Russia' Objective by the help of Donald Trump: A Strategy of 'Weakening Without Destroying' in the Context of the War in Ukraine
Weaken the economy of the USA & its alliance with NATO
Why do Americans fail to understand Russia? Why do presidents regardless of their party affiliation constantly misread the stooges in the Kremlin? This persistent inability to appreciate the thinking exposed by another great power is especially striking given that Russia’s policies have not changed at all since the days of Ivan the Terrible or even earlier.
Many countries have changed. Some moved from a foe to a friend. Some moved in the opposite direction. Some became peaceful and some war-like. Russia, on the other hand, has always been, is and will likely remain the same.
Russia, first under the Tzars, later under the Bolsheviks and now under Vladimir Putin, has had a very simple and clearly defined main strategic goal: territorial expansion driven by the insecurity bordering on schizophrenia. That mania of suspicion is rooted in Russia’s internal political reality, the absolute failure of successive regimes to govern effectively.
Russia has never hidden its ambitions and intentions. The world history of the last few hundred years is, in part, the story of Russia doing what it claims it wants to do. One does not need to read lengthy volumes of history to understand what Russia is up to. One just needs to pay attention to current events.
So why is it so difficult for Americans to pick up on those obvious and historically self-evident objectives? The main problem with Russia is that Russia is literally a big problem. Solving it requires strategy spanning multiple presidencies, the discipline utterly absent. It requires attention to detail and understanding that the problem not addressed today will inevitably become a lethal threat tomorrow.
Very few presidents have recognized or had the courage to publicly call Russia what it is: the dangerous enemy. Unfortunately, democracies are inherently terrible at planning. The failure to sustain a single policy spanning multiple administrations across both parties has frustrated the decision-makers and has led to some unfortunate shortcuts impersonating a real policy.
DC Bureau: egg prices, bird flu
That situation has created many euphemisms that for decades have defined U.S. policy on Russia: engagement, containment and reset. This nomenclature allows Washington to address Russia as a crisis of temporal nature.
These pseudo policies have, short of never addressing the issue in earnest, bred ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the subject among the American elites who have lost all institutional knowledge of why those pseudo-solutions were invented in the first place.
The U.S.’s handling of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the recent speech by Vice President JD Vance in Munich, addressing the leaders of Europe have underscored how deep the denial of the Russian problem has gone in Washington, how both parties have created, and feel very comfortable inside, the parallel realities of the world beyond the country’s borders.
The initial American reaction to the aggression was to send “Uber” to evacuate the government in Kyiv and hope the Kremlin tantrum would thus be over. Russia’s potential victory was not considered to be a geopolitical earthquake. It was just Russia behaving badly.
When Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his government refused to surrender, Joe Biden and his administration were forced to support Ukraine’s efforts to stand up to Russia. The U.S. was dragged into the effort against its original intentions but with no desire to allow Ukraine to win. Russia was to be managed as if the current conflict was not part of the centuries-long policy but a chance and unfortunate terrible behavior by a stooge of which the world has plenty.
Soon after, the White House with the support of its European allies came up with a brilliant strategy. It was not a strategy per se, but a way not to address the crux of the problem, yet looking as if working hard on the solution: maintain the war of attrition against Russia to the last Ukrainian. The end result would satisfy everyone: Russia would be exhausted and Ukraine, as a friction spot between the West and Russia, would cease to exist.
Again understanding history would help to know that one does not exhaust Russia with a war of attrition. The prospect of an emboldened Russia and a conquered Ukraine became ever more possible. Even with those alarming signs Washington did not believe the approach was wrong. However, the Europeans started to become concerned.
And here arrives Donald Trump and his new MAGA approach to foreign policy and Russia in particular.
Trump almost aquiece to all Putin's desire about Ukraine. Since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the role of the United States in supporting Kyiv has been closely scrutinized by analysts and commentators. However, amid obvious arms supplies and financial aid to Ukraine, opinions have emerged suggesting that the U.S. is not merely weakening Russia but is also deliberately preventing its total collapse. This approach is driven by Washington's long-term strategic interests and aligns with the historical logic of American foreign policy.
Western support for Ukraine is often explained not only by moral but also by pragmatic considerations. For the U.S., this war provides an opportunity to weaken a major military adversary in Eurasia without direct military involvement, using Russia's own resource constraints against itself. However, according to some analysts, the American strategy has another important aspect: keeping Russia in the status of a controlled geopolitical player that constantly generates threats and can be used in international political maneuvers.
The division of tasks among different U.S. administrations also supports the hypothesis of a strategic balance: the Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, is taking more steps to slow down arms deliveries, which could be interpreted as a desire to keep Russia in a weakened but not catastrophic state.
In 2022, when the Ukrainian army achieved successes near Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson, many expected the U.S. to provide more significant support in the form of heavy weaponry and long-range missiles. However, arms were delivered in small batches, and strategically crucial decisions were delayed.
This approach allowed the U.S. to:
avoid a rapid military collapse of Russia;
extend the conflict over years, contributing to the gradual demilitarization of Russia;
minimize the risk of full-scale destabilization in the region.
As a result, despite the degradation of the Russian army, Russia managed to adapt to prolonged conflict by conducting partial mobilization and securing arms supplies through third countries.
As Ukrainian forces increasingly strike deep into Russian territory, calls to halt hostilities have intensified. U.S. voices advocating a "freeze" of the conflict have grown louder, which would effectively mean preserving the current status quo. For Ukraine, this is unacceptable as it would give Russia a chance to regroup and prepare for another round of war in the future.
Limiting arms supplies and intelligence sharing can be seen as a tool to pressure Kyiv into negotiations. However, Ukrainian leadership remains committed to a strategy of fully exhausting the enemy.
Despite supporting Ukraine, European countries have found themselves in a vulnerable position. Long-term policies of reducing defense budgets have left Western Europe without sufficient resources for independent security. In this context, dependence on the U.S. has only increased, creating risks of manipulation through military supplies and potential pressure from Washington.
Moreover, some analysts point to the possibility of the U.S. using Russia as a factor to weaken European unity by exploiting the interests of individual states. This multi-layered strategy could leave the EU in a state of political uncertainty amid a prolonged conflict.
From a global perspective, Washington's primary challenge is not Russia but China. The U.S. is trying to prevent excessive Moscow-Beijing rapprochement, complicating its policy toward Ukraine. In this regard, keeping Russia in a weakened but not destroyed state can be seen as a way to control its foreign policy maneuvers.
However, the American strategy faces challenges:
China remains Russia’s largest economic partner, providing it with access to technology and resources;
Russian-Chinese cooperation in the defense sector is growing;
Internal instability within the U.S. undermines its ability to conduct long-term foreign policy.
Social and economic problems within the U.S. make American hegemony less stable, while their allies become more dependent on Washington's decisions. This creates maneuvering space for other global players, including China.
Senior intelligence officials are warning the Western world that Russia's interference in the 2016 US election was an escalation of aggression that is likely to continue.
Robert Hannigan, the former head of UK signals intelligence service GCHQ, has told Four Corners further attacks from Vladimir Putin are probable.
"As long as Putin can't address Russian economic problems, he's probably going to be tempted to wrap himself in the flag of nationalism even more firmly and to do more foreign adventures. I hope not, but I fear that might be the case," he said.
Dan Hoffman, former CIA station chief in Moscow, says this new threat from Russia should not be underestimated.
"As dangerous as things were between our countries during the Cold War, as much risk as there was of conflict, you might argue that we're in a worse place today."
However, this policy carries risks: Ukraine may refuse to compromise, and Europe may rethink its role in the security system. Meanwhile, China continues to expand its influence, capitalizing on uncertainty and the weakness of American decisions.
Amid these developments, the world is entering a new period of instability, where previous geopolitical schemes no longer work, and the global balance of power continues to shift in favor of new players.
Since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the role of the United States in supporting Kyiv has been closely scrutinized by analysts and commentators
The Dual Objective of the U.S. in the Ukrainian Conflict
Limited Arms Supplies: A Containment Tactic
Ukraine Opposes a 'Frozen' Conflict
Europe Trapped in U.S. Strategy
