Washington’s Strategic Missteps and the Resurgence of Russian Expansionism

Introduction

‘Putin’s vision of the Russian empire of the 1700 coming true’?

The Russian Empire was founded on November 2, 1721, during the reign of Peter I the Great

The geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region is experiencing unprecedented instability as the United States, under the Trump administration, pursues a foreign policy approach that prioritizes expedient diplomacy over sustainable security frameworks.

By marginalizing Ukrainian sovereignty, undermining NATO cohesion, and repeating historical errors in engaging Russia, Washington risks emboldening Moscow’s revanchist ambitions, enabling territorial aggression, and destabilizing the post-Cold War international order.

Our review profoundly examines the interplay of U.S. policy decisions, Russian strategic objectives, and the broader implications for Eurasian security.

Historical Context

U.S.-Russia Relations and the Legacy of Containment

The Post-Soviet Power Vacuum and NATO Expansion

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Russia grappling with a diminished global stature and a fractured periphery. Buoyed by triumphalism, U.S. policymakers sought to integrate former Warsaw Pact states into Western institutions, culminating in NATO’s eastward expansion.

While framed as a democratic imperative, this policy ignored Russia’s historical insecurities about border vulnerabilities and spheres of influence.

George Kennan, architect of Cold War containment, warned in 1997 that NATO enlargement would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion.”

By 2008, the Bush administration’s endorsement of eventual NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest Summit marked a tipping point, exacerbating Kremlin fears of encirclement.

Russian leaders, from Yeltsin to Putin, interpreted NATO’s growth as a betrayal of tacit assurances made during German reunification talks in 1990, which Moscow claims included pledges to limit the alliance’s reach.

The U.S. dismissal of these grievances as irrelevant to a post-Cold War world entrenched a narrative of Western duplicity, fueling revanchist sentiment.

As Carnegie Endowment scholars note, Washington’s insistence on treating Russia as a “strategic loser” rather than a peer negotiator alienated potential partners and stifled cooperative security frameworks.

The Trump Administration’s Diplomatic Gambit

Concessions Without Leverage

Riyadh Negotiations and the Marginalization of Ukraine

In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated secretive talks in Riyadh, bypassing Kyiv and European allies to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.

By excluding Ukrainian representatives, Washington tacitly endorsed Moscow’s framing of the conflict as a bilateral Russo-U.S. issue, undermining Ukraine’s agency. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s preemptive dismissal of NATO membership or security guarantees for Ukraine stripped Kyiv of negotiating leverage, signaling U.S. disengagement from Eastern European defense.

This unilateralism echoed Trump’s tenure from 2017 to 2021, during which he withheld military aid to Ukraine and questioned Article 5 commitments, eroding transatlantic trust.

The Vance Doctrine: Echoes of Appeasement

Vice President J.D. Vance’s February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference marked a rhetorical shift, accusing Kyiv of “gambling with World War III” and rebuking Zelensky for insufficient gratitude toward U.S. aid.

This adversarial stance toward a besieged ally mirrored Kremlin narratives portraying Ukraine as a Western puppet, legitimizing Russian grievances.

The subsequent freeze on U.S. intelligence sharing and military assistance mutated Ukraine’s counteroffensive capabilities, enabling Russian advances in Donbas and Kharkiv.

Kremlin Calculus

Exploiting Strategic Windows of Opportunity

Military Regrouping and the “Frozen Conflict” Playbook

Putin’s acceptance of Riyadh talks reflects a strategic pivot to consolidate territorial gains.

With U.S. aid suspended, Russia aims to lock in control of Crimea, Donbas, and the Azov coast through a ceasefire, replicating the “frozen conflict” model used in Transnistria and South Ossetia.

A pause in hostilities allows Moscow to replenish depleted arsenals via Iranian drone shipments and North Korean artillery while circumventing sanctions through third-party oil sales.

The Institute for the Study of War estimates that Russia could reconstitute its pre-war force levels within 18–24 months under such conditions, positioning it for renewed offensives in 2026–2027.

The Sino-Russian Entente and Multipolarity

Trump’s outreach to Russia, aimed at fracturing the Beijing-Moscow axis, has yielded paradoxical results.

While offering sanctions relief and diplomatic recognition of annexed territories, U.S. overtures have not curtailed Sino-Russian collaboration on energy infrastructure or Arctic shipping lanes.

Instead, Putin leverages U.S. disengagement to deepen economic ties with China, securing investments in Siberian LNG projects and joint naval exercises in the Pacific.

Far from isolating Moscow, Washington’s transactional approach has reinforced Russia’s role as a linchpin in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, enhancing its global leverage.

Regional Dominoes: Georgia, Moldova, and NATO’s Southern Flank

Georgia’s Democratic Backsliding

The Trump administration’s indifference to democratic erosion in Tbilisi has emboldened the pro-Russian Georgian Dream party.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s 2024 suspension of EU accession talks triggered mass protests, yet U.S. envoys declined to sanction ruling elites for rigging elections or prosecuting opposition leaders.

With U.S. attention diverted, Georgia’s shift toward Eurasian Economic Union alignment grants Russia de facto control over Caucasus energy corridors, jeopardizing EU diversification efforts.

Moldova’s Precarious Neutrality

Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s pro-Western government faces escalating hybrid threats, including Kremlin-funded protests in Gagauzia and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.

Russia’s 1,500 troops in Transnistria, reinforced by recent deployments of Iskander missile systems, pose a latent threat to Odesa’s port, Ukraine’s lifeline for grain exports.

Without U.S. security guarantees, Sandu’s options narrow to appeasing Moscow or risking a Crimea-style intervention.

The Ideological Underpinnings of Russian Revanchism

From Expansionism to Civilizational Exceptionalism

Putin’s 2023 essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians reframed territorial claims as a cultural mission to reunite the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir).

This ideology, blending Orthodox traditionalism and Soviet nostalgia, positions NATO not merely as a military rival but as a civilizational antagonist seeking to dismantle Russia’s spiritual sovereignty.

The U.S.'s failure to engage this narrative—dismissing it as propaganda rather than a mobilizing force—has blinded policymakers to the conflict’s existential stakes for Moscow.

The Myth of Imperial Inevitability

Western analysts often cite Russia’s 19th-century expansion into Alaska and California as evidence of innate imperialism.

However, contemporary Kremlin strategies prioritize buffer zones over territorial acquisition, seeking to destabilize neighbors through asymmetric warfare rather than direct annexation.

Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014–present) exemplify this shift, where “passportization” of breakaway regions and cyber coercion replaces outright conquest. Washington’s fixation on Cold War-era containment misses this evolution, resulting in misaligned deterrence postures.

Recommendations for a Sustainable Deterrence Framework

Reaffirming NATO’s Eastern Commitment

The Biden administration’s 2021–2024 military aid to Ukraine, totaling $75 billion, demonstrated the efficacy of sustained lethal assistance in blunting Russian advances. To rebuild credibility, the U.S. must:

Resume deliveries of ATACMS missiles and F-16 fighters to Ukraine, enabling deep-strike capabilities against Russian logistics hubs.

Permanently station a NATO brigade in Poland’s Suwałki Gap, mitigating Belarusian-Russian joint force threats to the Baltics.

Expedite EU candidacy for Moldova and Georgia, coupling membership talks with security guarantees akin to Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge doctrine.

Economic Statecraft: Sanctions and Energy Diversification

Target Russian microchip imports via secondary sanctions on Turkish and Kazakh intermediaries, crippling precision weapon production.

Accelerate EU financing for the Three Seas Initiative, which would link Baltic and Black Sea LNG terminals to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

Offer sanctions relief contingent on Russian withdrawal from Transnistria and recognition of pre-2014 Ukrainian borders.

Conclusion

The Perils of Short-Termism in Great Power Rivalry

The Trump administration’s pursuit of a legacy-defining peace deal risks sacrificing long-term European security for transient diplomatic gains.

By echoing Kremlin narratives, alienating allies, and neglecting Russia’s historical anxieties, Washington inadvertently validates Putin’s claim that the U.S.-led order is in terminal decline.

The lessons of 2008 and 2014 are clear: concessions absent reciprocity embolden revisionist powers.

The U.S. can avert a new era of expansionist aggression merely by recommitting to collective defense, nuanced engagement with Russian strategic culture, and unwavering support for frontline states.