“Most People Have No Idea What Putin Just Leaked About Trump” – Warren Buffett

The history of relations between the United States and Russia has followed a repeating, predictable pattern of “boom-bust cycles”: an American administration, seeking stability, attempts a grand diplomatic partnership only to see it quickly undermined by Russian actions that assert a fundamentally zero-sum strategic view. This is not mere political happenstance; it is a long-standing geopolitical rhythm.

The Cycle of Diplomatic Engagement and Strategic Betrayal

The most significant recent example of this pattern is the “reset” policy launched by the Obama administration. Initiated in early 2009, the intent was to repair relations that had deteriorated over issues like NATO expansion and the Russo-Georgian conflict. The early results of this engagement appeared highly productive, demonstrating a capacity for cooperation on shared goals.

On the American side, the administration sought to address Russian concerns by dropping the prior plan to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a move President Putin himself called “correct and brave.” This diplomatic effort successfully yielded tangible security agreements. The most notable achievement was the New START Treaty, which committed both nations to significant reductions in their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals. Furthermore, Russia provided critical cooperation by allowing the transit of U.S. forces and supplies through its territory for the war in Afghanistan, and by agreeing to new, stricter sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program.

However, even as this cooperation was being lauded, Russia’s underlying strategic intent was already reasserting itself. The high point of the reset quickly gave way to a new confrontation following Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency. Russia swiftly retaliated against the American Magnitsky Act—which imposed sanctions on Russian human rights abusers—by prohibiting the adoption of Russian children by Americans. This was followed by Russia granting political asylum to Edward Snowden, an act widely seen as a deliberate, hostile diplomatic move against Washington.

The Collapse into Aggression

This string of calculated, antagonistic moves proved that the engagement was not leading to a shared strategic alignment, but was rather being used to secure tactical victories. The ultimate demonstration of this pattern came when the relationship descended into open hostility.

The entire foundation of the “reset” effort effectively collapsed in 2014 when, following the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, Russia illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula and began providing military support to separatists in Eastern Ukraine. This action shattered the peace and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area.

Furthermore, simultaneously with the diplomatic maneuvering, Russia had been investing heavily in its asymmetric strategy. This culminated in the large-scale cyber interference and disinformation campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. election, which intelligence assessments confirmed was an effort to undermine confidence in democratic institutions. Even as the new administration explored the potential for another round of cooperation, the evidence demonstrated that the Russian government was actively engaged in exploiting and weakening the democratic process.

In essence, history shows that major diplomatic initiatives, based on the hope of shared incentives, have repeatedly been met with an escalation in Russian strategic aggression, proving that their objective remains one where Russia views its gain only in terms of Western loss.