Fracturing The Axis: Trump’s Strategic Bet Against The China–Russia Partnership

Authored by Tanvi Ratna via The Epoch Times,

When President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, many dismissed the summit as a spectacle. Yet beneath the optics, something deeper was unfolding: a strategic gambit aimed at weakening the foundations of the China–Russia relationship. If Nixon’s 1972 trip to Beijing cleaved China from the USSR, this administration is attempting a reverse maneuver—quietly driving a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.

But this time, the tools aren’t detente or ideological diplomacy. They’re economic coercion, targeted pressure, and the calibration of dependency.

The goal is clear: not to reshape alliances in public, but to make their costs visible in private.

Since the summit, a pattern has emerged—one that spans India, China, the EU, and Russia itself.

These theaters are distinct, but the pressure applied in each is coordinated.

This is the “Reverse Kissinger Doctrine,” unfolding not as doctrine in name, but in practice.

India is a useful starting point. After New Delhi ramped up imports of discounted Russian oil to over 1.7 million barrels per day, the United States imposed a 25 percent blanket tariff on Indian exports. Weeks later, the tariff was doubled to 50 percent on categories tied to petroleum-linked supply chains. The effect was immediate: Russian crude shipments to India fell by 67 percent.

Washington’s message was implicit but unmistakable—continued support for Russia, even through commercial channels, would carry consequences. Indian refiners adjusted. The flows didn’t halt entirely, but the margins shrank. India’s largest exporters, including pharmaceutical and automotive suppliers, signaled concern. Moody’s revised India’s growth projections downward, citing export exposure. While Indian officials publicly emphasized resilience, the strategic discomfort was evident.

China, in contrast, absorbed the displaced volumes. Its purchases of Russian Urals crude increased sharply, pushing Moscow ahead of Saudi Arabia as China’s largest oil supplier. Trade between the two countries is increasingly yuan- and ruble-denominated. Swap lines have expanded. Military-industrial cooperation, though officially denied, continues under dual-use umbrellas.

Still, China’s response is not without cost. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are now at 30 percent, and export controls on semiconductors and precision inputs are tightening. Beijing has retaliated through rare earth export restrictions, but that tactic—effective in the short term—risks longer-term isolation. Moreover, its perceived alignment with Moscow on Ukraine has complicated relationships with Europe.

European policymakers have taken notice. While their public posture remains calibrated, Brussels has steadily escalated sanctions. At least 45 Russian financial institutions have been cut off from SWIFT. A price cap on Russian crude has significantly reduced Moscow’s daily revenues. Shadow tanker fleets, once a workaround, are now under sanctions pressure themselves.

Meanwhile, Europe’s security posture is shifting. Troop deployments across NATO’s eastern flank—while not full-scale—mark a departure from the defense posture of previous decades.

These shifts don’t reflect a desire to expand conflict. They reflect an understanding that deterrence now has to be distributed.

For Moscow, the costs are compounding. Its current account surplus has narrowed dramatically. Maintaining its shadow fleet is proving expensive. Insurance and repairs are harder to procure. While the Kremlin maintains a tough line in public—insisting on recognition of its territorial claims—there are signs of negotiation behind the scenes.

The administration’s objective is not necessarily a win in Ukraine as traditionally defined. It’s strategic containment—an equilibrium that limits Russian leverage without requiring NATO expansion or direct confrontation.

The logic is subtle but consistent. Create discomfort around Russia’s partnerships. Use trade and finance to constrain flexibility. Signal to third parties that proximity to Moscow comes with rising friction. It’s not about public declarations. It’s about recalibrating the cost-benefit equation.

This approach does not mirror the Cold War. There is no binary bloc logic. But the tactics resonate with history. Nixon once bet that ideological curiosity could reshape global alignments. This administration is betting that dependency—and its disruption—can achieve the same.

In doing so, it is quietly reshaping the landscape. Not through new alliances, but through the strategic burdening of old ones.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.