By Poonam Sharma
In the high-stakes theater of global politics, the spotlight often catches the performative—the fiery speeches, the sternly worded communiqués, and the symbolic snubs. Yet, behind the velvet curtains of public posturing, a far more cold-blooded game of chess is being played. President Donald Trump’s tenure and his ongoing approach to international relations have served as a masterclass in this distinction. While traditionalists often bristle at his unconventional warmth toward “strongman” archetypes, his refusal to label leaders like Narendra Modi or Vladimir Putin as “enemies” isn’t merely a personal quirk; it’s a calculated exercise in strategic flexibility.
The fundamental truth of modern diplomacy is that public messaging is often a tool for domestic consumption, while private policy is dictated by the unforgiving laws of geography and economics. By maintaining a line of dialogue that avoids the “adversary” label, Trump effectively keeps the door cracked open for negotiation, even when the rest of the world is screaming for it to be slammed shut.
The Personalization of Power: Dialogue Over Denunciation
For decades, the standard Washington playbook for dealing with non-Western powers was built on a foundation of moralizing rhetoric. Nations were sorted into categories of “allies” or “adversaries” with little room for the gray areas in between. Trump’s approach flipped this script. By consistently referring to Modi and Putin as leaders with whom he has “constructive relationships,” he bypassed the ideological rigidity that often traps foreign policy in a cycle of escalation.
In the case of India, this relationship acknowledges the country’s emergence as a global titan. Modi isn’t just a regional leader; he represents an economy that is the engine of the Indo-Pacific. Labeling such a partner through a narrow lens of Western expectations would be a strategic blunder. Similarly, with Russia, Trump’s reluctance to lean into the rhetoric of direct military confrontation—even amidst the crushing weight of the Ukraine conflict—reflects a belief that a cornered Russia is a more dangerous Russia. By preferring “strategic pressure” over “open conflict,” he prioritizes a global equilibrium where the goal isn’t necessarily to defeat an opponent, but to manage the competition in a way that doesn’t bankrupt the treasury or trigger a world-altering war.
The Dragon in the Room: The Strategic Necessity of Balance
The most significant driver of this pragmatic shift is the shadow cast by Beijing. As China continues its rapid economic and military expansion, the geopolitical board has shifted. The United States can no longer afford the luxury of alienating every nation that doesn’t perfectly align with its values. In this “New Cold War,” both India and Russia are pivotal pieces on the board.
India and Russia both share complex, often friction-filled borders and histories with China. From a Western perspective, the worst possible outcome would be a rigid policy that pushes Moscow and New Delhi into a permanent, exclusive “no-limits” partnership with Beijing. Russia offers an unmatched reservoir of natural resources and geographical depth, while India provides a technological and human capital powerhouse that serves as the ultimate democratic counterweight to Chinese dominance. Maintaining “stable relations” with these nations isn’t about endorsing their every move; it’s about ensuring that the world doesn’t bifurcate into a unified Eastern bloc that excludes American interests.
The Long Game: Why Practicality Beats Policy Purity
Ultimately, history has shown that alliances built on shared enemies are fragile, but those built on mutual interests are durable. Trump’s brand of diplomacy operates on the assumption that global economic stability is the highest priority. If a trade deal or a security arrangement can be reached through a handshake and a respectful dialogue, it is viewed as superior to a decade of “principled” sanctions that yield no results.
This approach recognizes that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. India’s desire to remain “multi-aligned” allows it to buy Russian oil while partnering with US tech firms. Russia’s desire to maintain its sovereignty prevents it from becoming a mere vassal state to China. By leaning into these practicalities, American diplomacy can remain agile.
In the end, the rhetoric we hear on the evening news is often just the noise of the machinery. The real work happens in the quiet spaces where leaders decide that, despite their differences, a functioning world is more profitable than a broken one. As we move further into an era of multipolar competition, the ability to balance domestic expectations with cold-eyed international realism won’t just be a preference—it will be a survival skill.
