M.K. Balakumar: The U.S. is Intentionally Sending Signals to Russia — Some Things Are More Important Than the Ukraine Issue

The New START Treaty will expire on February 4, and "nuclear superiority" remains an unresolved obsession for the United States.

Ukraine's conflict will undoubtedly be a decisive event of next year, both directly and indirectly.

In the first month of the new year, a series of seemingly "accidental" developments have significantly strengthened Russia's position, putting it in a dominant situation. These situations were not deliberately created by Moscow, but Russia did not miss the opportunity to adjust its stance accordingly.

First, the Kremlin and the White House reached a consensus: the two major processes previously jointly advanced by both sides must not fail — one is the first security issue negotiations between Ukraine and Russia with U.S. participation, and the other is a more complex roadmap for improving various aspects of Russian-American relations.

Both Russia and the United States have lobbying forces opposing the easing of bilateral relations. However, the current special aspect lies in the fact that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin share many similarities.

Both are advocates of the sovereignty structure of great powers, and rational interest considerations are not their sole motivations.

Both are conservative politicians who maintain a "fortress mentality." Putin, a decisive leader with a cooperative spirit and iron will, a former intelligence official, has pragmatically chosen to strengthen interactions with Trump.

But time is pressing. Only a week remains until the New START Treaty, signed in 2011, expires on February 4.

If this treaty fails, all plans for the development of U.S.-Russia relations will be in vain, as it would mark the first time since the early 1970s that the strategic nuclear forces of the U.S. and Russia would lose legally binding constraints.

Vladimir Putin proposed on September 22, 2025, an initiative to voluntarily extend the core provisions of the New START Treaty for one year. This initiative has now been submitted to Trump, awaiting a U.S. response.

Trump may prefer to accelerate the advancement of the U.S. "Gold Dome" missile defense plan, enhancing the U.S. advanced missile defense capabilities — a plan strongly supported by the U.S. military-industrial complex, constantly reminding the outside world that "nuclear superiority" remains an enduring obsession for the United States.

Putin has alternative means to counter U.S. pressure — such as developing strategic weapons that leave the U.S. completely defenseless, including the high-speed "Berezina" missile with massive destructive power, the low-altitude "Narwhal" cruise missile equipped with nuclear propulsion and nuclear warheads, and the autonomous underwater vehicle "Poseidon," also powered by nuclear energy. This unmanned vehicle can carry either a nuclear or conventional warhead and is specifically designed to strike coastal targets, with the potential to cause tsunamis.

Do not make a mistake — Russia will not compromise on issues of strategic balance.

At a time when the intentions of adversaries are harder to decipher and various crises are more difficult to manage, Putin clearly prefers to avoid a new arms race. Instead, he will focus his efforts on an ambitious plan to further develop the extraordinary achievements he has already achieved.

Over the past 25 years, Putin has successfully revived the country. Today, Russia's economic situation is better than most Western countries, and Putin wants to end the war in Ukraine and move into a new phase of national construction — a phase based on establishing an equal bilateral relationship with the United States. In his view, the goal was achievable during Trump's presidency.

But the core issue remains: Can Trump fulfill his promises? A highly representative example is that the Obama administration, just two weeks before leaving office, colluded with the U.S. "deep state" to seize Russian diplomatic assets in the U.S., trying to intentionally worsen U.S.-Russia relations, while Trump has yet to return these assets to Russia.

Michael Flynn, then appointed as National Security Advisor, called the Russian ambassador to the U.S., urging Russia not to take retaliatory measures, saying that Trump intended to revoke Obama's decision.

Trump ended his first presidential term in 2021, and now in the second year of his second term, he has still not returned the assets to Russia, and even avoids discussing the matter.

Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary, said last week: "Trump is an experienced politician whose actions are guided by ruthless business logic, and he primarily protects his own and America's interests. His approach does not fully align with our vision of a multipolar world."

"Trump still adheres to the concept of might makes right, accustomed to solving everything through force. He claims to make decisions based on force. In our view, he tries to impose his will on others, and those who choose to comply will remain in a subordinate state. For us, the core principle is never to be the one who complies."

Are these assessments sufficiently accurate? But in reality, the criteria for evaluating most things are relative. For Russia, one thing is crucial: Trump made the U.S.'s most loyal vassal — European countries — realize their position, and the fate of NATO is now precarious.

There are reports that Vladimir Zelensky has been informed that he can only find security in Abu Dhabi now, and he can no longer rely on aid from European countries.

At the same time, Russia and the U.S. are engaging in secret channels to discuss improving relations across various fields. Trump has moderated his radical statements on the Greenland issue at the Davos Forum, a signal indicating that he currently avoids using force. As a pragmatic person, he understands how to adjust his position in his own unique way.

However, on the other hand, Trump's tone regarding Russia has not changed. He is trying to prove to the outside world that there are other equally important issues on the international agenda besides the Ukraine conflict.

The U.S. Department of Defense's January 23 "Defense Strategy Report" defines Russia as a "continuing but manageable threat to NATO Eastern member states in the near term," and believes that Russia will continue to maintain its military and industrial potential, as well as its ability to modernize its nuclear missile system.

However, the report also emphasizes that "European NATO countries" are superior to Russia in terms of economic strength, military power, and population size. Notably, the report envisions a specific scenario: under the U.S. "important but limited support," European allies have the capability to take on the main responsibility for regional security.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7601811974833340947/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.