Last fall, in Sochi, Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin took to the stage just two days after Donald J. Trump won the U.S. presidential election, discussing the emergence of a new global order.
“In a sense,” Mr. Putin remarked, “we are approaching a moment of truth.”
That moment may have already begun.
Following three years marked by intense warfare and isolation from the West, a fresh landscape of opportunities has arisen for Mr. Putin with a shift in power in Washington.
Gone are the strong declarations from the East Room of the White House emphasizing U.S. resistance to bullies, the promotion of democracy over autocracy, and the commitment to safeguarding freedom.
Also vanished is the united front from Washington and its European allies against Russia, many of whom are now questioning whether the new U.S. administration will defend them against a resurgent Moscow or even maintain troop presence in Europe.
This is a swift reversal of fortunes for Mr. Putin. He has remained steadfast on the battlefield, holding out amid mounting pressures and challenges, waiting for a prolonged conflict to wear down Western resolve longer than Moscow anticipated. Now, the Russian leader may feel that the time is right to recalibrate the power dynamic in favor of the Kremlin, extending beyond just Ukraine.
“He likely sees a genuine opportunity, not only to gain an advantage in the war in Ukraine but also to marginalize the U.S. influence, not just in Ukraine, but across Europe,” stated Max Bergmann, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who was involved with the State Department during Obama’s presidency.
The Russian leader’s ambitious aim, according to Mr. Bergmann, is to dismantle NATO, the military alliance of 32 countries led by the U.S., formed post-World War II to shield Western Europe from the Soviet Union.
“I believe that is very much on the agenda right now,” Mr. Bergmann added.
This opening signifies one of the greatest chances for Mr. Putin in his tenure of over twenty-five years in power.
Throughout the years, Mr. Putin has expressed dismay over the perceived weakness of Russia in the decade following the Soviet Union’s collapse and has focused on reversing the influence the United States gained in Europe at Russia’s expense.
Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine three years ago, Mr. Putin put forth demands to the U.S. and its European counterparts that extended far beyond Ukraine, advocating for a return to Cold War-esque spheres of influence in a Europe divided between Washington and Moscow.
He insisted that NATO adhere to a policy of not expanding further eastward into former Soviet states, including Ukraine. Additionally, he sought assurances from the U.S. and its Western European allies against deploying any military forces or weapons in Central and Eastern European nations that were once under Moscow’s control.
Many of these nations, including Estonia, Poland, and Romania, have been NATO members for many years and would be challenging to defend from a Russian invasion without pre-stationed troops and equipment.
“From Putin’s perspective, it is the most powerful nations that should dictate the rules,” explained Angela Stent, a former professor of government at Georgetown University. “Smaller nations, whether they consent or not, must comply.”
It’s worth noting, Ms. Stent remarked, that Russia lacks a superpower economy. “However, it does possess nuclear weapons, significant oil and gas resources, and a veto power at the U.N. Security Council,” she pointed out. “This represents sheer power, hard power.”
Initially, the West dismissed Mr. Putin’s pre-war demands as unacceptable. Now, with Mr. Trump, a historically skeptical figure regarding NATO and U.S. military presence in Europe, likely set to revive these issues in upcoming negotiations, European allies are anxious about concessions the U.S. president might make.
“Something major is transpiring at this moment,” said Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London. “This is not just typical politics as usual. This current administration is fundamentally different, making it hard to predict the future of trans-Atlantic relations.”
Despite the advantageous geopolitical alterations with Mr. Trump’s return, the Russian leader has endured significant setbacks over the past three years of war and has yet to achieve his objective of drawing Ukraine back under Moscow’s influence.
Russia managed to secure about 1,500 square miles from Ukraine last year, but has not fully captured any of the territory from the four Ukrainian regions that the Kremlin officially “annexed” in 2022. While Ukrainian forces face significant troop shortages, there hasn’t been a large-scale Russian breakthrough to fully collapse Ukrainian defenses.
Moreover, Mr. Putin’s territorial gains have come at a considerable cost, with estimates suggesting Russia is experiencing between 1,000 to 1,500 casualties daily.
Russia’s wartime economy is under strain, marked by 10 percent inflation, soaring interest rates, and sluggish economic growth, despite massive state military expenditures. Furthermore, NATO has expanded to include Finland and Sweden, contrary to what Mr. Putin desired.
“From the Kremlin’s vantage point, while opportunities may be present, it is crucial not to set expectations too high,” expressed Thomas Graham, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served in a senior advisory role on Russia during the George W. Bush administration. “Circumstances can shift rapidly, and ultimately, Trump’s reliability is in question.”
To conclude hostilities, Mr. Graham added, both parties must agree to cease combat. Ukraine and its European allies are unlikely to accept a subpar agreement negotiated by Mr. Trump with Mr. Putin, regardless of the pressure they may face from Washington.
“The situation is far more intricate than merely having Putin and Trump signing a pre-prepared document,” Mr. Graham stated, advising caution regarding further speculation from Moscow despite a seemingly more favorable position.
As negotiations commence, Mr. Trump confronts the challenge of Mr. Putin’s unpopularity among the American public. Any agreement perceived as yielding to the Kremlin could face substantial opposition domestically, however, a majority of Americans are in favor of a swift resolution to the conflict, a promise Mr. Trump made during his campaign.
Recent surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that over 80 percent of Americans hold negative views of Russia, with 88 percent expressing doubts about Mr. Putin’s ability to act correctly in international matters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents labeled Russia as an adversary to the United States.
Mr. Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who has been leading the talks thus far, has previously referred to Mr. Putin as “bloodthirsty,” “a butcher,” and “a monster.”
Conversely, Mr. Putin has gained from shifts in the information landscape and garnered support from certain segments of right-wing media, most notably from former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who conducted an interview with him in Moscow last year.
Three years ago, Ukrainians effectively utilized Twitter to rally global support at the onset of the invasion. However, misinformation sympathetic to the Kremlin has proliferated on social media platforms since Elon Musk assumed control in 2022 and rebranded Twitter as X.
Federal prosecutors revealed a covert Russian effort last year to promote pro-Kremlin narratives by channeling funds to right-wing American influencers through a media company based in Tennessee.
The Western nations positioned against Mr. Putin are grappling with their own domestic issues. France and Germany, the two most influential democratic powers in continental Europe, have been ensnared in political gridlock for months, and far-right parties sympathetic to the Kremlin are gaining ground, backed by both Russian and American officials.
In the U.S., Mr. Trump’s defense secretary has instructed senior officials to begin contemplating substantial cuts to military expenditures. Some newly appointed senior figures at the Pentagon advocate for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe to redirect focus toward China, arguing that the continent can manage its own defense needs.
Such a scenario would be welcomed by Mr. Putin and his advisors.
“I suspect if they are wise, they will adopt Napoleon’s principle — when your adversary is in disarray, do not impede,” Mr. Graham remarked. “That seems to be their current strategy.”
Alina Lobzina contributed reporting.
