Ronald Reagan's policies towards the russian Union and Donald Trump's policies towards contemporary Russia are being compiled due to akin anti-establishment speech of both presidents.
In fact, they are 2 completely different approaches, stemming from both different geopolitical realities and different political temperaments and completely different visions of the function of the United States in the world.
Reagan took office at a time erstwhile the global power strategy was inactive shaped by the logic of the Cold War. The USSR remained a superpower with a powerful arsenal and network of dependent states. Reagan's reactionary rhetoric, frequently referred to as tough and confrontational today, besides had a humanistic dimension.
Despite the harsh criticism of the Kremlin, the president utilized the language of defending the freedom and dignity of people surviving in the totalitarian system. His moralism was not an addition to politics, but a foundation. He accused the russian Union not only of aggression and expansion, but above all of suppressing human subjectivity. This approach allowed him at the same time to conduct a very tough policy, both militarily and economically and propagandaally, while maintaining the belief that the liberation of the societies imprisoned in the empire was at stake. This resulted in both the force and the willingness to talk erstwhile the partner was ready to change. Hardness and humanism did not exclude each other, but strengthened each other.
Trump works in another realities. Russia is no longer a superpower, but a regional player utilizing aggression, disinformation and a policy of facts accomplished. In the global system, China becomes the main rival of the US, and Moscow functions as a disruptor. Despite this, Trump's policy towards Russia has no coherent doctrine. It is not rooted in any imagination of the planet or in a strategy of values. The main strategical decisions are made by the administration, while the president sends signals frequently contrary to the findings of his own advisors. Neither the moral evaluation of the Kremlin's actions nor the long-term analysis of interests are guided. He looks at abroad policy as a series of transactions in which immediate political or image profit is primarily important. Human rights, freedom of nations, stableness of alliances, these issues do not substance much to him. In relations with Putin, the presumption is that you can agree if you reject the values and ideological assessment of your opponent.
It is this contrast that makes both models of politics, despite the apparent stylistic similarity, belong to different worlds. Reagan, even erstwhile leading a game of strength, did so in the name of principles. His politics were a moral tale of Western freedom and responsibility.
Trump reduces abroad policy to a business account and individual sympathy. As a result, Reagan strengthened the position of the West and co-creates the conditions for weakening the USSR, while Trump's policy towards Russia leaves the impression of instability and deficiency of direction. In this comparison, the humanist difference becomes as crucial as the geopolitical difference.
People who remember Ronald Reagan and his abroad policy look at Trump's actions with increasing disgust. It is hard not to announcement that the behaviour of the current president frequently gives the impression of emotional instability and deficiency of restraint, characteristics of an absolutely alien culture of leadership represented by Reagan. Those who remember that kind of presidency are not ashamed to say that they simply miss Reagan due to the fact that in his case hardness was intertwined with work and strength with self-control.
→ I.R. Parchatkiewicz
23.11.2025
• college: barma Tribunal newspaper
• more author texts: > Here.
• more texts about Russia: > Here.
