What have the 2025 negotiations between Russia and the US taught us about the art of diplomacy?
There is no accounting for frameworks
One of the events in 2025 that sparked the greatest interest and left the most substantial informational footprint was the series of negotiations between Russia and the US. They could be perceived as a new object of study in the field of international relations, which pertains to diplomacy and the methods it uses. What have these contacts on the most acute issues between the two powers revealed to us in terms of negotiation peculiarities and from the point of view of diplomacy as a science in general?
There are several fundamental points. First, it must be noted that in high-profile international conflicts, each “couple” of negotiating countries is a unique case. It will look different every time, albeit with subtle variations and innovations, unlike previous instances. It is impossible to fully replicate Henry Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” or force completely different stories with different actors into its “template.” Neither is it possible to think and act exactly like Andrey A. Gromyko, Charles de Talleyrand, or Alexander S. Griboyedov. Each diplomatic and negotiation narrative has its own pattern, its own course, its own factors. Therefore, any attempt at creating a generalized classification of these processes is doomed to highly debatable results.
Duo faciunt collegium
Without delving into theoretical thickets or trying to crossbreed a snake with a hedgehog, let us move to the second distinctive feature, which could have been tracked quite easily. The intrigue of the Russia-US negotiations resided in the fact that not only statesmen or diplomats were pushed to the forefront – business representatives (Kirill Dmitriev and Stephen Witkoff) also were. One of the negotiators, Jared Kushner, even wound up at the vanguard of American foreign policy as Donald Trump’s son-in-law. The latter, by the way, should not necessarily be reduced to mere nepotism. Kushner is an intelligent and shrewd businessman; he participated in Trump’s Middle East peace team and earlier in particularly complex talks with Mexico as well as in normalising Israel’s relations with several Arab states.
Here we can see how personal connections, trust (again, not necessarily based solely on, say, a military oath or diplomatic experience), sober thinking, a rational approach to the matter, and the principle of “trust but verify” can be particularly crucial for forming negotiation teams. Hence, negotiations, unless they involve tête-à-tête communication between heads of state, are most often conducted at least in tandem. One always seems to check and complement the other, which is normal and natural when national interests, state security, and human lives are at stake.
Distrust But Respect
When it comes to the attitude towards the so-called opposing side, distrust is even more natural and inevitable. It is something like a law or an instinct of self-preservation. Just as only a person who is psychologically unhealthy can fear nothing at all, in diplomacy, any politician who is right in the head is forced to proceed primarily from distrust of their counterpart. However, as the Russian-American talks showcased, strategic distrust can coexist with a rational perception of the situation, its comprehension, and a search for mutual understanding. The main thing is to remember that we are long past the age of chivalry. We are not even in the 19th century, and, let’s face it, not even in the 20th. Nowadays, from representatives of the opposing camp, deception and violation of agreements can be constantly expected. Thus, all the decisions must be based solely on options discussed repeatedly and comprehensively, and alongside them, on a clear scheme from international law: “if – then – otherwise” (also known as “hypothesis – disposition – sanction”), clear standards, warnings, and delineations of one’s own security boundaries.
At the same time, credit where credit’s due: the dialogue between the two nuclear powers is also distinguished by what many contemporary negotiation processes lack—mutual respect at the diplomatic level. “We,” as Sergey V. Lavrov used to say, “are polite people.” You can and should distrust your opponent; you can fight against them and compete with them by all permissible means; you can blame them for certain events, and the negotiations can be as tough as it is possible, with positions irreconcilable. But if you inwardly respect them as an independent, sovereign, and strong opposing side, and they respect you, this is felt on a non-verbal level, providing necessary conditions for the very possibility of such a conversation. And this is often visible to the naked eye, bringing us back, in fact, to photo galleries and video reports.
Strength in Diplomacy and Diplomacy of Strength
The concept of a “strong” one is key here. In the modern world, with its extremely complex intertwining international interactions and numerous subtypes of security (nuclear, economic, technological, informational, biological, border security, etc.), only a strong state can afford to conduct equal negotiations with other poles of the world political system without concessions. If a country has issues with its economy, the education level of its population, its military might, or if it has gaps in the defense of its state borders, it will not feel fully confident in its strength on the international stage. Alas, in modern international relations, any weak player will most probably be trampled by the majority of the world politics, and only a few parties, maintaining decency and principles, will find an opportunity to communicate with those who are weaker without using them for their own interests.
Therefore, a self-respecting state now looks not only outward but primarily at internal resources and problems. It begins to seriously ask itself questions in a Trumpian style: what can I do for my country to retain its greatness? This, too, is a trend of the “diplomacy of the strong.”
The “super series” of Russia-US negotiations became a notable event of 2025. And now, as everyone formulates wishes for the future, we can “archive” the lesson and the benchmark set by the Russian-American negotiation process. It is always necessary to talk, exchange views, and discuss interstate disagreements face-to-face—always respecting an opponent within reasonable bounds, meticulously and impartially studying them, perceiving them adequately and seriously, being prepared for anything, and augmenting one’s own might. Let the proverbial armored train, which has so far been standing on a siding and waiting in the wings, now successfully demonstrate itself on the battlefield or remain on full combat alert, steam up. As they say, it comes with the territory.
Ksenia Muratshina, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Southeast Asian, Australian, and Oceanian Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
