Is China the key motivation behind President Donald Trump’s friendly outreach to Russia and his push to end the Russia-Ukraine war? Some experts argue that Trump’s approach is akin to a “reverse Nixon,” seeking to ally with Russia against China, just as Nixon once partnered with China to undermine the Soviet Union. If this is true, Trump must learn from Nixon’s past mistakes.
This past February marked the 53rd anniversary of Nixon’s historic visit to China, a move that transformed global geopolitics. While many celebrate this 1972 trip as a strategic triumph that fractured the relationship between the Soviet Union and China, leading to the Soviets’ eventual decline, it is important to recognize that Nixon’s policies, crafted with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, may not have been as visionary as once thought.
President Nixon’s rapprochement with China occurred during a time when China and the Soviet Union were already on hostile terms. Following their split over differing interpretations of Marxist-Leninist theory after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union cut off its economic and military aid to China. Tensions escalated between the two countries, culminating in military confrontations over border disputes, particularly regarding Zhenbao Island and the Ussuri River in 1969.
At that time, China was also grappling with a struggling economy after a two-decade radical communist experiment, which had caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. In 1971, before Nixon’s visit, China’s GDP per capita was a mere $119. Chairman Mao Zedong recognized that his regime was on the brink of collapse and desperately needed aid from the United States. Yet by holding off on seeking help, Mao aimed to negotiate from a position of strength.
Mao’s strategy paid off when Nixon sent Kissinger on a secret mission to China in 1971, followed by Nixon’s historic visit in February 1972. This event allowed Mao to claim a significant propaganda victory, with state-run media declaring that America had submitted to China. More importantly, during closed-door meetings, Kissinger shared “top-secret information from the CIA about the Soviet military” with General Ye Jianying, who was “like a kid in a candy shop, thrilled at the level of detail Kissinger was sharing, down to the exact kilotons in nuclear warheads,” according to WBUR.
US Strengthened Authoritarian China
Kissinger’s theory was that engaging with China would lead to political change eventually, shaping U.S. policy for decades. Since Nixon’s visit, China has received intelligence, military aid, and billions in investment from the United States. Without this support, China’s rise from an impoverished communist state to the world’s second-largest economy in just three decades would have been unlikely.
However, Kissinger’s theory ultimately proved to be misguided. Engagement did not bring about political change in China; instead, the country merely transitioned from a poor authoritarian state to a wealthy one. The Chinese Communist Party has leveraged its wealth to develop a powerful military and expand its geopolitical influence, challenging U.S. dominance in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and space exploration.
Although the Soviet Union dissolved, China has become the United States’ most formidable adversary. Nixon’s China policy removed one threat but inadvertently created a stronger one. This historical lesson is vital for the Trump administration as it aims to draw Russia away from China’s influence.
Shifting Resources to China Confrontation
The Trump administration’s approach, often called a “reverse Nixon,” is driven by necessity. Elbridge Colby, Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, argues that America’s focus on Ukraine has weakened its capacity to address China’s rising threats. He warns that if China dominates Asia and expands globally, it could endanger “our jobs, our freedoms, and ultimately our security.” Colby suggests the U.S. should shift its resources away from Ukraine to confront China better.
The administration appears to align with Colby’s views. Recently, it indicated a desire to quickly resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict through significant policy changes: U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia, President Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for starting the war and said he plans to discuss economic development deals with Russia. Additionally, the U.S. voted “no” alongside Russia and North Korea on a UN resolution condemning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. These actions suggest a strategic shift toward prioritizing countering China while seeking rapprochement with Russia.
Contrasting the 1970s
Washington’s unexpected shift towards a friendlier stance with Russia has left China increasingly anxious. According to The Wall Street Journal, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is concerned that Trump’s “reverse Nixon” strategy could jeopardize the carefully nurtured bond he has established with Vladimir Putin. Still, Trump’s “reverse Nixon” approach carries profound risks, as the current geopolitical realities starkly contrast those of the 1970s.
Christian Caryl, the former Moscow bureau chief for Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, emphasizes that “Russia’s GDP, despite its population of 144 million, is smaller than that of Texas or California.” The primary reason Russia persists in its military endeavors in Ukraine is the critical support provided by China. By purchasing Russian energy and agricultural products, China has effectively helped Russia circumvent Western economic sanctions. Additionally, China is supplying Russia with essential goods, ranging from electronics to machinery, and assisting in bolstering Russia’s weapons manufacturing capabilities, enabling the Kremlin to maintain its offensive in Ukraine. Given the depth of Russia’s reliance on China, it is incredibly challenging for the United States to separate these two nations.
Moreover, Putin seems to be stalling the peace talks with the U.S., calling for protracted discussions ahead. Putin aims to leverage America’s urgent desire for a swift end to the conflict to extract more concessions, such as lifting sanctions imposed by the Biden administration.
Given Russia’s authoritarian regime and Putin’s dictatorial rule, the Trump administration must approach relations with caution, as it could create divisions with allies essential for countering China’s influence. A “reverse Nixon” strategy may inadvertently strengthen Russia while failing to weaken its alliance with China, potentially leading to a significant rift with U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. Careful navigation is crucial to avoid repeating past mistakes.
