By Sardar Khan Niazi

Donald Trump’s recurring call to normalize relations with Russia has once again stirred debate in Washington and beyond. To his supporters, it reflects a hard-nosed realism aimed at ending endless rivalries and refocusing American power. To critics, it signals a troubling indifference to Moscow’s conduct and a willingness to upend long-standing alliances. As with much in Trump’s foreign policy thinking, the idea is neither entirely new nor entirely reckless — but it is fraught with consequences. At its core, Trump’s argument is transactional. He has long viewed geopolitics less as a contest of values and more as a negotiation among strong states. From this perspective, a permanent confrontation with Russia is costly, distracts from domestic priorities, and pushes Moscow closer to Beijing. Normalization, Trump suggests, could reduce the risk of great-power conflict, open space for arms control, and allow the United States to concentrate on economic competition, particularly with China. There is a certain logic here. History shows that even bitter adversaries — from the US and China in the 1970s to the US and the Soviet Union during détente — have found ways to manage rivalry through engagement. Dialogue, after all, is not endorsement. A stable channel between Washington and Moscow could help prevent miscalculations, especially in an era marked by cyber warfare, proxy conflicts, and nuclear risk-taking. Yet the risks are substantial. Normalization without clear conditions could be read as acquiescence. Russia’s actions in its neighborhood and its confrontations with the West have reshaped European security. Any abrupt thaw led by Washington, without consultation with allies, would deepen fractures within NATO and raise doubts about America’s reliability. Trump’s earlier skepticism of alliances already left such concerns lingering. Moreover, personalization of diplomacy — a hallmark of Trump’s approach — carries its own dangers. Strongman-to-strongman engagement may bypass institutions, weaken checks and balances, and reduce complex international issues to headline-grabbing summits. Sustainable normalization requires more than cordial leaders, it needs coherent policy, institutional buy-in, and clearly articulated red lines. From a broader, non-Western vantage point, including that of Pakistan, a less confrontational US-Russia relationship could have mixed implications. Reduced great-power hostility might ease global tensions and create diplomatic space for regional problem solving. At the same time, a world where major powers strike deals over the heads of smaller states is hardly reassuring. Stability achieved through elite bargains can come at the expense of international norms and multilateralism. Ultimately, the question is not whether the United States should talk to Russia — it should — but on what terms. Engagement anchored in reciprocity, international law, and allied coordination can enhance stability. Normalization pursued as a unilateral gesture, or as a personal political statement, risks undermining the very order it claims to protect. Trump’s instinct to challenge orthodoxies forces a necessary conversation about the costs of perpetual confrontation. However, realism to be credible, must be tempered with responsibility. In geopolitics, as in diplomacy, the manner of engagement matters as much as engagement itself.