نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه مطالعات منطقه ای، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشجوی دکترای، گروه مطالعات منطقه ای، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
The period from 2016 to 2024 demonstrated the pivotal role of U.S.-Russia relations in shaping American foreign policy. Central to this dynamic was the challenge of managing Russia's assertive behavior, particularly under Vladimir Putin, while safeguarding U.S. national interests. Although both the Trump and Biden administrations acknowledged Russia's strategic importance, their approaches diverged significantly. The Trump administration's approach was characterized by heterogeneous decision-making elements, emphasizing transactional diplomacy and short-term strategic gains. In contrast, the Biden administration pursued a policy grounded in the integration of hard and soft power resources, coupled with multilateral engagement, reflecting a structured and principle-based foreign policy orientation.
Methodology
The research employs a qualitative-comparative method, analyzing foreign policy behavior through speeches, official policy documents, strategic doctrines, and international responses. Its theoretical foundation is based on John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive neorealism, which posits that great powers, operating within an anarchic international system, seek to maximize their relative power to ensure survival. This framework is applied to assess U.S. reactions to perceived Russian revisionism and aggression, particularly in Ukraine, and to examine the strategic rationale behind each administration’s choice of policy instruments.
Key Findings and Results
Trump Administration: Trump's approach toward Russia was dual-track in nature, oscillating between cooperative gestures—particularly in the context of Middle East security and counterterrorism—and selective pressure, such as in sanctions and arms control decisions. His transactional and business-oriented diplomacy often placed short-term national interests above alliance commitments and normative concerns. Notable instances include the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty and a conditional posture toward supporting Ukraine, reflecting a decision-making process shaped by heterogeneous elements rather than a coherent strategic vision.
Biden Administration: Biden's policy, particularly following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, was marked by a cohesive integration of hard and soft power tools within a multilateral framework. This included extensive coordination with NATO and European partners, the imposition of targeted sanctions, and the strengthening of deterrence through sustained military assistance to Ukraine. Prior to the invasion, Biden’s foreign policy emphasized democratic values, human rights, and the restoration of proactive U.S. global leadership. His decision-making reflects strategic coherence, balancing engagement, competition, and principled action to counter Russian assertiveness.
Key Results
Trump’s policy resulted in ambiguity in U.S.-Russia relations, reflecting a flexible yet inconsistent stance that relied on personal diplomacy with Putin and transactional engagement.
Biden’s policy reinforced multilateralism, consolidated the transatlantic security architecture, and implemented comprehensive measures to counter Russian aggression, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating hard and soft power in strategic decision-making.
The contrasting approaches illustrate that U.S. foreign policy toward Russia has been shaped by underlying decision-making frameworks: one defined by heterogeneous, transactional elements under Trump, and the other characterized by an integrated, multilateral, and principle-based approach under Biden.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis highlights that U.S. foreign policy toward Russia cannot be fully understood without examining the interplay between leadership decision-making style, strategic priorities, and multilateral engagement. Trump’s heterogeneous decision-making produced flexible yet inconsistent outcomes, whereas Biden’s integrative approach fostered coordinated deterrence and enhanced strategic clarity. Understanding these contrasts provides critical insight into both the continuity and divergence of American foreign policy, particularly in managing great power competition and responding to global security challenges.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)