world. Like many Global South nations, Pakistan faces limited choices and insufficient time to adjust its policy positions amid great power competition. While Pakistan desires strategic autonomy, its economic and political instability constrain its ability to pursue coherent strategic choices.
In the context of the US strategy to contain China, Pakistan is strategically irrelevant for Washington unless it aligns with US objectives. However, Pakistan cannot afford to antagonize either the US or China in this intense rivalry. Trump’s commitment to containing China in the traditional sense is questionable, as he could strike a deal with Beijing at any time.
The US factor remains critical for Pakistan’s economic cooperation with Russia. US sanctions on Russian companies have stalled major projects like the Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline, signed in 2015. A withdrawal of US sanctions could incentivize Islamabad to revive this deal and collaborate with Russian partners.
Despite improved political ties between Pakistan and Russia, sustainable financial settlement mechanisms remain elusive. Private banks are reluctant to engage with the Russian banking system due to the threat of secondary sanctions by the US and EU. If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Pakistan could develop a financial settlement system, though EU sanctions may still pose obstacles. In such a scenario, Pakistan would gain strategic space to enhance economic relations with Russia, particularly in securing long-term energy deals at competitive prices, benefiting its energy-import-dependent economy.
A US-Russia thaw could influence US policy in South Asia, potentially leading to continued engagement with India and a recalibrated approach toward Pakistan as part of a broader strategy to contain China. This would place Pakistan in a difficult position. A hedging strategy, avoiding strict alliances with either power while focusing on economic and commercial gains, may be the most prudent course.
A US-Russia rapprochement might reduce Moscow’s urgency to improve relations with Pakistan. However, it remains in Russia’s interest to maintain the momentum built in recent years and secure a stable market. A softened US stance on Russian defense exports could allow Pakistan to access advanced Russian military technology.
Strategically and diplomatically, global geopolitical dynamics would offer a favorable strategic environment to delicately maneuver among the global powers without restrictiveness to choose strict alignments.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.