Comparing Trump's and Nixon's foreign policies

The foreign policies of President Donald Trump towards Russia and China bear striking resemblances to President Richard Nixon's policies of détente with the Soviet Union and China. While the global landscape has evolved considerably since the Cold War, both leaders have pursued active diplomacy with adversarial powers, prioritising stability over ideological confrontation. Here we will examine these parallels, explore the application of pressure tactics in US-Russia negotiations, and assess Trump's anticipated pivot towards China as a continuation of Nixonian realpolitik.

Détente Then and Now: Nixon's and Trump's Approaches

Nixon's policy of détente in the 1970s sought to ease Cold War tensions by engaging the Soviet Union and China diplomatically while leveraging their strategic rivalry. Nixon's 1972 visit to China, which opened the door to formal US-China relations, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union were hallmarks of this pragmatic approach. Nixon recognised that direct confrontation with both adversaries was unsustainable and sought to balance power diplomatically.

Trump, similarly, has maintained active diplomatic engagement with both Russia and China, despite political tensions. His administration's outreach to North Korea and China, coupled with negotiations with Russia over Ukraine and NATO, suggest a strategy aimed at stabilising global relations rather than pursuing outright confrontation. Just as Nixon sought to exploit the Sino-Soviet split, Trump has manoeuvred between China and Russia, ensuring that neither power gains undue influence over global affairs.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine both exemplify moments where Moscow tested the limits of Western resistance. In the former, the Soviet Union attempted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, prompting President John F. Kennedy to impose a naval blockade and demand their removal. The crisis ended with the Soviets backing down in exchange for the withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey.

In Ukraine, Russia sought to expand its sphere of influence through military aggression. However, unlike Kennedy’s public brinkmanship, Trump's approach aligns more closely with Nixon's philosophy of diplomatic engagement. While Trump has exerted pressure through economic sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine, he has also kept negotiation channels open, maintaining the possibility of a ceasefire. Behind-the-scenes negotiations between the US and Russia mirror the dual strategy of pressure and diplomacy that Nixon mastered during détente.

Trump's Pressure Tactics and Nixonian Diplomacy

Though Trump’s public persona often projects unpredictability, his foreign policy towards Russia suggests an adherence to Nixon’s doctrine of negotiation backed by strength. Just as Nixon engaged with Soviet leaders while maintaining military superiority, Trump appears to be employing economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia while simultaneously engaging in direct talks. Reports indicate that ongoing US-Russia negotiations involve territorial compromises, energy agreements, and security assurances—a Nixonian balancing act between power projection and diplomacy.

Trump’s Pivot Towards China: Stability Over Conflict

Trump’s anticipated shift towards China is reminiscent of Nixon’s groundbreaking 1972 visit. Contrary to popular belief, this pivot does not necessarily indicate hostility toward China but rather an effort to manage competition and economic interdependence. Trump’s trade policies have sought to revitalize American manufacturing while preserving essential trade ties with China, much as Nixon sought to engage China economically to counterbalance Soviet influence.

Additionally, Trump’s China policy may aim to stabilise regional disputes, including tensions over Taiwan, North Korea, and the South China Sea. Rather than pursuing outright confrontation, his administration may seek to create a framework for coexistence, ensuring that China’s economic growth continues on a path that does not threaten US interests.

The European Union: A Shift in Global Responsibilities

Trump’s pivot away from Europe reflects a broader recalibration of global responsibilities. Nixon’s détente sought to manage Cold War rivalries, but the world today is characteried by multiple power centres, including the US, EU, China, and Russia. Trump’s view that the European Union should shoulder more of its own security responsibilities acknowledges the EU’s economic might, which now surpasses that of the US in certain areas. The GDP of the United States and of Europe (meaning EU plus the non-member states on the European continent) are remarkably similar, at about US$27 trillion each, whereas the GDP of China is about US$18 trillion while Russia's GDP is US$2 trillion. Trump's view is that Europe ought to be able perfectly well to deal with Russia in her enfeebled economic state.

This shift from Europe to China in hard diplomacy (i.e. military might) does not signal abandonment but rather an adaptation to a multipolar world where American resources are allocated more strategically.

Conclusion

President Trump’s foreign policy toward Russia and China mirrors Nixon’s strategy of détente, balancing diplomatic engagement with strategic pressure. While Nixon navigated Cold War tensions through arms control agreements and diplomatic openings, Trump is leveraging negotiations to manage global power shifts, particularly in Ukraine and China. His anticipated pivot towards China suggests an effort to foster economic cooperation rather than conflict, aligning with Nixon’s long-term vision of global stability through engagement. In an increasingly multipolar world, Trump's adaptation of Nixonian principles reflects a pragmatic approach to maintaining equilibrium in international relations.