Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 has reignited debates about his foreign policy playbook, particularly his approach to great power rivalry. One compelling lens through which to interpret his actions is the possibility that he is fostering a pragmatic rapprochement with Russia to undermine China’s ascendance. This perspective—rooted in realpolitik and Trump’s transactional instincts—posits that by pulling Russia away from its deepening partnership with Beijing, the United States could weaken its primary long-term rival. As Trump navigates a world of tariffs, regional conflicts, and resource competition, this strategy offers a framework to understand his moves, from easing tensions with Vladimir Putin to leveraging hotspots like the Middle East. While speculative and contested, it aligns with Trump’s “America First” ethos and reflects a plausible shift in global alignments.
The logic of this lens begins with China’s emergence as the United States’ chief geopolitical adversary. Trump has long framed China as an economic and strategic threat, a view crystallized during his first term through trade wars and technology bans. In 2025, with tariffs now fully imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, and Beijing retaliating against U.S. agricultural exports, this rivalry has intensified. Yet, confronting China directly is a daunting task given its economic heft and diplomatic reach, including its close ties with Russia. Here, the idea of courting Russia enters the picture. By offering Putin incentives to distance himself from Beijing, Trump could exploit fissures in the Sino-Russian axis, a partnership that has grown since Western sanctions isolated Moscow after 2014 and 2022. This echoes historical precedent—Richard Nixon’s outreach to China in the 1970s to split it from the Soviet Union—but in reverse, with Russia as the target.
Why might this appeal to Trump? His foreign policy prioritizes deal-making over ideology, and China’s dominance in critical supply chains, like rare earth metals, threatens U.S. security. Russia, a resource-rich power with its own grievances against China’s regional ambitions, could be a tactical ally. Reports of U.S. engagement in Afghanistan’s rare earth sector—a resource China controls globally—suggest a move to challenge Beijing’s monopoly, potentially with Russian cooperation. Similarly, Putin’s rumored mediation in an Iran nuclear deal hints at a willingness to work with the U.S., perhaps as a signal to China that Russia has options. For Trump, aligning with Russia could redirect Moscow’s energy exports or diplomatic weight away from Beijing, isolating China economically and politically at a time when its domestic consumer confidence falters.
Russia, too, has incentives to entertain this shift. Since the Ukraine war, its reliance on China has surged—oil and gas flow east, and Beijing provides a lifeline against Western sanctions. Yet, this dependence comes at a cost: China often dictates terms, and Russia risks becoming a junior partner. A U.S. olive branch—whether sanctions relief, investment in Arctic projects, or a free hand in Central Asia—could diversify Russia’s options, reducing its need to lean on Beijing. Both nations share a wariness of China’s rise: the U.S. sees a global hegemon in the making, while Russia fears losing influence in its near abroad to Chinese economic penetration. A tactical alignment, even if temporary, could serve mutual interests without requiring a full thaw in U.S.-Russia relations.
The Middle East offers a potential testing ground. Trump’s increased presence in Afghanistan, ostensibly to develop rare earths, could pair with Russia’s regional clout—evident in its Syria role and Iran mediation—to reshape resource dynamics. If the U.S. and Russia collaborate to secure these assets, they could dent China’s supply chain dominance, a strategic win for Trump. Meanwhile, Putin’s involvement in Iran’s nuclear talks might reflect a quid pro quo: Russia stabilizes the region in exchange for U.S. concessions elsewhere, like Ukraine. Trump’s pivot from supporting Kyiv—marked by heated exchanges with Zelensky and aid cuts—could be the price of this deal, signaling to Putin that the U.S. is serious about resetting ties. These moves, viewed through this lens, suggest a broader aim: weakening China by disrupting its alliances and resource networks.
Yet, this perspective is not without challenges. U.S.-Russia distrust, forged through decades of rivalry, remains a hurdle. Ukraine, election interference, and Syria linger as flashpoints, and while Trump’s personality-driven diplomacy might sidestep these, Putin’s willingness to abandon China is uncertain. The Sino-Russian bond—cemented by energy deals, military drills, and a shared anti-Western stance—may prove resilient. Putin could pocket Trump’s concessions without fully pivoting, leaving the U.S. with a stronger Russia still aligned with Beijing. China, too, might retaliate, escalating tariffs or tightening its grip on Russia, confident in its “no limits” partnership. Domestically, Trump risks backlash from a Congress wary of cozying up to Putin, requiring tangible wins—like rare earth access—to justify the gamble.
How does this lens align with broader discourse? Some analysts see echoes of a “reverse Nixon” strategy, a recognized trope in geopolitical circles. Trump’s China obsession is undisputed, and easing Russia tensions to focus on Beijing finds traction among those who view him as a pragmatic dealmaker. However, skeptics argue the Sino-Russian alliance is too entrenched, with Russia unlikely to trade a reliable partner for an unpredictable one. Others frame Trump’s Russia outreach as more about ending Ukraine’s war than countering China, though the two goals aren’t mutually exclusive. Critics warn of miscalculation—emboldening Russia without splitting it from China—while optimists see a window to exploit Beijing’s economic vulnerabilities.
As of March 5, 2025, this lens offers a credible way to interpret Trump’s actions, though it remains speculative without explicit policy confirmation. His tariff wars, Middle East maneuvers, and Ukraine shift suggest a pattern consistent with isolating China, with Russia as a potential lever. The strategy’s success hinges on execution: can Trump deliver incentives that outweigh Russia’s China ties? If so, it could reshape global power dynamics, echoing past triangular diplomacy. If not, it risks overreach, leaving the U.S. facing two emboldened rivals. Either way, viewing Trump’s moves through this prism—improving U.S.-Russia relations to counter China—illuminates his priorities and the high-stakes game he’s playing in a fractured world.