A Top Russian Expert Shared A Very Skeptical Assessment Of Trump 2.0

What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one suggests that the tide might be turning.

Dmitry Trenin is one of Russia’s top experts and used to be considered a Westernizer among many prior to having a change of heart as a result of everything that happened since the special operation began. He’s an interesting figure to follow and that’s likely why RT published the translated version of an article that he recently wrote sharing a very skeptical assessment of Trump 2.0. The present piece will draw attention to the highlights before analyzing the importance of what he wrote.

Trenin thinks that “the American political establishment – Congress, the media, and much of the foreign policy bureaucracy – was deeply uncomfortable with a peace formula that could hardly be presented domestically as a victory over Russia”, ergo why the “spirit of Anchorage” fizzled out. Trump “appears to have aligned himself more closely with powerful political and financial groups in Washington, including neoconservative circles and the Israeli lobby”, thus “sidelining” his “original MAGA allies”.

The end result is that “Instead of presiding over the slow decline of the liberal-globalist order, Trump is attempting to build a new version of American hegemony, one based far more openly on force.” Correspondingly, Trenin believes that “Washington’s objective today is not necessarily to construct a stable new world order. Rather, it may be to generate global instability and then dominate within that chaos.” This “inevitably” makes the US Russia’s “geopolitical, and potentially military, adversary.”

With this assessment in mind, Trenin advises that “Russia shouldn’t forget the duplicity Trump has already shown toward Iran in 2025 and again in 2026. Notably, the same American envoys involved in negotiations with Russia over Ukraine were also conducting talks with Iran…Dialogue with him is possible, but trust is not advisable. Russia must also remember that US military doctrine places great emphasis on neutralizing the leadership of an adversary at the beginning of any conflict.”

Just as importantly, “Economic cooperation with the United States is theoretically possible. In practice, it is highly unlikely. Most American sanctions against Russia are embedded in US legislation and cannot be lifted by presidential decision alone. For most Russians alive today, those sanctions will remain a long-term reality. Russia must therefore orient its economic strategy toward domestic development and cooperation with non-Western partners.”

Trenin then concludes that “Russia’s task is clear: deepen cooperation with partners facing pressure from the United States. Their resistance could slow, and perhaps eventually halt, the current American counteroffensive. Because one thing is certain: the United States will not stop unless it is stopped.” While he earlier reaffirmed that it’s Putin’s decision how to proceed, the importance of Trenin’s article is that it shows how radically even previously Western-friendly thought leaders have soured on the West.

What can be described as Russia’s pro-BRI policymaking faction has long lobbied for a harder line against the US, but their ‘friendly rivals’ in the balancing one of which Putin is a part disagreed, though Trenin’s ‘defection’ from the balancing faction to the pro-BRI one suggests that the tide might be turning. It’s therefore possible that Putin might finally be persuaded to abandon his pragmatic approach towards Trump 2.0 if the US soon doesn’t give him what he wants in Ukraine and continues encircling Russia.