What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one suggests that the tide might be turning.
Andrew Korybko
Dmitry Trenin is one of
Russia’s top experts and used to be considered a Westernizer among many
prior to having a change of heart as a result of everything that
happened since the special operation began. He’s an interesting figure to follow and that’s likely why RT published the translated version
of an article that he recently wrote sharing a very skeptical
assessment of Trump 2.0. The present piece will draw attention to the
highlights before analyzing the importance of what he wrote.
Trenin
thinks that “the American political establishment – Congress, the
media, and much of the foreign policy bureaucracy – was deeply
uncomfortable with a peace formula that could hardly be presented
domestically as a victory over Russia”, ergo why the “spirit of
Anchorage” fizzled out. Trump “appears to have aligned himself more
closely with powerful political and financial groups in Washington,
including neoconservative circles and the Israeli lobby”, thus
“sidelining” his “original MAGA allies”.
The end result is
that “Instead of presiding over the slow decline of the
liberal-globalist order, Trump is attempting to build a new version of American hegemony,
one based far more openly on force.” Correspondingly, Trenin believes
that “Washington’s objective today is not necessarily to construct a
stable new world order. Rather, it may be to generate global instability
and then dominate within that chaos.” This “inevitably” makes the US
Russia’s “geopolitical, and potentially military, adversary.”
With
this assessment in mind, Trenin advises that “Russia shouldn’t forget
the duplicity Trump has already shown toward Iran in 2025 and again in
2026. Notably, the same American envoys involved in negotiations with
Russia over Ukraine were also conducting talks with Iran…Dialogue with
him is possible, but trust is not advisable. Russia must also remember
that US military doctrine places great emphasis on neutralizing the leadership of an adversary at the beginning of any conflict.”
Just as importantly, “Economic cooperation with the United States is theoretically possible.
In practice, it is highly unlikely. Most American sanctions against
Russia are embedded in US legislation and cannot be lifted by
presidential decision alone. For most Russians alive today, those
sanctions will remain a long-term reality. Russia must therefore orient
its economic strategy toward domestic development and cooperation with non-Western partners.”
Trenin
then concludes that “Russia’s task is clear: deepen cooperation with
partners facing pressure from the United States. Their resistance could
slow, and perhaps eventually halt, the current American
counteroffensive. Because one thing is certain: the United States will
not stop unless it is stopped.” While he earlier reaffirmed that it’s
Putin’s decision how to proceed, the importance of Trenin’s article is
that it shows how radically even previously Western-friendly thought
leaders have soured on the West.
What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction
has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly
rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though
Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one
suggests that the tide might be turning. It’s therefore possible that
Putin might finally be persuaded to abandon his pragmatic approach
towards Trump 2.0 if the US soon doesn’t give him what he wants in Ukraine and continues encircling Russia.