Trump’s Reverse Nixon Strategy: Bring Russia In, Shut China Out

Authored by Robert Berke via OilPrice,

On October 9, hours after a phone call between President Trump and President Putin, the Treasury Department issued a six-month waiver allowing Russian diesel to be sold on the global market.

The stated aim is to bring down fuel prices before the November 3 midterms. But I believe the deal is more consequential than that. It fits a larger strategy: for the United States to control as much of the world’s energy supply as possible, while denying it to its chief rival, China.

A pattern, not a one-off

The strategy began in Venezuela. Since US forces captured President Maduro in January, Washington has effectively controlled the country’s oil exports, and shipments to China, once Venezuela’s largest customer, have collapsed.

Iran came next. China was the largest buyer of Iranian oil, and with the Strait of Hormuz closed, Gulf and Iranian energy has been choked off from China and the rest of the world, sending prices soaring. The President now claims “total control” of the Strait. Whatever the truth of that claim, a closed Hormuz does exactly what the strategy requires: it starves China of Middle Eastern supply.

Russia is the next piece. With Gulf oil cut off, Russia has become China’s major energy supplier. The diesel waiver is a first step toward easing sanctions on Russian energy, reversing that flow back toward the West, and bringing US oil companies back to tap Russia’s vast reserves.

The pipeline question

The larger prize may be Russian gas for Europe. Reuters has reported that Washington and Moscow have discussed a role for a US investor in the Nord Stream pipelines, which were sabotaged in 2022 and lie damaged on the floor of the Baltic Sea.

Consider what US ownership of the pipeline would offer. In my reading, it would provide a fig leaf enabling Europe to resume buying Russian gas without appearing to capitulate. A pipeline is of little use without gas to put in it, and without that gas Europe’s economy would likely stay depressed. Energy use and economic growth have historically moved closely together, which is why the stakes are so high.

Next would come the return of US oil companies that were forced out of Russia by post-2022 sanctions, along with joint ventures in the Russian Arctic. Moscow, for its part, would have to scale back its military and intelligence support for Iran.

Nixon’s play, in reverse

In this effort, Trump appears to be taking a page from Nixon and Kissinger, who opened relations with China in the 1970s to exploit its rift with the Soviet Union. This would run the play in reverse: pry Russia away from China.

Would Moscow go along? Russia has long been frustrated as the junior partner in the relationship. It hoped for an alliance of equals, military and economic, that never materialized. It watched China pour billions into countries like Pakistan as part of an effort to rebuild the ancient Silk Road, while promised projects for Russia remained more talk than action. China has also delayed Russia’s proposed second gas pipeline for over ten years. Return to the European market, with hundreds of millions of customers, is an offer Russia could hardly refuse.

The price would be ending the Ukraine war on terms less favorable than Moscow has sought. I expect marginal concessions at the edges of its conquests, which Trump would promote as a historic achievement in his quest for the Nobel Prize.

President Zelensky will vigorously oppose the plan and appeal to his European allies. But Trump’s recent comments suggest little patience with the Ukrainian President, and I expect Washington to press Kyiv by reducing military and intelligence aid.

What it means at home and in Europe

The costs of this strategy are immediate: higher energy prices, worldwide inflation, and continued emissions. In Europe, energy bills driven up first by the loss of cheap Russian gas and now by Hormuz’s closure are feeding public anger and the rise of right-wing parties. In the United States, affordability may cost Republicans control of Congress.

After World War II, the United States rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan, understanding that a broken Europe would leave a gaping hole in the world economy. Today Europe needs cheap energy to heat homes, cook food, and power its utilities and industry. Without it, the continent risks becoming a drain on the world economy.

If Democrats win Congress, would they oppose a plan to control world energy markets and deny energy to China? Doubtful. It was the Obama administration that launched the “Pivot to Asia,” sending naval vessels through the Taiwan Strait under freedom-of-navigation operations while deepening ties with India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea to constrain China’s rise. If there is one thing the two parties agree on, it is that China is the greatest threat to US influence in the world.

The bottom line

The aim, as I read it, is to constrain China’s economic growth and influence while enhancing US power and aiding Europe’s recovery. Whether Moscow will trade its partnership with Beijing for a seat at Europe’s table is the question to watch.