International Relations in Simultaneous State of Flux: Trump, Putin, Xi and Modi Play Poker

If you find the current state of world affairs bewildering or distressing, chances are that you are not alone. Outrageous statements and aggressive rhetoric are the order of the day. But there is a life beyond screaming headlines. Much that happens in international relations is steady, enduring and predictable. 

At its core, conventional diplomacy rests on the premise that each nation, irrespective of its size, possesses red lines—boundaries that cannot be easily transgressed. Proficient negotiators recognize the significance of meticulously examining these lines and identifying potential avenues for strategic maneuvering. 

Although the occasional surprise was always possible, what is intriguing is that President Donald Trump’s entire diplomatic methodology is predicated on the unconventional and the unexpected. Paradoxically, this may prove advantageous in certain circumstances at the present juncture.

And by keeping the U.S. and the Russia-Ukraine conflict as the two principal reference points, it may be possible to make some sense of the dynamics and interplay involving the major powers. This is notwithstanding other events and conflicts with global significance, like Israel-Palestine or Sudan Civil War. 

President Donald Trump’s move to engage in a direct conversation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on 12 February, shortly after his return to the White House, followed by the announcement that it was impractical for Ukraine to join NATO, raised hopes for a diplomatic solution to this conflict. 

NATO Expansion

The roots of the Ukraine crisis go back to the end of the Cold War, when NATO undertook a historic eastward expansion that granted membership to numerous former communist countries. In the first wave in 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic became part of NATO. The alliance’s largest single expansion followed in 2004 with the inclusion of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Notably, this round included the three Baltic states, formerly part of the Soviet Union. For the record, in 2009, Albania and Croatia entered the alliance. 

For Russia, the entry of NATO into its backyard was crossing a red line, and anyone with a decent knowledge of that country would not have been surprised by its robust response to the prospect of the alliance’s membership for Ukraine. 

The warning signs were there to see for those who kept their eyes open. Russia had watched with increasing concern as NATO approached its frontiers. Putin, in his speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2007, fifteen years before Russia attacked Ukraine, strongly criticized the eastward expansion. Describing it as a grave provocation undermining mutual trust and security, Putin emphasized that this expansion did not contribute either to modernizing the alliance or ensuring European security. He claimed that NATO’s actions were a threat to Russia’s security and a violation of previous assurances after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in July 1991. 

It is customary to depict Russia as a bear. Restrained by circumstances, upon its release, the bear gradually comprehends the potency of its own musculature or jaws. During this phase, it becomes susceptible to being overlooked. However, such a situation will not endure indefinitely. Once it became evident that Moscow’s opposition to Ukraine’s accession would be disregarded, Putin’s directive to his troops to execute special operations against Ukraine in February 2022 became imperative.  

Another key point to understand is that Russia, even with a lower stature than the erstwhile USSR, is not one to take instructions from the USA. But it may be amenable in a respectful conversation where its concerns are the starting point. In the run-up to the August 15 Summit in Alaska, Trump stated that both Ukraine and Russia would need to make territorial concessions to achieve peace in the ongoing conflict, suggesting land swaps as part of the potential deal. He stressed that lasting peace would likely require Ukraine to cede some of the territory currently under Russian control.

Wisely, India has not responded strongly to aggressive U.S. posturing. Some statements coming from President Trump suggest that a mutually acceptable solution may be possible. 

Incidentally, Donald Trump in May had accused his predecessor, President Biden, of practically conceding Crimea to Russia, stating that he expected Russia to retain the peninsula it annexed in 2014. 

The Alaska Summit was Putin’s first visit to a Western country since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and took place against the backdrop of Trump having in advance agreed to try and accommodate Russia’s objections on the NATO issue and also its territorial claims on Ukraine. But in the end, there was no formal agreement or ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Trump had been pushing for an immediate ceasefire, but after meeting Putin, he appeared to have shifted towards a comprehensive peace agreement instead. 

Converting such understandings into enduring peace requires hard work, including with others who might be linked to the conflict.  Trump’s core line after the Alaska meeting best summed up the situation: “There’s no deal until there’s a deal.” 

There has been a strong European Union dimension to the Ukraine conflict, beginning with the 2014 overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovich after he rejected an Association Agreement with the EU, triggering mass street protests and his eventual ouster. Since then, the EU has been at the forefront—imposing sanctions on Russia and backing Ukraine with assistance. But now it fears that a Trump-driven peace deal could marginalize Europe and effectively result in Russian dominance over the continent. 

Meanwhile, in anticipation of a ceasefire that would necessitate its enforcement, the UK and France are advocating for the deployment of troops from over 30 countries under a “coalition of the willing” to ensure Ukraine’s security. But Russia is highly unlikely to agree to NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine, even under any other flag. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently reiterated that Moscow has no objection to Ukraine’s EU membership, describing it as a sovereign decision of Kyiv. EU welcomed this clarification as a constructive step amid the ongoing tensions. 

China’s approach to the Ukraine crisis is best understood in terms of its advocacy for a political and negotiated resolution, while simultaneously pursuing its strategic alignment with Russia. Officially, Beijing has expressed its support for dialogue and peace talks and even suggested itself as a potential mediator. Chinese leaders have made it evident that a Russian defeat is not desirable. Throughout the conflict, China has enhanced its economic and diplomatic cooperation with Moscow and refrained from criticizing Russian actions. 

Containment of China

Trump’s words and actions during his second term indicate that China is perceived as the longer-term challenge for the U.S. compared to Russia because of its more comprehensive capabilities, which are not restricted to the military domain. Such thinking is evident in the threats of increased tariffs and stricter regulations on technology transfers to Beijing. 

But the U.S. ability to contain China’s economic progress without inviting significant damage to its own is questionable. In April 2025, China restricted exports of rare earth elements, causing alarm amongst American automakers. The launch of DeepSeek AI demonstrated that Chinese technological successes are starting to match American achievements. China’s navy is now larger than that of the U.S. in terms of the number of combat vessels. China’s recent military parade in Beijing showcased advanced weaponry, sending a message of its strategic might to the United States. 

Recently, China hosted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit meeting in Tianjin, from 31st August to 1st September. High-level SCO meetings can be expected to be relatively smooth affairs on account of the preparatory work done in advance. And accepted practice is for members to refrain from raising bilateral issues. This principle enabled India and Pakistan to join the SCO in 2017, followed by Iran in 2023 and Belarus in 2024. Against the backdrop of the current polarized international environment, international attention was expectedly more on the interactions in the margins involving key member countries, China, India, and Russia, than on the Summit deliberations.

A point of interest worth noting is that Russia is able to further its agenda by additionally leveraging such overlapping arrangements as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping, and BRICS as required. 

It is not entirely certain that India is an enthusiastic member of the SCO, given that it is dominated by Russia and China. It is also uncertain whether India is regarded as an equal partner by Russia and China. 

Tensions have risen in ties between the U.S. and India in the recent period over tariffs, as the Trump administration increased duties on Indian exports to 50 percent, including on account of India’s continued imports of Russian oil. These tariff hikes have raised concerns about the future of the India-U.S. strategic partnership. Wisely, India has not responded strongly to aggressive U.S. posturing. Some statements coming from President Trump suggest that a mutually acceptable solution may be possible. 

America’s Pakistan Card

A subplot here revolves around the positive vibes in U.S.-Pakistan ties. The long-standing camaraderie between the United States and Pakistan’s military is not a surprise. President Trump’s lunch meeting in June with Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir underscored that the U.S. is more comfortable dealing with that country’s army than its civilian leadership. It is also plausible that the Pakistani military, in exchange for incentives, can provide support for U.S. activities in the Afghanistan and Iran regions. Another dimension could be a conscious return by the U.S. to the hyphenation of India and Pakistan as in the past. 

A related point is Trump’s repeated assertions that his mediation and the threat of employing trade as a weapon were instrumental in securing the ceasefire in the India-Pakistan conflict in May that could have escalated into a nuclear war. It is highly improbable that India would have formally invoked U.S. mediation services because influential powers are not likely to be impartial. Further, if it is true that Trump threatened to use trade as a weapon, this significantly undermines the argument for India to replace its Russian military equipment with American ones. 

It requires crisis moments to announce one’s arrival on the world stage. Like the Russian bear, the Indian tiger has also discovered its muscles and teeth over the last 75 years. India would have arrived as a major global power if it were able to turn this difficult situation to its advantage. 

One way for India could be to actively participate in the Ukraine peace project, where the main parties to the conflict are hindered from breakthroughs due to their strongly entrenched positions. India’s influence with Moscow could therefore add value to the peace process, but the burden of diplomacy must be borne by the U.S. Interestingly, while the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine chide India for fueling the Russian war machine, Kyiv sells offensive military equipment to Pakistan that is seen as using terror as an instrument of its foreign policy.

Regardless of one’s perspective on the current international impasse and polarization, President Trump’s actions have undoubtedly stirred the pot. It is hoped that some positive outcomes will emerge soon. 

---

Gitesh Sarma is a retired Indian Foreign Service Officer, who served in several world capitals, including Moscow and Kyiv.