politicalissues

All issues · Global Affairs · No. 35

Russia Policy

How should the United States handle a nuclear-armed state whose interests conflict directly with its own?

Relations encompass European security, nuclear arms control, energy, cyber operations, and interference in democratic processes. The disagreement is over whether sustained pressure or renewed engagement better serves American interests.

Russia and the United States hold the large majority of the world's nuclear weapons. The arms control architecture built over decades has substantially eroded, with several major treaties lapsed or suspended.

Sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine are among the most extensive ever applied to a major economy. Assessments of their effect vary considerably, and Russia has redirected much trade toward other partners.

Cyber operations and information campaigns operate below the threshold of armed conflict, which makes responses difficult to calibrate. Attribution is often possible but rarely immediate or uncontested.

POSITION 1 / 3

Sustained pressure

Concessions have historically been read as weakness, and only cost imposition changes behavior.

  • Sanctions constrain the resources available for military production.
  • Alliance solidarity depends on visible resolve.
  • Accepting territorial change by force sets a precedent others will read.
  • Pressure creates leverage for any eventual negotiation.

POSITION 2 / 3

Renewed engagement

Two nuclear powers with no working channels is itself a danger, independent of any disagreement.

  • Arms control requires talking to adversaries, not only allies.
  • Isolation pushes Russia into closer alignment with other rivals.
  • Escalation risk between nuclear states warrants direct communication.
  • Sanctions have had significant costs for imposing economies as well.

POSITION 3 / 3

Contain and compartmentalize

Resist where interests conflict, cooperate narrowly where they overlap, and keep the two tracks separate.

  • Nuclear risk reduction can proceed alongside disagreement elsewhere.
  • European allies should carry more of the conventional defense burden.
  • Cyber deterrence requires a clear declaratory policy.
  • Energy diversification reduces the leverage available to any single supplier.
Terms you will hearFind your officials →
New START
The most recent U.S.-Russia strategic nuclear arms limitation treaty.
Hybrid warfare
Combining cyber operations, disinformation, and proxies below the threshold of open war.
Secondary sanctions
Penalties on third-country firms that do business with a sanctioned entity.
Escalation management
Measures intended to prevent a confrontation from expanding uncontrollably.
What people actually disagree aboutFind your officials →
  1. Do sanctions change state behavior, or mainly impose costs on populations?
  2. Should arms control talks proceed independently of other disputes?
  3. What response to cyber operations would deter without escalating?
Do something about itFind your officials →

Know where you stand? The people who actually vote on this are reachable, and a message in your own words carries more weight than a form letter.

Find your officials →

Was this page balanced?

We are not asking whether you agree with any position — only whether each one was stated fairly. That is the standard this site is built to meet.

Think a position here is stated unfairly? Tell us what an advocate for that view would say instead.

Share this issue

Link copied

PreviousChina Policy NextUkraine