Opinion C Raja Mohan writes: India should be cautious about Trump reaching out to Russia, China and Europe

He has warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine will be left on its own unless it cedes territory in a compromise with Russia. He has threatened tougher sanctions on Russia’s oil buyers to weaken Moscow’s economy unless Putin is flexible on Ukraine’s security. And he has told Europe it must either accept his formula or bear the full cost of defending Ukraine. The gamble could yet collapse into renewed war. But if peace does emerge, its consequences will extend far beyond Ukraine.

In promoting peace in Ukraine, Trump is attempting nothing less than a reset of America’s relations with Europe, Russia, and China. For years, Trump has demanded that Europe shoulder more of its own defence burden. Under his pressure, NATO allies have pledged to raise military spending to nearly 5 per cent of their GDP. Whether these promises are kept — and whether they translate into credible military capacity — remains to be seen. For now, Europe remains heavily dependent on the US for security. That dependence has left Europe with little say in shaping peace. European leaders have been reduced to pleading with Trump to improve the terms for Ukraine. They have agreed to lead security guarantees for Kyiv, with the US as a backstop, and to spend $100 billion on American arms for Ukraine. For Trump, peace is also business.

One outcome of peace in Ukraine is a gradual reset in US-Russia ties. Trump has long signalled his desire for a productive partnership with Moscow. Despite repeated attacks from Washington’s establishment — branding him a “Russian asset” — he has persisted. Putin has reciprocated, invoking historic bonds and pointing to possibilities for cooperation. This is not without precedent. Washington and Moscow have alternated between confrontation and cooperation for decades. In World War II, the US allied with Joseph Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany, supplying Moscow with massive “Lend-Lease” aid. During his Alaska visit, Putin paid homage to the pilots who ferried aid across the Alaska–Siberia air bridge. The 1970s détente produced arms control agreements and joint initiatives in space and regional security. The Soviet collapse opened another decade of close partnership before ties soured in the late 2000s.

For Putin, the question is less about ideology and more about the terms of accommodation. Russia seeks dignity and equality in any settlement. In Alaska, Trump offered just that — public respect and hints of deeper economic cooperation. If Washington reopens the door to Moscow, parts of Europe may follow. Russian energy remains attractive to European industry, and Russian markets still beckon exporters.

Should the thaw hold, expect Moscow’s rhetoric to shift — from “building a post-American order” to working with Washington in managing global stability, a familiar theme from the 1970s and 1990s. Russia relishes its identity as a great power and its presumed role as America’s “co-equal” in world affairs.

A ‘reverse Kissinger’ 

Trump’s interest in Russia is not purely sentimental. Within his circle, some argue that separating Moscow from Beijing should be a key US goal. Others insist that peace in Europe is essential for focusing on China in Asia. Trump himself hinted at this after the Alaska summit, calling Russia and China “natural enemies” and blaming the Biden administration for driving Moscow into Beijing’s arms — an argument that resonates in Delhi too. This has revived talk of a “reverse Kissinger”. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger opened relations with China to counter the Soviet Union. Today, some in Washington dream of flipping Russia to contain China. The analogy is flawed. Unlike then, Moscow and Beijing today are bound in a “no-limits” partnership, underpinned by strategic, economic, and technological ties. Expecting a sudden break is unrealistic. Still, Trump’s outreach could give both Washington and Moscow more room to manoeuvre in dealing with China’s growing power.

Trump, however, is not eager to abandon China. He seeks a deal there as well. His reluctance to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese purchases of Russian oil and his repeated praise for Xi Jinping suggest a bigger initiative may be brewing. Speculation is rife that Trump could travel to Beijing in late October, between the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur and APEC in Seoul. China, too, wants a deal that legitimises its status as America’s equal. Like Russia, Beijing does not seek perpetual confrontation with Washington. The issue is not ideological incompatibility but the terms of accommodation.

Trump’s parallel manoeuvres with Moscow and Beijing recall another Kissinger maxim: Washington should always strive to have better relations with other great powers than they do with one another. Trump seems intent on precisely that.

For India, these shifts pose sobering choices. A “reverse Kissinger” could leave the major powers enjoying warmer ties with one another than with Delhi. If Trump succeeds in resetting relations with both Moscow and Beijing, India risks being marginalised in the evolving global balance.

Delhi must therefore reboot ties with all major powers — the US, Europe, Russia, and China. It must avoid slipping into permanent conflict with its neighbours, which only invites more meddling by the great powers. India must back diplomacy with long-overdue economic reform and renewed domestic political unity on key national issues. Without internal strength, foreign policy agility will be of little use in managing the current turbulence of great-power politics.

The writer is contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express