President Donald Trump has expressed ambitions to disrupt the strategic alliance between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, a relationship that has garnered attention amid escalating global tensions. Experts have raised questions about whether Trump can execute a “reverse Kissinger,” invoking historical parallels to Henry Kissinger’s efforts in the 1970s that helped to isolate the Soviet Union by improving U.S. relations with China. Fred Fleitz, a former deputy assistant in the Trump administration, highlights that fracturing this Sino-Russian alliance could be feasible through strategic actions, such as pressuring China to curb its purchase of Russian oil, potentially leveraging tariffs as a means of persuasion.
However, Beijing has reiterated its support for Moscow, and recent diplomatic interactions have confirmed China’s unwillingness to see Russia defeated in Ukraine. Chinese officials, during discussions with EU diplomats, indicated that a Russian loss could embolden the West, particularly the U.S., to concentrate its focus on China. This sentiment underscores a broader strategic calculation in which China perceives a Russian victory as beneficial to its own national interests, complicating any efforts to drive a wedge between the two nations.
Fleitz contends that a more effective approach may be to spotlight the underlying tensions within the Russia-China relationship, which are often overshadowed by public declarations of unity. He points to recent actions by China to assert historical claims over contested regions, which signal potential future territorial ambitions. Fleitz argues that Russia might secure a more prosperous future by pivoting back toward the West, rather than aligning itself with a China that does not necessarily prioritize Russian interests.
This line of thinking is reminiscent of the “reverse Kissinger” strategy, where Trump’s potential overtures to Putin could yield a reconfiguration of alliances that isolates China. Trump’s previous diplomatic strategies, including his early overtures toward Putin and initial criticism of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, reflect this inclination. Nevertheless, the reality on the ground remains complex, with Putin continuing military operations in Ukraine while China increasingly vocalizes its support for Russia in the face of Western opposition.
Fleitz acknowledges that achieving this reorientation will be a challenging endeavor, particularly given the lack of diplomatic dialogue between Putin and President Biden following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite apparent solidarity, simmering discontent between Russia and China, exemplified by intelligence reports indicating that Russia has labeled China as an “enemy,” suggests a fragile partnership. Furthermore, Moscow’s reliance on Beijing could be a strategic liability, as Chinese ambitions in security and technology demonstrate a long-term commitment to undermining Russian interests.
Ultimately, Fleitz advocates for an ongoing campaign to educate Russian leaders about the perils of their alignment with China, emphasizing that the benefits of a relationship with the U.S., particularly under Trump, could outweigh any advantages currently perceived in their ties with Beijing. This narrative seeks to transform the geopolitical landscape by reinvigorating U.S.-Russia relations, aiming to instigate a recalibration that not only stabilizes regional dynamics but also mitigates the growing influence of China on the global stage.
