Steel man argument for the "Reverse Kissinger" policy of pulling Russia from China's orbit.

• The latest U.S. policy shift—appearing to adopt elements of Kremlin war narratives while sacrificing leverage over Russia (via Trump’s grant of unilateral concessions)—raises troubling strategic questions.

• (side note: the latest troubling development is the Trump admin’s refusal to call Russia an “aggressor” in the G7 statement on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.)

• As discussed in yesterday’s post, the most charitable interpretation of this move is that it is a calculated attempt to peel Moscow away from Beijing by offering significant concessions in Ukraine.

• However, as we analyzed yesterday, this strategy is most likely doomed to fail for three key reasons:

• 1. No Significant Structural Tensions to Exploit.

• Unlike the 1970s Sino-Soviet split, which followed years of ideological and border conflicts culminating in the 1969 Ussuri River clash, there is no equivalent rift between Russia and China today.

• On the contrary, we are witnessing an unprecedented level of Russian dependence on China.

• No modern historical precedent exists where a major power has become as reliant on another as Russia is now on China.

• 2. The U.S. Cannot Replace China’s Role for Russia.

• China provides Russia with broad diplomatic cover, economic support, and—most crucially—industrial backing for military rearmament, including semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and defense technology.

• The U.S. cannot and will not fill this role.

• Even if Trump were to appease Putin rhetorically, U.S. government institutions and Congress would never allow a policy shift that entails actively rebuilding the Russian military.

• Without a credible economic or security counteroffer, Washington lacks the tools to pry Moscow from Beijing’s embrace.

• 3. Putin Cannot Bet on U.S. Reliability.

• Even if the above obstacles were somehow overcome, Putin would not gamble Russia’s strategic future on Washington’s goodwill.

• Trump’s foreign policy unpredictability, coupled with the inherent volatility of U.S. administrations, makes such a shift untenable.

• The Iranian nuclear deal stands as a case in point—scrapped by one administration, restored by another, and likely to change again.

• Russia sees the same risk: today’s friendly overtures could easily give way to tomorrow’s renewed containment strategy once Trump exits and a more conventional administration—Republican or Democratic—takes charge.

Steelmanning the Case for a “Reverse Kissinger” Strategy.

• Despite these flaws, some strategic thinkers argue that attempting to recalibrate Russia’s behavior—if not fully detaching it from China—is a goal worth pursuing.

• In addition, a lot of readers have emailed asking to consider the strongest case for such a move - and so we shall.