“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow,” said Lord Palmerston in his speech to the House of Commons on March 1, 1848. He argued that alliances and friendships are temporary and can shift over time, but a nation’s interests remain constant and should guide its actions. This pragmatic foreign policy approach emphasizes the pursuit of national interests above all else, recognizing that alliances and friendships are fleeting, while a nation’s interests remain constant and paramount.

As President Trump plans to normalize relations with Russia, it reflects a shift in the US foreign policy priorities. National interests are being given precedence over traditional alliances. This approach is characteristic of the dynamic nature of international relations, where countries often assess and adjust their relationships to advance their own interests. Trump’s efforts to engage with Russia have rekindled a debate about the primacy of realism and limits of liberalism in international politics. Many strategic thinkers argue that this approach may undermine existing alliances and create new geopolitical tensions.

The US is seeking a new partnership with Russia to counter China’s growing influence. This move is similar to President Nixon’s 1972 decision to partner with China to counter the Soviet Union. By normalizing relations with Russia, the US aims to draw a wedge between Russia and China, limiting China’s growing power in the region. This approach marks a strategic pivot away from traditional alliances with Europe and NATO, as the US opts for a more unconventional strategy.

The US-Russia rapprochement will prove to be merely a temporary respite, given the competitive nature of their relations, historical differences, and divergent geopolitical interests. In contrast, the US-Europe alliance has been built on a stronger foundation, with years of cooperation and shared values. The US-Europe alliance is more likely to endure, while the US-Russia partnership may short-lived because it is driven by short-term gains rather than lasting strategic objectives.

Trump’s “reverse Nixon policy” will compromise the US interests and inadvertently create a power vacuum in Europe, allowing China to increase its influence in the region. China’s expanding presence in Europe is likely to be driven by its own strategic objectives, including increasing its geo-economic and geopolitical footprint in Europe, weakening US-Europe hegemony and promoting a new type of great power relations. In the long run, Trump’s decision will prove to be a strategic blunder.

His approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been marked by rapid and unilateral concessions on key US interests. It will undermine long-held US positions that may amount to a policy of “strategic surrender”. If the US fails to secure reciprocal concessions from Russia, it will compromise its own influence. This policy shift has significant implications for global geopolitics and the balance of power. Critics argue that it will embolden Russia and undermine the international rules-based order. And the US may struggle to regain its lost leverage and credibility in future.

In his book, “The Art of the Deal”, President Trump writes that “the worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you are dead”. Ironically, this is precisely the mistake he is making in his approach. By appearing desperate to broker a deal, he is inadvertently empowering Russia, enabling it to drive up the price of agreeing to a ceasefire. This strategic misstep has severe geopolitical ramifications that will undermine the US interests.

Given its superior position, the US policy of strategic surrender in the Russia-Ukraine war is perplexing. By making concessions to Russia without gaining much in return, the US may risk its own geopolitical influence and security of its European allies. The Trump administration has not clearly explained how this approach serves American interests, leaving many wondering about the motivations behind this decision. If the US continues down this path, it may accelerate the US decline in the world.

In his first term, Trump introduced the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” policy in 2017 to boost the US presence in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. His administration’s National Security Strategy emphasized “principled realism”, prioritizing great power strategic competition as a major threat to US national security, over terrorism. As the NSS document underscored “inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security,” the US started negotiation with the Afghan Taliban and concluded the Doha Accord with Pakistan’s help in 2020. It paved the way for the withdrawal of the US/NATO from Afghanistan.

After withdrawal from Afghanistan, NATO’s relevance was questioned; therefore, an attempt was made by the Biden administration to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. This move aimed to provoke Russia and create an insecure environment in Europe. I discussed this strategy in my column “Realism is back!” on 27 February 2022 that an attempt to incorporate Ukraine in NATO was a deliberate move to provoke Russia. This strategy aimed to create an environment of insecurity in Europe and to ensure NATO’s continued relevance in the post-Afghanistan security landscape.

The Biden administration leveraged the Ukraine war to rally NATO and European powers against Russia, while ultimately targeting China as a perceived autocratic threat to European security. This strategy aimed to create a united front against Chinese geopolitical ambitions. The Biden administration sought to discourage European countries from increasing their commercial intercourse and deepening geo-economic relations with Beijing. By framing China as a threat, like Russia, to European security, the US hoped to rally support against Chinese influence. It led to greater strategic cooperation between China and Russia.

However, Trump’s approach to countering China differs significantly from his predecessor. He wants to build a closer relationship with Russia to draw a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. This strategy seems at odds with the traditional US approach. It may compromise US alliances, embolden Putin, and boost China’s global influence. It will lead to a multipolar world order and increased great power rivalry. This strategic blunder will encourage illiberal forces in international politics. And Trump appears to be the proverbial bull in China’s shop, smashing the delicate crockery of the liberal world order with his reckless diplomatic coup. Under Trump, the liberal world order is destined to collapse and its debris will create a planet of disorder in the world.

Dr Shoaib Baloch is a strategic affairs and foreign policy analyst, based in Islamabad.