Relations With RussiaEdit
Relations With Russia describes the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation, spanning diplomacy, security, trade, energy, and culture. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this relationship has been marked by alternating cooperation and competition. The central questions have often been: How can two large, capable powers cohabit a rules-based international order without either compromising core interests? What is the proper balance between deterring aggression and building constructive channels for dialogue and collaboration on shared challenges? And how should democratic states defend their allies, their economic vitality, and their citizens’ security in the face of a resurgent great-power competitor?
From a perspective that emphasizes national sovereignty, economic vitality, and a pragmatic approach to power, the United States has sought to deter aggression, defend allies, and preserve a leverage-based relationship with Moscow that rewards cooperation when Russia adheres to international norms while punishing dangerous behavior through targeted measures when it does not. The relationship is best understood as an ongoing contest over influence and norms, with occasional steps toward broader cooperation tempered by persistent friction over security guarantees, democratic values, and strategic interests.
History and context
The post–Cold War era opened a period of cautious engagement, marked by efforts to reduce nuclear threats and integrate Russia into the global economy and security architecture. The United States and Russia entered into arms-control efforts and sought on occasion to cooperate on regional crises, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, for example, tied Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus to security guarantees in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, illustrating the potential for cooperation to advance security without a permanent confrontation. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances The broader arc of the 1990s was defined by a push to integrate Russia into the Western-led order, even as the West pressed for market reforms and political reforms within Russia.
As Vladimir Putin rose to the presidency, expectations of rapid liberalization gave way to a more assertive assertion of Russian interests. The 2000s included periods of cooperation on limited terms and sharp disagreements on democracy, human rights, and the proper scope of Russian influence in neighboring regions. The 2008 war in Georgia underscored that Moscow would not tolerate perceived encroachments on its sphere of influence, and it foreshadowed a more constrained and competitive relationship with the West. The expansion of NATO and Western security guarantees to Eastern European states became a point of contention, with Moscow arguing that such moves threaten its security and strategic depth.
In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine triggered wide-ranging sanctions from the United States and the European Union. The sanctions regime aimed to pressure Moscow to reverse what many Western policymakers viewed as a violation of international law and to deter future territorial aggression. The episode also highlighted the limits of diplomacy when core European security interests are at stake and exposed the reality that strategic competition can, at times, displace cooperation on other fronts.
The mid- to late 2010s brought a sustained focus on две central issues: interference in elections and cyber operations, and the stability of nuclear arms control. Attempts to reset relations, including various diplomatic initiatives, achieved limited and uneven success. In 2016, revelations of Russian interference in the United States presidential election underscored the vulnerability of open political systems to foreign influence and the necessity of robust election security and resilience. The response combined sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and a recalibrated posture toward Moscow.
The early 2020s intensified the confrontation with Russia over its military actions in Ukraine and its broader strategic behavior. The large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 precipitated a sweeping sanctions regime, export controls, and a reorientation of energy and defense policies across Europe and North America. The United States renewed and extended arms-control efforts such as the five-year extension of the New START treaty, affirming a preference for verifiable limits on strategic forces even amid tense relations. The conflict also accelerated European defense integration and energy diversification, underscoring the linkage between security, economy, and sovereignty in the modern era. New START
Key themes across this history include the tension between the desire for strategic stability and the reality of Moscow’s willingness to challenge international norms, the limits of diplomatic engagement when trust is low, and the importance of credible deterrence and robust alliances in preserving a favorable balance of power. It remains essential for policymakers to confront Moscow’s objectives without unnecessarily escalating crises, while steadfastly defending the institutions and norms that underpin a stable international order. Deterrence NATO Ukraine Russia
Security, deterrence, and alliance dynamics
A core objective of the bilateral relationship is to deter aggression and protect allied security while maintaining channels for crisis management. Deterrence rests on a combination of arithmetic, alliance cohesion, and credible political will. The credibility of extended deterrence for Europe, the Baltic states, and other partners depends on a visible and capable defense posture, reinforced by interoperable forces and modernized defense equipment. Deterrence and NATO are central to this framework, with continued discussions about defense burden-sharing and the resilience of European security.
Russia’s hybrid and conventional toolkit—ranging from cyber operations to disinformation campaigns and militarized actions in adjacent regions—has reinforced the need for robust defenses, defense industrial policy, and sanctions as a means of signaling redlines when Moscow oversteps. Critics argue that sanctions can entrench political elites or hamper ordinary people, while proponents contend that carefully targeted measures minimize unintended damage while preserving leverage to compel strategic adjustments. The balance between punishment and diplomacy remains a live debate within the policymaking community. For more on these instruments, see Economic sanctions and Cyberwarfare.
Diplomacy continues to play a role, but the channels for stable and predictable dialogue are often frayed by strategic disputes over issues like NATO enlargement, missile defense, and the security architecture of Eastern Europe. Engagement can yield limited dividends when Moscow views concessions as signs of weakness, yet it remains essential for crisis management, information-sharing on nonproliferation, and managing risks of accidental confrontation. NATO Nonproliferation Missile defense
Economic relations and energy policy
Economic ties are constrained by strategic rivalry, sanctions, and Russia’s state-influenced economic model. Trade volumes have fluctuated, influenced by sanctions regimes, energy prices, and Russia’s own economic policies. Energy has long been a central pillar of leverage, with Russia’s vast export capacity shaping European energy security and geopolitics. Efforts to diversify energy supplies in Europe, increase liquefied natural gas imports, and develop alternative pipelines have been a response to the vulnerabilities exposed by reliance on a single supplier. Energy security Nord Stream 2 The pipeline project, in particular, became a focal point of controversy, illustrating how energy infrastructure can become a political instrument in great-power competition. Nord Stream 2
U.S. and European sanctions have targeted financial networks, energy sectors, defense industries, and government officials tied to malign actions. Sanctions are designed to apply pressure without permanently crippling ordinary citizens or the global economy. The cost-benefit calculus of sanctions is continually debated, but proponents argue that sanctions are a legitimate and often necessary tool to deter aggression and punish unlawful behavior when diplomacy fails. Economic sanctions Russia
Diplomacy, institutions, and public diplomacy
Diplomacy seeks to prevent misperceptions from spiraling into crises and to preserve lines of communication that can prevent escalation. Treaties and agreements—whether on arms control, nonproliferation, or regional security—serve as anchors for a relationship that is otherwise characterized by strategic competition. The renewal or renegotiation of treaties such as the ongoing relevance of New START demonstrates the commitment to verifiable limits on strategic forces, even amid high political tensions. Arms control New START
Public diplomacy and information strategy are part of the broader contest of ideas. Moscow’s narrative often emphasizes sovereignty and resilience against what it calls Western overreach, while Western policymakers emphasize political pluralism, rule of law, and the right of independent states to chart their own path. The challenge is to retain constructive channels without surrendering core principles. Russia United States foreign policy
Conflicts, disputes, and controversial issues
Ukraine remains a central flashpoint. Russia’s actions in and around Ukraine—including Crimea in 2014 and the broader 2014–present crisis—have tested international norms and threatened European security. The response has included sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military assistance to Ukraine, alongside ongoing humanitarian concerns. The question for policy is how best to deter further aggression while supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and stability in a way that reduces the risk of broader conflict. Crimea Ukraine
Another contentious area is interference in domestic political processes and the use of hybrid tactics. Accusations of meddling in elections and public opinion have reinforced the imperative for election security, cyber resilience, and sanctions as a deterrent against covert influence campaigns. Critics of the response sometimes argue that measures overcorrect or politicize foreign policy; supporters counter that defending the integrity of democratic systems requires vigilance and strength. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Cyberwarfare
The legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions, as well as the strategic consequences of energy policy choices, continue to be debated. Proponents stress that sanctions are a proportionate and prudent response to violations of international norms, while critics warn of unintended consequences for global markets and long-term relations. The ongoing discussion reflects a fundamental disagreement over how best to balance punitive measures with the need for stable, reliable engagement with Moscow. Economic sanctions Nord Stream 2
Professional assessments also diverge on the trajectory of Moscow’s long-term goals: whether Russia seeks to revise the regional order, reassert influence over neighboring states, or finally accept a more constrained, cooperative role in a liberal international system. The answer has practical implications for defense planning, alliance commitments, and diplomatic strategy. Russia Deterrence