Why a U.S.–Russia Reset Remains Impossible Today

Recent American Administrations have repeatedly attempted to “reset” relations with Moscow, hoping for stability and normalization. Yet each effort has collided with the enduring realities of Russian imperial ambition, aggression, and deep-rooted geopolitical discord. Why does the dream of a U.S.–Russia reset remain a persistent illusion? 

Obama's Attempt: the Failed “Reset” of 2009

The “reset” policy between the United States and Russia, launched in 2009 during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, was intended to improve relations between the two countries, which had been seriously damaged after the 2008 war in Georgia. However, this initiative failed due to a number of factors.

The United States sought cooperation on security issues, particularly in combating nuclear threatssuch as Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III). Instead, Russia perceived the reset as a recognition of its interests in the post-Soviet space, especially in Ukraine and Georgia. This led to a conflict in security visions.

During the “reset”, Russia's authoritarian regime became stronger. Oppression of the opposition, restrictions on freedom of speech, and human rights violations contradicted American values such as democracy and human rights. This created tensions in relations, as the United States could not ignore these aspects.

Despite the “reset,” Russia continued to pursue aggressive foreign policy actions, including the annexation of Crimea and military aggression against Ukraine since 2014. All this seriously complicated Russia's relations with the United States. In Syria, Russia's actions remained unpredictable, which caused concern on the part of the United States. Although there were some positive achievements, such as the signing of the START III treaty, they could not compensate for more serious contradictions.

Trump's Efforts: from Summits to New Concessions to Russia in 2016-2025

After his election as president in 2016, Donald Trump's administration tried to reset relations with Russia, expressing a desire to improve cooperation between the two countries. At the G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017, Trump met with Putin for the first time to discuss security issues and the Syrian crisis. In 2018, Trump organized a summit with Putin in Helsinki, where he expressed hope for improved relations. Trump also discussed the possibility of lifting or easing sanctions imposed on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine. In addition, the Trump administration proposed joint efforts in the fight against terrorism, particularly in Syria, hoping for cooperation in this area.

At the same time, the US Congress, including the Republicans, was against softening its stance on Russia. Many lawmakers believed that Russia continued to violate international norms. The scandal of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Mueller investigation created political pressure on Trump, preventing him from acting freely. Trump's actions on Russia were often seen as controversial, given his campaign's close ties to Russia, which made his initiatives difficult to trust.

Thus, the Trump administration's attempts to restore relations with Russia faced domestic political pressure, Russian aggression in the international arena, and Moscow's lack of interest in the relationship. This led to the fact that the “reset” policy did not yield the expected results.

After January 2025, the new Trump administration began new attempts to reset relations with Russia. In February 2025, Trump had a telephone conversation with Putin, after which he announced the start of peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. The American delegation met with the Russian delegation in Riyadh without the participation of Ukrainian representatives, which caused concern in Kyiv and among European allies. All this was accompanied by preliminary concessions to Russia. In particular, the Trump administration stated that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders was “unrealistic” and that Ukraine's accession to NATO was unlikely. These statements were perceived as concessions to Russia even before the negotiations began.

Also, in March 2025, the United States temporarily suspended military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, which drew criticism from allies and heightened concerns about the reliability of US support.

At the same time, it quickly became clear that Russia was using the talks to buy time, reduce sanctions pressure, and divide the US and Europe without making real concessions, and the Trump administration's inconsistent actions, including changing positions on sanctions and aid to Ukraine, created uncertainty and undermined the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts.

Will it Be Possible to Bridge the Gap: Mistrust, Ideology, and China's Influence

At present, despite loud statements in Moscow and Washington, a new stage of “reset” in US-Russian relations seems unlikely given the current geopolitical situation.

After the annexation of Crimea, Russia was sanctioned, and trust between the two countries has declined significantly. Accusations of Russian interference in the US election further complicated relations. Western sanctions have affected the Russian economy and have become an important element of US policy.

Trust between the two countries is very low, making any dialogues difficult. At the same time, controversial issues such as NATO expansion and security in Europe remain a point of contention. Any new “reset” would require significant changes in Russia's policy toward Ukraine, of which there are no signs yet.

Numerous attempts at reset in the past show that numerous value, political, and geostrategic differences remain between the United States and Russia, multiplied by decades of mutual distrust. Even if the U.S. administration is sincere in its desire to show Russia “goodwill” while ignoring Russia's violations of international law, human rights, and democratic principles, this does not mean that the Russians will show goodwill in return.

The Russian regime is ruled by old KGB officers who have been trained all their lives to distrust Americans and view them as their own natural enemies. This is compounded by numerous accusations by Russians of NATO's eastward expansion, which allegedly threatens Russian security, and of supporting “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet space.

Russian propaganda continues to build a negative image of the United States and the entire “collective West” that is needed to mobilize its citizens around the Putin regime, which is supposedly confronting “Western threats.” This image is too deeply ingrained in the Russian public consciousness and is, in general, very beneficial for the ruling regime in Russia.

Putin's ideology is based on confrontation with the West: The United States is portrayed as a source of threats, NATO as an “aggressive bloc,” and Ukraine as a “tool of the West.” Any attempt to normalize relations with the United States from within the Russian system of government is perceived as a betrayal of the geopolitical mission.

We should not forget about the China factor. More than 50% of Russian exports go to China (oil, gas, metals). China is a key supplier of dual-use technologies, electronics, and industrial components. This dependence is already systemic – Russia is turning into a raw material appendage of the Chinese economy.

At the same time, China has never demanded that Russia change its political regime, carry out democratization, or investigate war crimes. The United States, even under the Trump administration, remains the bearer of the idea of human rights, sanctions policy, and institutional control. Therefore, Russia sees China as a geopolitical ally in its confrontation with the United States. It is together with Beijing that the Kremlin is building the concept of a “multipolar world” alternative to “American hegemony.”

New attempts to “reset” relations are widely expected to fail, as any meaningful shift in U.S.–Russia relations requires systemic change within Russia itself—chief among them, a rejection of its imperial ideology, which continues to obstruct normalization with the civilized world.

Petro Oleshchuk, political scientist, Ph.D, expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank