WASHINGTON –
Recently concluded talks among representatives of the United States, Russia and Ukraine in the United Arab Emirates to end Russia’s war in Ukraine finished, no surprise, virtually where they began. But the latest effort might shed light on how the U.S. is thinking about Russia’s place in the international system — in particular, what a postwar bilateral relationship might look like. Like much of U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, this vision appears to be defined by commercial considerations.
Trump’s willingness to put aside human rights or respect for the rule of law in his quest to strike business deals from Pakistan to the Gulf states might look like realpolitik, but Trump’s transactional approach should not be mistaken for realism. Whereas a realist foreign policy accounts for constraints, power dynamics and long-term interests, a transactional approach reduces international politics to a patchwork of narrow bargains. And while realism calls for making the most of norms, alliances and institutions, transactionalism counsels their evasion or even destruction.
At a time when the postwar order appears to be crumbling, this traditional conception of realism might sound idealistic and transactional engagement more pragmatic. Unburdened by the responsibility to build institutions or maintain alliances, and unconstrained by principles, a transactional leader, the thinking goes, can deliver results even in challenging circumstances. But the long-term outcomes are likely to be far from desirable.