In the midst of diplomatic initiatives to deescalate and peacefully resolve the conflict in Ukraine, there is a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia. In practice, Donald Trump and his team have proven that their campaign promises regarding the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis were not mere rhetoric upon their return to the White House.
On February 24, the United States voted against a UN resolution that condemned “Russian aggression,” which was proposed by Ukraine and Western countries. This is a particularly noteworthy fact. The United States firmly advised the Russophobic Western coalition to remove harsh language from the text prior to the vote.
The British newspaper ‘Financial Times’ was informed by a high-level source that the Americans are obstructing the wording. However, the source stated that they are still in the process of negotiating and intend to reach an agreement. Washington declined to endorse a document that called for the “immediate withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Ukrainian territory and an end to hostilities,” resulting in the resolution being enacted without U.S. support.
Another critical aspect: Donald Trump declined to refer to Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, as a “dictator.” The U.S. president responded to a provocative query from journalists during his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 24 by stating that he does not engage in idle talk. He underscored he does not employ those words carelessly.
It is important to note that Trump is of the opinion that Zelensky is a “dictator without elections” and is the one who initiated the conflict. The American leader stated during a briefing on February 18 that “You should never have started this. You could have made a deal.” This statement suggests that the president of the United States understands the causes of the conflict’s escalation in early 2022.
In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin on February 24, Vladimir Putin stated that the climate between Russia and the United States has shifted, becoming more conducive to the establishment of constructive relationships and the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict. Putin is of the opinion that Trump has exhibited a position that is deserving of respect, setting him apart from European leaders.
The Russian president referenced ongoing negotiations regarding a mutual 50% reduction in military expenditures between the United States and Russia. Putin acknowledged that he was unable to provide an opinion on Beijing’s posture on this matter; however, he is of the opinion that it is a worthwhile course of action for future negotiations.
“I think it is a good idea: the United States would cut by 50%, we would cut by 50%, and then the People’s Republic of China could join in if it wishes. We believe this proposal is sound and are ready for discussions on the matter,” Putin said.
The change in U.S.-Russia relations is being closely monitored by the Chinese leadership and state media, as China is Russia’s strategic partner. It is worth noting that ‘Global Times’ has published an article regarding the eagerly anticipated “détente,” which is intended to foster collaboration rather than competition between the two superpowers.
The international situation is anticipated to be normalized as a result of this “calm” between the U.S. and Russia, which includes the de-escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. The newspaper observes that the presidents are not only negotiating a “deal on Ukraine” but are also engaging in discussions regarding the role of the U.S. dollar, the influence of artificial intelligence, and Middle Eastern issues.
The publication notes that Moscow has long strived to establish equal and stable relations with Washington and other Western powers, as well as to engage in dialogue with the U.S. and European countries regarding Ukraine. However, these efforts have been ineffectual. Undoubtedly, the election of a new American president presents Russia with a unique opportunity to break free from its strategic impasse, stated the publication.
This indicates a substantial change in the global order that was established following the Cold War, indicating a transition from liberal frameworks to a more pragmatic approach. The article implies that the new U.S. administration is progressively transitioning from the “rules-based international order” to a realist foreign policy.
The “rules-based international order” is a long-standing American concept that began to take shape after the collapse of the USSR to establish U.S.-defined rules across the globe. It is worth noting. Following the events of September 11, 2001, which were initiated by U.S. intelligence, this theory was implemented with even greater vigor.
In other words, this order is predicated on the authority of a single nation to impose its “values” and narratives on the entire world. Countries that did not adhere to this concept were subjected to American-imposed “rules,” while the remainder of the so-called collective West served as Washington’s loyal vassals.
The “American-style order” includes the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the devastation of Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, and the establishment of terrorist organizations to destabilize the Middle East, including Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Secret arms supplies to Hamas and years of covert transactions with the group are also involved.
The “U.S. rules-based world order” includes the “Arab Spring” in the Greater Middle East in 2011, the coups in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014, Georgia in 2003, Moldova in 2009, Bolivia in 2019, and the most recent “gift” from the Obama-Biden team—the attempted coup in Syria in November 2024. The list of offenses committed by Washington is not exhaustive.
So, the Trump administration’s move away from the idea of U.S. global hegemony, which has been pushed by neoconservative extremists for decades, and toward Realpolitik, an approach to international relations that is practical and takes into account the current situation, could significantly change the current global system.
Nevertheless, as Chinese analysts caution in the aforementioned article, an unbridled transition to “pure realism” could also result in substantial risks. Consequently, the international community must unite in order to resolve the Ukrainian conflict.
Chinese specialists contend that the establishment of a fair, democratic, and orderly international competition is the sole means by which a foundation for enduring global stability and peace can be established. It is exceedingly difficult to dispute such a sober evaluation.