Follow us on social

Victoria-nuland-scaled

Ice breaking? Russia waives ban on Victoria Nuland

Along with the bad, there seems to be a number of goodwill gestures on both sides in hopes of building trust.

Analysis | Europe

In a surprise move earlier this month, the Russian Federation waived a targeted sanction on Victoria Nuland — the current Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs — in exchange for a reciprocal move from the U.S., which issued a visa for Russian diplomat Konstantin Vorontsov. 

Nuland, who was previously President Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, is a household name amongst Russia’s political class. Known for her influence over Obama’s Russia-policy in his second term and most infamously for her public support of the Ukrainian Euromaidan protests that deposed the sitting president in 2014, Nuland became the “personification of Washington’s foreign policy in the region” in the words of Fyodor Lukyanov, one of Russia’s premier foreign policy commentators and Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs.

The reason for this diplomatic quid-pro-quo was a three-day trip Nuland took last week to Moscow for meetings with high-ranking officials in the Russian Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, and the Presidential Executive Office. As some have inferred from the Biden Administration’s official statements and actions vis-à-vis Russia these past 10 months, there has been a realization in the White House that a dual confrontation with both Moscow and Beijing is not ideal and must be avoided. 

These actions can be seen in the relatively pragmatic statements emanating from the administration following four-years of rather hysterical Democratic fear mongering over Russia’s purported interference in the 2016 elections. Although, it must be said, there still exists a penchant for the aimless use of sanctions against Russia, as well as a continuing diplomatic breakdown between the two countries — not to mention Biden’s rather undiplomatic depiction of Putin earlier this year.

Additionally, the continued use of Manichean language regarding ‘Democracies’ vs. ‘Autocracies’ are not at all helpful in rebalancing relations. However, Biden’s statements on seeking a ‘predictable’ and ‘stable’ relationship with Russia suggest a moderate, yet indicative, assessment by the White House of the dangerously frayed relations that exist between Washington and Moscow. The Geneva meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin in June, although bizarrely covered as a boxing match between the two leaders by the Press, was significant in the release of a joint resolution restating the words of Gorbachev and Reagan that a “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

It now appears Nuland was dispatched to Moscow to follow up on the Summit and continue dialogue through these most recent meetings. Although no groundbreaking agreements were reached (something we should not be expecting in the short-term), the meetings were productive in the sense that they appeared to advance the vision of a stable and predictable approach to US-Russia relations — even if severe disagreements persist. 

Nuland’s meeting with Dmitry Kozak, Deputy Chief of Staff to President Putin and top negotiator regarding Ukraine, seemed to reaffirm the understanding between both nations that the only remaining solution to the situation in eastern Ukraine lies in the Minsk Agreements. There appears to be a tacit realization in Washington that the policy pursued vis-à-vis Ukraine since 2014 has not resulted in a more secure Eastern Europe. However, the White House has yet to use any of their available leverage to pressure an increasingly illiberal Ukrainian President Zelensky into accepting the Minsk Agreements and implementing provisions regarding an autonomous special status for the Donbass region.

The White House likely now sees a maintenance of the status-quo in Ukraine to be the most ideal situation to stall any unforeseen flare ups in the European theatre — although unpredictable escalations will continue to lurk until the Minsk Agreements have been thoroughly implemented. 

Unfortunately, however, Defense Secretary Austin this week pronounced yet again Washington’s policy of an ‘open door to NATO’ for both Ukraine and Georgia. Although this is in line with official U.S. policy, it does relations between Moscow and Washington no favors, especially given the unlikelihood of such acceptance by the entire NATO bloc of the former-Soviet states.

On the whole, of course, Nuland’s trip is a most welcome development, however, it must be understood in the context of broader international developments — namely the growing hostility between Washington and Beijing. As most practitioners of realism and restraint have argued for years now, the growing antagonism between the US and Russia is most useless, and needlessly causes security crises in otherwise generally stable regions of the world.

However, this isn’t the last step and both nations must continue working towards a more cooperative relationship. The recent joint resolution at the UN by the U.S. and Russia on the issue of cyber security is another small, yet positive, move in this direction. Let’s hope that relations continue developing in a more stable direction.

In the words of Mikhail Gorbachev: “History is not determined by fate. There is always an alternative.


Kiev, December 11, 2013: U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland distributes sandwiches to "allied" Ukranian soldiers. (shutterstock/Roman Mikhailiuk)
Analysis | Europe
Lockheed Martin NASA
Top photo credit: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, Colo. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

The Pentagon spent $4 trillion over 5 years. Contractors got 54% of it.

Military Industrial Complex

Advocates of ever-higher Pentagon spending frequently argue that we must throw more money at the department to “support the troops.” But recent budget proposals and a new research paper issued by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University suggest otherwise.

The paper, which I co-authored with Stephen Semler, found that 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending from 2020 to 2024 went to military contractors. The top five alone — Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion) – received $771 billion in Pentagon contracts over that five year period.

keep readingShow less
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.