Last month, Foreign Affairs published an excellent article published here entitled “The dangerous rapprochement between China and Russia.” In addition to being part of a growing trend of geopolitical analysts and journalists recognizing, if not exaggerating, the danger of the emerging partnership between China and Russia, he has also explicitly referred to the “reverse Nixon strategy” in dealing with Russia. Of course, he referred to the truce proposal with Russia to confront China. Ultimately, the article rejects the approach in favor of attempts to create a rift between China and Russia through strategies such as allowing India to purchase Russian weapons, but its recognition of the idea, and the danger posed by China and Russia, appears significant.
Is there a growing popularity of a softer approach to Russia, at least among think tanks and journalists? President Biden significantly Michael Rojansky is For the role of chancellor of Russia, though the idea has faced criticism for Rojansky’s alleged softness to the Kremlin. The idea is clearly not very popular in the Democratic Party for obvious internal reasons. In this particular subtitle, there were many threads questioning the value of NATO’s expansion and its commitment to Eastern Europe. Others wrote off Russia as a dead or dying power. But the recognition that China is the greatest threat to Western/American interests appears to have been relatively unchallenged – and it is Russia’s aid to China (and not the other way around) that has the authors of the article above worried.
This leads me to several questions I’m curious about:
Is a “Nixon Reversal Strategy” conceivable? Is an idea becoming more popular in geopolitical circles?
What will be the consequences of “allowing Russia to put Ukraine” in its sphere of influence? Is Ukraine really beneficial to Western interests?
How dangerous is the growing partnership between Russia and China? What action should it require?