Easing sanctions on Gazprombank reflects a limited deal, not a full-scale improvement in relations.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced that former US President Donald Trump reversed financial sanctions that hindered Rosatom’s progress on the Paks Nuclear Power Plant 2 project in Hungary. While the current administration’s sanctions targeted Moscow, Budapest felt the impact most acutely, as the new reactors were critical to Hungary’s energy independence. (The original four reactors were built during the Soviet era.)
Hungary previously managed to get the Paks-2 project removed from the EU’s sanctions list, but at a considerable political cost. Despite this, Washington remained firm, which Budapest considered retaliation for its strong support of Trump. Consequently, the current easing of sanctions on Gazprombank seems more like a favor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban than to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also benefits French companies involved in the Paks-2 project.
This action has sparked hope for a potential thaw in Russian-American relations. However, positive developments from Washington have been scarce. The State Department recently delayed a meeting to address “irritants” in bilateral relations. Trump has not embraced Moscow’s offer to mediate between Iran and Israel. Furthermore, American officials continue to criticize Russia’s firm stance on a Ukrainian settlement.
Could the Gazprombank decision indicate a turning point in Russian-American relations? Could it lead to similar easing for other Russian financial institutions? Is a revival of bilateral high-tech cooperation possible? While optimism is desirable, the evidence is lacking. Moscow and Washington maintain fundamentally different approaches to restoring normal relations, affecting the nature of their dialogue.
Russia’s approach is comprehensive. Moscow believes that great-power relations require simultaneous progress across political, military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas. The Kremlin believes that genuine normalization requires progress on all fronts, even if it requires time and patience.
For the former US president, foreign policy appears more transactional: a series of short-term “deals” with various countries. Each partner faces specific demands – Iran must abandon nuclear ambitions, China must accept trade tariffs, and NATO members must increase defense spending. Trump seeks immediate results. He prioritizes quick wins over long-term achievements.
Regarding Russia, Washington seeks a significant deal: an agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine. Trump appears to lack a deep understanding of a lasting political settlement or a future European security system. His main goal is to secure a temporary ceasefire at any cost, allowing him to claim success where his predecessor failed.
In Trump’s view, this Ukraine deal would overshadow efforts to rebuild Russian-American relations. Furthermore, Moscow is unwilling to engage in Washington’s expected one-sided concessions. This was highlighted by European NATO partners, who nearly unanimously agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Similarly, Kiev has shown a willingness to offer its natural resources to American corporations to meet US expectations.
It’s important to remember that Trump is almost alone in wanting to restore a functional dialogue with Moscow. Most of his administration views Russia with indifference or hostility, keeping it low on the priority list. Furthermore, the long-standing anti-Russian sentiment in Washington remains strong. There is no strong political or business lobby in the United States advocating for a new “reset” with Russia.
Trump will continue to face pressure from the right. Even with the Gazprombank sanctions decision, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated that Trump had approved a new package of anti-Russian measures – something Graham has been advocating for months. Whether this is factual or wishful thinking, Moscow should remain cautious.
In conclusion, Russian-American relations remain volatile. Occasional positive signs – like easing sanctions on one bank – should not be misinterpreted as a major shift. While broader normalization is desirable, the future remains uncertain. Moscow’s comprehensive approach clashes with Washington’s transactional instincts.
Unless both sides can reconcile these differing philosophies, the prospect of a truly stable Russian-American partnership will remain uncertain.
This article was first published by newspaper, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
“`