Hollywood has long mirrored America’s shifting political sentiment, with the annual Oscars often serving as a platform for their political expression. This year, however, those anticipating sharp criticism of Donald Trump would have been disappointed. Much like Silicon Valley, where tech moguls have adjusted to the new political landscape, Hollywood, too, may be coming to terms with the conservative revolution reshaping America. The entertainment industry, which once championed progressive causes and openly opposed Trump, is now displaying signs of pragmatic accommodation.
What stood out even more was the triumph of Anora, a Russian-themed film that walked away with five Oscars, including Best Picture. The nomination of Russian actor Yura Borisov for Best Supporting Actor — although he did not win — sparked considerable excitement in Moscow, reinforcing the Kremlin’s evolving optimism toward Trump’s presidency. Over the past few years, Russian elites have decried what they saw as a Western attempt to “cancel” Russian culture, particularly in the wake of Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The recognition of Borisov’s acting skills provided a much-needed reassurance that Russian cultural influence still carries weight in the West. After all, few in the world remain indifferent to Hollywood’s nod of approval.
This shift in cultural perception dovetails with Trump’s evolving stance on Russia. His rhetoric and actions on Ukraine, NATO and Europe have been music to President Vladimir Putin’s ears. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who for years revelled in lambasting the West, has now begun speaking of Trump as a “pragmatist.” Lavrov even praised Trump’s “policy of common sense,” which, he argued, opens the door for constructive engagement between Washington and Moscow.
Trump’s openness to Russia was underscored by his recent public appreciation of Moscow’s role in World War II and the historic US-Russia cooperation in making the post-War world. This sentiment, expressed after a phone call with Putin six weeks ago, is rarely heard from American political leaders. It signals a stark departure from the entrenched hostility that has characterised US policy toward Russia in recent years.
Trump has moved swiftly to re-engage Russia, despite opposition from Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Two rounds of high-level talks between US and Russian officials have already taken place in Riyadh and Istanbul. Both sides are exploring ways to restore their embassies to full operational capacity, initiate new confidence-building measures, and find common ground in ending the war in Ukraine. Trump has also floated the idea of lifting the sweeping sanctions imposed on Russia over the past three years. He has also proposed bringing Moscow back into the G7 — a stark reversal from previous efforts to isolate Russia on the world stage. Trump has expressed his intention to visit Russia and host Putin in the US, and reports from Washington say preparations are on for an early summit between the two leaders.
Trump’s commitment to improving US-Russia ties is not a mere political manoeuvre; it is a long-held conviction. Throughout his political career, he has challenged Washington’s bipartisan consensus on treating Russia as a hostile power. Even in the face of relentless efforts by the US establishment to portray him as a Kremlin agent — a charge that would have ended the career of any other American politician — Trump has remained steadfast. His first-term attempts at reconciliation with Moscow were largely stymied by institutional pushback. But now, armed with a stronger political mandate and full control over his administration, he is determined to follow through.
It is worth asking: Why has Trump remained unscathed by accusations of being “Putin’s puppet”, when such allegations would have been politically devastating for others? The answer lies in the unwavering support of his political base. Trump’s MAGA movement has consistently dismissed these allegations as the “Russia Hoax”. More crucially, MAGA represents a deeply anti-war constituency that opposes US involvement in the Ukraine conflict. It also categorically rejects the foreign policy elite’s “globalist” vision that demands America shoulder the burden of maintaining the international order.
Within Washington’s strategic circles, there are differing interpretations of Trump’s Russia policy. Some see it as an attempt to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing — a strategy often described as a “reverse Nixon-Kissinger” manoeuvre. In 1971, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger reached out to China to counterbalance Soviet power. Today, some Trump advisers hope that warming ties with Russia could loosen its alignment with China. However, Trump’s team appears realistic about the challenges of such a strategy. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has admitted, Washington is unsure whether it can “ever be successful completely at peeling them off of a relationship with the Chinese”. Nonetheless, Rubio — once a staunch Russia hawk — now acknowledges that strengthening US-Russia ties is preferable to allowing Moscow to become a permanent “junior partner” to Beijing.
Others interpret Trump’s Russia outreach as part of a broader shift in US foreign policy towards “offshore balancing”. Rather than striving for American dominance in global affairs, this approach recognises the world’s return to its natural multipolar state. Notably, Rubio is the first senior US leader to explicitly describe the unipolar post-Cold War era as an anomaly — one that is now fading.
From Russia’s perspective, Trump’s presidency presents both an opportunity and a risk. The Kremlin sees a rare chance to reshape US-Russia relations but remains wary of the unpredictability of American domestic politics. Moscow understands that any progress made under Trump could be undone by future administrations. Thus, the Kremlin is cautiously exploring the new possibilities with Trump.
Meanwhile, improving relations with Washington does not mean Moscow will sever ties with Beijing. On the contrary, a renewed American opening would strengthen Putin’s bargaining position in his dealings with China. For Russia, maintaining balanced relations with both America and China will be the enduring objective.
Trump’s calls for reducing nuclear arsenals have also been welcomed in Moscow, given Russia’s long-standing preference for arms control agreements with Washington. However, the real prize for Putin lies in the economic realm. The war in Ukraine — initially envisioned as a short operation — has dragged into its fourth year, straining Russia’s economy. Lifting US sanctions would provide a crucial boost, and Putin has already signalled his willingness to welcome American investment in critical mineral resources and other sectors.
Still, scepticism persists on both sides. In Moscow, some fear that Trump’s overtures are a trap designed to isolate Russia from its traditional non-Western allies. Others see Washington’s newfound appreciation for Borisov as a potential ploy to elevate an alternative figure in Russian politics.
Yet, despite these doubts, the potential benefits of ending international isolation, securing economic relief, restoring cultural recognition, and regaining the seat at the high table are of great appeal to Russia. Trump’s presidency, whether it leads to a lasting shift or a temporary reprieve, undoubtedly opens a door that Moscow is eager to step through. For India, a Russo-American entente would create more geopolitical space to operate in; but it would also demand a strategic agility unburdened by any presumptions about relations between the US, Russia, and China.
The writer is contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
