In a recent analysis, strategic thinker Edward Luttwak compared the foreign policies of Presidents Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, highlighting a shift in U.S. diplomatic strategy. During the early 1970s, Nixon sought to improve relations with China while also pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, a strategy known as triangular diplomacy. At that time, China was actively supporting North Vietnam in its conflict with the United States and was embroiled in the Cultural Revolution, which caused widespread chaos and suffering.
Luttwak argues that Trump is now engaged in a "reverse Nixon maneuver" by fostering closer ties with Russia under Vladimir Putin. He suggests that Trump’s approach focuses on countering China, which he sees as a greater threat to U.S. interests than Russia. This shift is evident in Trump’s first term, where he implemented stricter technology export controls against China, a policy that the current Biden administration has continued.
Luttwak notes that since Trump’s presidency, China has become more assertive on the global stage, a trend that has continued under Biden. Trump’s strategy appears aimed at creating a balance of power in Eurasia that favors the United States by reducing Russia’s reliance on China. Luttwak believes that if Trump can negotiate a peace in Ukraine that addresses some of Russia’s territorial claims, it could further distance Russia from China.
The geopolitical landscape has changed since Nixon’s time, with Russia’s human rights record today being less severe than the brutal regime of Mao Zedong. Despite the apparent partnership between China and Russia, Luttwak points out that there are underlying tensions, particularly concerning Chinese influence in Russia’s eastern regions.
Overall, Trump’s foreign policy aims to weaken the Sino-Russian alliance, which could enhance U.S. security. By fostering a divided Eurasia, Trump hopes to create a more favorable environment for American interests. This strategic pivot reflects a significant shift in how the U.S. approaches its global relationships, focusing more on great power competition rather than peripheral conflicts.