Such appears to be the case with my dear friend of nearly 40 years, Professor Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow and founder of (among much else) of Russia House in Washington, who died in Moscow, Russia, on April 30 at the age 84.

It was indeed an extraordinarily fitting and monumental departure from such an extraordinary life that had been so passionately dedicated to the rescuing and survival of the human race from the supreme threat of thermonuclear world war, under which the entire globe still trembles.

For Ed was in Moscow organizing and leading manifold ceremonies commemorating the Spirit of the Elbe – the 80th anniversary on the very day of his death, of the meeting of the Soviet and US armies at Torgau on the banks of the River Elbe in Germany that sounded the death knell of Adolf Hitler’s infamous Third Reich on April 30, 1945.

For well over a quarter century, Ed was a major figure in both Washington and Moscow – in both of which cities he set up great institutions and educated generations of leaders on the need for Russian and American mutual understanding, coexistence, partnership and friendship to lead and renew the world.

He founded and ran the American University in Moscow. He also served as a Professor at National Research Nuclear University in Moscow. He founded and was the editor-in-chief of the online magazine “New Kontinent” (Kontinent USA). It became a platform for US dissidents who questioned the Republican-Democratic consensus on the waging of endless, bloody, costly wars around the world smashing societies in Africa, Europe and across the Middle East and Eurasia.

He was also a great admirer of Pluralia and when he died was working with his usual vision, generosity and limitless energy to set up cooperative programs between Pluralia and his recently founded Academy for International Cooperation.

He was a deeply happy private man with his beautiful wife Tatiana, their two daughters and grandchildren. He had close, admiring friends on every continent. And he was the warmest and most loyal of friends himself.

Ed had been a Soviet nuclear physicist. He had defied the KGB. He became a prominent anticommunist columnist for the Washington Times and deeply impressed American leaders including President Ronald Reagan and Vice President Dan Quayle (an intelligent, highly responsible and admirable man, as I can personally testify – and vastly different from the cartoon dolt depicted by the braying asses of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the other so-called mainstream US media.)

He published at least 13 books and more than a thousand articles. He was a polymath. He made major contributions in physics, mathematics, biophysics, and political science.

Ed was principled and fearless. He worked at Moscow State University and Military Tank Academy. But in 1975, he lost all of his research and teaching positions because of his outspoken public criticism of Soviet foreign and domestic policies. He was able to move to the United States the following year where he did important research at the Laser Fusion lab at the University of Rochester, New York, and taught at the American University in Washington, DC.  His work on fusion power was literally half a century ahead of its time.

He embraced the end of the Cold War and worked tirelessly for 35 years for understanding and fruitful cooperation between the American and Russian peoples. Right up to his death he was tireless and exceptionally successful in organizing conferences and seminars, promoting US- Russia science, education, and cultural exchanges. In 1986 he co-edited a series of essays on nuclear dangers and coexistence with the legendary Soviet physicist and peace activist Andrei Sakharov. They were close friends as well as collaborators.

Edward Lozansky: “The Americans are busy turning their country into the Soviet Union. And they don’t even realize they’re doing it.”

I first met Ed that same year. He was an eminent columnist also for The Washington Times and I had been brought on board to lead their coverage of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc. He was always wonderful company and also, for all his achievements and towering physical presence right up to his death, the most gentlemanly and unassuming of men. In Imperial Washington, which is filled with ludicrous pygmies prancing around as imagined “geniuses” in their own imagination, it was no wonder that he stood out so much, or that he was so consistently underestimated and sneered at by repulsive little backstabbers not fit to flush his toilet.

Just as Ed defied the Soviet state and the KGB, he was through the last quarter century of his life a prophet in the American political wilderness, warning warmongering, cowardly, armchair warrior Republicans and Democrats alike of the dangers of the out-of-control rampaging Deep State. He recognized and spoke out tirelessly against the pandemic of endless, hypocritical moralistic wars without strategic or human purpose, and without end, that Geroge W. Bush and his Praetorian Guard of neocon ideologists bequeathed to the American Republic.

In May 2015, while I was sipping a morning coffee with Ed in the apartment that he and Tatiana then maintained near American University on Washington’s Connecticut Avenue Northwest, he made an offhand comment that chilled me to the bone. And it still does.

“The Americans are busy turning their country into the Soviet Union,” Ed said. “And they don’t even realize they’re doing it.”

From Brezhnev’s Soviet Union to the careening, pathetic Washington policymakers and analysts of Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Ed Lozansky always stood out and stood tall. He was a great American as well as Russian patriot in the best and truest senses of the word. He embodied the truest and deepest of Christian and humane values. It was an agony to him that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples had been embroiled in such a horrific, appalling war by sinister outside forces.

Ed Lozansky was a big man and the best of men. And he cannot be replaced. But we were blessed to have him among us for so long.

Dear Presidents Trump and Putin,
On April 25, 1945, soldiers of the Red and the US Armies met on the bridge over the Elbe River in the city of Torgau on the eve of their joint victory over Nazi Germany. Eighty years ago, the Spirit of Elbe was born and serves as a beacon of hope for all those who want the United States and Russia to work together to benefit both nations and humanity. This is what both of you said on that day five years ago in 2020:

“The ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ is an example of how our countries can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in pursuit of a greater cause. As we work today to confront the most important challenges of the 21st century, we pay tribute to the valor and courage of all those who fought together to defeat fascism. Their heroic feat will never be forgotten.”

Unfortunately, today, when our planet teeters on the brink of self-destruction, we welcome your desire for peace and ask you to reinforce this statement by organizing a direct Presidential summit and supporting a cross-cultural, people-to-people dialogue based on traditional values and mutual respect. The safety and quality of life on our planet depend on such dialogue.

The Spirit of the Elbe is the key to peaceful and harmonious development, serving as a bridge of trust, friendship, and mutually beneficial win-win cooperation.

With high respect,
Organizing Committee of the “Elbe Spirit” forum and all those who cosign this appeal

What elevated this seismic moment in hockey history beyond stats was Gretzky’s response. “The Great One,” as he has been known throughout his career, has been a true class act — publicly cheering Ovechkin on and offering warm praise devoid of ego even as he saw his own record shattered.

Gretzky’s grace is a throwback to a time when hockey transcended the rink, serving both as a proxy for Cold War tensions and fleeting détente. As a kid catching the tail end of Gretzky’s career from behind the wrong side of the Iron Curtain in Riga, Latvia, I saw those echoes firsthand.

In 1972, for the first time, the Soviet team disembarked in North America for pioneering “Summit Series” which pitted the USSR’s best against the NHL stars playing for Canada and the United States. While Canada narrowly clawed past the Soviets on that occasion, in 1981, the “Red Machine,” a veritable juggernaut that the Soviet team has become by then, thrashed Canada 8 to 1 at the legendary final of the Canada Cup, in Montreal, no less.

I watched that game on TV, wide-eyed, as the Soviets’ clinical precision dismantled the star-laden, intimidating Canadian team, captained by Wayne Gretzky. Back in Moscow, Soviet propaganda appropriated their team’s success as evidence of the superiority of the collectivist Soviet ways over Western individualism. It wasn’t just about hockey — it was a superpower bravado on ice.

But hockey didn’t just mirror the era’s rivalries — it softened them too. Between face-offs, involving occasional fistfights on the ice, players from these purported opposing ideological camps shook hands and swapped jerseys. Some even forged enduring friendships, including touring each other’s homelands. It felt like détente in action: competition, yes, but mutual respect beneath the gloves.

Fast forward to 2025. With Donald Trump back in the White House and tentative efforts to melt the ice between the United States and Russia, hockey diplomacy has come back to the fore. In March, amid a phone call about Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin, ever eager to flex hockey for nationalist gain, floated the idea of the hockey matches between NHL stars and Russia-led Continental Hockey League (KHL) talent, with games in both the U.S. and Russia. Trump, ever the dealmaker, backed the idea, perhaps anticipating “huge ratings” as an additional prop.

History knows examples of sporting events fostering détente between the rival nations. Think of ping-pong diplomacy with Communist China in the early 1970s which paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s ground-breaking visit to Beijing in 1972. The term “ping pong diplomacy” stuck because it captured how sport can bridge geopolitical divides.

Another example are the soccer World Cup matches between the U.S. and Iran in 1998 and 2022. Unlike the tennis games in China and hockey matches between the U.S., Canada and Soviet Union in North America, the U.S. – Iran encounters were the results of blind draws, meaning they were not explicitly intended to be diplomatic events. But even so, the human interaction between the peoples of two nations often at geopolitical loggerheads helped to somewhat soften mutual perceptions (Iran won 2 to 1 in 1998, while the U.S. emerged victorious in 2002, 1-0, with the winners graciously showing respect to the losers on the pitch after each game).

Can Trump – Putin hockey diplomacy smooth the way to a more general thaw? Unlike in the 1970s and early 1980s, such games, if they materialize, won’t be referendums on the comparative strengths of different political systems. After all, Ovechkin, born in 1985, growing up in post-Communist Russia and achieved stardom in America, is as much a product of the “capitalist” NHL as is Gretzky. But it can help mend fences in a more traditional sense of managing a great power competition — as was also the case with the original détente in 1970s, in addition to the ideological dimension.

There will be hurdles along the way. Russia has been and remains banned from the International Ice Hockey Federation since 2022 for its invasion of Ukraine, which precludes its participation in international hockey championships. Even if the U.S. were to be ready to use its influence to lift the ban on the Russians, other leading hockey nations could easily balk at the idea for political reasons — think of Sweden, Finland or Czech Republic. The liberal hawks who’d seldom miss an opportunity to disparage diplomacy with adversaries were quick to assail Trump for allegedly giving Putin a soft power gain “for free.” A coalition of Ukrainian-Canadian and Ukrainian-American organizations called on the NHL to unequivocally reject any collaboration with the KHL.

There is also a asymmetry in stakes and expectations: the prospect of the games is seen by the Kremlin as a way to symbolically skate back to the great powers league — a vision cherished by Putin. The White House downplayed that enthusiasm, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying that the U.S. “is more interested in securing the peace in Ukraine right now than scheduling hockey games.”

Indeed, the hockey games, in themselves, won’t stop the war in Ukraine. However, they are an approachable way to restart building confidence and improve the overall climate between Moscow and Washington that could be leveraged in efforts to bring about a diplomatic end to the bloodbath and usher into a new era of a more restrained, managed competition.

Gretzky and Ovechkin exemplified graciousness and respect that transcend geopolitical rivalries. Let’s see if Trump and Putin can lace up their diplomatic skates and do the same.

Eldar Mamedov is a Brussels-based foreign policy expert and Non-resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.

Putin and US President Donald Trump share a conviction that the latter’s MAGA project offers a rare window of opportunity to couple Russia’s vast resources with the regeneration of the American economy in a new order where geopolitics will no longer be the pivot. 

In a historical perspective, this involves a formidable challenge insofar as it is nothing short of the rollback of a century of adversarial mindset, on both sides, that began in the period 1918-1920 when the US, Britain, France, and Japan sent thousands of troops from the Baltics to northern Russia to Siberia to Crimea—and despatched massive millions of financial aid and military supplies to the anti-communist White Russians—in an abortive attempt to strangle Bolshevism in its crib. 

The Biden administration had already sanctioned Dmitriev after spotting him as “a known Putin ally.” But Trump sees that fatal flaw in Dmitriev’s DNA as actually qualifying him to be an excellent counterpart to his own special envoy Steve Witkoff, the billionaire businessman and close friend of the US president. Dmitriev is a former banker who studied at Stanford and Harvard and worked at McKinsey and Goldman and is familiar with the ways of Wall Street where he has old friends and associates. White House appreciated Dmitriev’s role in the release of the American prisoner Marc Fogel in February in a deal negotiated by Witkoff. 

Unsurprisingly, “key members of the US administration” received Dmitriev, including Witkoff. Dmitriev’s posts in the social media have been in an upbeat tone, signalling that at the very least, the nascent US-Russian dialogue is on track. The Russian reports mentioned that Dmitriev’s agenda included the possibility of resumption of direct flights between the two countries, the stalled ceasefire in Ukraine, and, importantly, cooperation in the Arctic as well as in rare earths. 

Meanwhile, in a significant gesture, even as Dmitriev hit the ground in DC, Trump left out Russia from the list of countries against which new tariffs were announced on “Liberation Day” (April 2). 

Equally, it transpires that American companies have applied for participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) due to be held in St. Petersburg on May 19-20. Traditionally, Putin personally interacts with the foreign participants in the SPIEF event. 

Dmitriev took stock of all this probably when he told reporters in DC  that his meetings with administration officials constituted a step forward. “I would say that today and yesterday we made three steps forward on a large number of issues,” Dmitriev pointed out. He acknowledged that issues have been piling up for three years, as there was virtually no communication between Russia and the US. “Therefore, the process of dialogue, the process of resolution will take some time, but it is definitely positive and constructive,” he said. 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov hinted on Friday that the forthcoming second round of discussions between the Russian and US delegations will focus on simplifying the visa process, improving the mechanisms of mutual travel and resolving issues of financial transfers for diplomatic missions.

To be sure, the elephant in the room is the West’s “sanctions from hell” against Russia. Even an affectionate  tweak of sanctions for Russia’s exports of agricultural products and fertiliser meets with resistance from the European Union.         

The Russian-American dialogue continues to face attempts at sabotage by Ukraine and the EU as well as certain groups within the US who simply do not want any normalisation with Russia, including  influential lawmakers such as Senator Lindsey Graham who is otherwise a staunch political supporter of Trump.  

While in DC, Dmitriev remarked that “numerous forces interested in maintaining tension” stand in the way of restoring dialogue. He said they deliberately distort Russia’s position and try to disrupt any steps towards US-Russia cooperation, “sparing neither money nor resources for this.” (See a vicious attack on Dmitriev’s visit by the CNN here.) 

The Ukrainian leadership sees the US-Russia negotiations as posing an existential threat. Their belligerence and attempts to sabotage the negotiation process are directly linked to their main agenda of willy-nilly retaining the levers of power in Kiev. 

Against such heavy odds, it is appreciable that Washington and Moscow are still on the ball in regard of the full restoration of the functioning of diplomatic missions — although the negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative at the recent Riyadh meeting are on hold. 

On the other hand, at the last summit of European leaders a week ago, rare calls were heard for the EU to reach out to Russia for dialogue. The Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that France or Britain should enter into negotiations with Putin. Slovakia and Hungary have traditionally advocated such a pathway. 

This kite-flying is an important enough signal that the matrix may no longer be seen in binary terms — as confrontation between the West and Russia — but creeping toward a modus operandi of  “every man for himself.” If Europe sees that sanctions continue to harm the EU itself, it is possible that they will reconsider old positions. The point is, the ice may break any moment. 

In the final analysis, the US remains a significant economic player in the transatlantic grid and the western system including the EU, functions as Washington’s creation, and the Trump administration is capable of exerting pressure on Brussels. 

Therefore, the question narrows down to how far Trump’s team shares the president’s vision of friendship and camaraderie with Putin at a personal level and a constructive engagement by the erstwhile rivals in a spirit of cooperation. To a keen observer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio  who harbours presidential ambitions, already seems the odd man out. 

Indeed, despite the change of administration, some US government officials, even from the Republican Party, are still opposed to dialogue. Maybe their tone has softened a bit but there’s no sign yet of ‘new thinking’. All these are disturbing signs that a full-fledged Russian-American détente remains a long haul. 

Above all, as if the Russia policy shift is not complicated enough, Trump has also got to grapple with the Iran question where a deadline is expected by October and a spectre of confrontation haunts both Washington and Iran unless a deal appears in the next 3-4 months. 

But then, “Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head.” Adversity, as Shakespeare suggested, often conceals valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. Even in challenging times, there is wisdom to be gained and strength to be found. 

The ‘known known’ is that Putin commands immense respect in Tehran. And the ‘known unknown’ is, how far Russia can help in a mediatory mission to wrap up a US-Iran deal. Put differently, the ‘unknown unknown’ is, will Trump seek Putin’s helping hand? 

Anything is possible in Trump’s revolutionary mind. After all, the administration has stopped demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. This tendentious item is missing from Washington’s new list of conditions for the authorities in Damascus. 

The last time Russia and the US tried a reset was in 2009, under presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. But today Russia has no interest in dusting off its playbook from back then. It has more patience, less goodwill and an altogether different measure of success.

In 2009, the Kremlin’s wish list was ambitious. Badly hit by recession, Russia hoped for American investment in the country’s economic modernisation. Medvedev also wanted Washington’s support for Russia’s WTO accession, an agreement on European missile defence systems, and progress on arms control.

In return, the Kremlin was willing to engage with US priorities. It supported UN sanctions against Iran in 2010. It also banned the delivery of the S-300 missile defence system to Tehran, which at once dumbfounded and delighted White House officials. While Russia had its own concerns vis-à-vis Iran, it also calculated that there was merit in building up goodwill with the US. The dynamic at play was one of diffuse reciprocity, a process in which Russia was open to giving and fostering a genuinely more co-operative relationship that would pay off over time.

Vladimir Putin’s vision for today’s reset is different. In last week’s negotiations, Russian officials disguised demands as concessions. They injected calls for sanctions relief in return for agreeing to a Black Sea ceasefire — a truce Russia does not actually need since it already enjoys access to grain and fertiliser markets. While Russia has no interest in real reciprocity, its expectations for US gives may also be lower than in 2009. Putin and his acolytes understand that Trump is fickle and that deals with his administration could be fragile.

That said, Russia has much to gain from engaging the US in an open-ended reset. First, it is a tool for Moscow to buy time in Ukraine. By dangling the benefits that the US can expect from making up with Russia, and pandering to Trump’s ego, Putin can look like the reasonable party. That puts him in an advantageous position to blame Ukraine for any future lack of progress towards a ceasefire, let alone comprehensive settlement. Even if it yields no US concessions on specific dossiers, an endless reset thus brings Russia closer to defeating Ukraine — whether through war or diplomacy. As Putin told a group of Russian sailors in Murmansk last week, he is entirely prepared for both options.

Second, Trump’s enthusiastic embrace of Putin will allow Russia to fully shed its pariah status. Russia’s isolation was always more myth than reality. But by suggesting that it be readmitted to the G7, or blocking efforts to hold it accountable for war crimes in Ukraine, Washington will further normalise international engagement with Russia.

Lastly, a reset with Washington will give Moscow opportunities to alienate the US from its transatlantic allies, bringing Putin closer to his long-term goal of fragmenting European security. To be fair, the apparent hostility vis-à-vis Europe among members of the Trump administration seems entirely endemic, rather than somehow orchestrated by Moscow. Still, Russia has rapidly reversed course to benefit from America’s chill towards Europe. Its diplomats have muted their criticism of the US, instead zeroing in on Europe and Britain. If he plays his cards well, Putin can use the thaw in US-Russia relations as a vehicle for widening transatlantic fissures.

There is one risk, which is that Russia is overplaying its hand on Ukraine. Trump has recently started to notice that Putin is dragging his feet, threatening secondary tariffs on buyers of Russian oil if no truce is agreed. The chances of Trump recognising Russia’s reset ploy for what it is, and doing a U-turn, may be very small. But they are not nil.

A potential US détente with Moscow today will not be like that in 2009. Steeled by years of confrontation, and convinced that it enjoys geopolitical tailwinds, Russia will not give up just anything in hope of future reciprocity. Still, entertaining the US in a drawn-out reset promises great rewards. At a minimum, Russia buys time to win against Ukraine on the battlefield. At best, Trump ushers in a world order more amenable to Russia, while Putin cheers him on from the sidelines.

The writer is the director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Q: Why have you been working so long to improve U.S.-Russia relations?

A: Perhaps there is something in my stubborn character that prevents me from been satisfied with the existing state of affairs and forces me to aspire for higher and ambitious goals.

Back in the USSR, I was inspired by the great nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov, the father of Soviet hydrogen bomb. Despite being highly decorated and enjoying all Kremlin privileges, Sakharov demanded more freedom for his compatriots. He became a human rights campaigner and called for the rapprochement with the West. I was working at the time at the Moscow Institute of Atomic Energy, the equivalent of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and felt that it was my moral duty to do what I could for this cause even though many thought it hopeless. This activity eventually led to my exile and settling in America and becoming a U.S. citizen.

This dream of rapprochement came true in some ways. In the late 1980s, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev started radical reforms by declaring a desire to abandon communism and become a part of the West. At that time, my good friend — the late Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation — and I made several trips to Moscow where we met with top Kremlin decision makers about how America can help. This resulted in a proposal that Paul personally delivered in 1990 to President George H.W. Bush. In it was a detailed road map for Russia’s integration with the West — including joining NATO — while the U.S. would offer Moscow economic assistance during the difficult transition from a planned to a market economy.

As Paul told me afterwards, Mr. Bush listened attentively, and although I cannot tell this for sure perhaps when he talked in 1990 about a “Europe whole and free” and the new “security arch from Vancouver to Vladivostok,” he used the words from this proposal.

Unfortunately, at the end, different wrong decisions were made, like NATO expansion, and the resultant policies dealt a tremendous blow to my dream of Russia becoming a part of the West even when the goal was so close to achievement.

Q: You and your wife Tatiana often travel between these two countries. To some, this is normal and expected, but to others, it is mysterious. Comments?

A: Well, those who know our story — our 6-year battle with the Soviet authorities for reunification — know that we are not giving up easily. Therefore, we continue to fight for yet another “hopeless” case: promoting U.S.-Russia educational, science and cultural ties through the American University in Moscow, which we founded in 1990 with the blessing of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Q: How would you describe the current state of affairs in U.S.-Russia relations?

A: Worse than at any time since the birth of the U.S. in 1776 when Russia supported the new nation against Britain. Actually, during these 242 years, there were many good moments, including those when we were helping each other and even fighting on the same side. There were bad moments as well, of course, especially during the Cold War, but what we have now is much worse.

Q: What troubles you most about this current state of affairs?

A: In the past, in the times of crisis, American presidents had the full authority to find a compromise. However, Congress has now practically overtaken the president’s authority to negotiate with Moscow. In addition, the mainstream media, which during the Cold War tried to calm down the war-mongering rhetoric, is now pushing to inflame it. The situation is rather pathetic when the Congress and the media, with their miserable approval ratings, work to prevent the president from exercising his constitutional right to conduct the foreign policy.

Q: What gives you hope?

A: Presently, my hope is with President Trump. Tatiana and I are proud that we voted for him as we see that when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations his instincts are right. In my lectures, writings and media appearances, I keep quoting his tweet that only “haters and fools” do not understand that having good relations with Russia is also good for America. Therefore, we continue to support Mr. Trump and have been trying to generate more ideas to find the way out of this megacrisis, which has the potential for the unthinkable military confrontation between the two major nuclear superpowers, if not by design then by accident. We are pleased that despite the resistance of the Washington swamp, Mr. Trump still seeks to have a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. If President Ronald Reagan could make a deal with Mr. Gorbachev, why not let Mr. Trump try to do the same with Mr. Putin?

By the way, Americans could be surprised when they find out that there is the statute of Ronald Reagan shaking hands with Mikhail Gorbachev in downtown Moscow. Tatiana and I commissioned this sculpture, as well as the one of Andrei Sakharov, in front of the Russia House on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C. We had the privilege of meeting all these great men, and they give us the hope and inspiration to continue our fight for U.S.-Russia rapprochement.

The Arctic, warming four times faster than the rest of the world, may be the key region for the US and Russia to advance cooperation. US-Russia rapprochement may broadly benefit the world by bringing an end to the disastrous war in Ukraine and reducing the risk of nuclear war, but existential environmental issues still demand attention.

The Trump administration has started purging government websites of climate data. It is now the task of civil society to elevate climate change as a concern and pressure the two countries to include climate change in the Arctic cooperation agenda. The Arctic climate crisis is the “canary in the coal mine” for what awaits other regions.

At the February 18, 2025, Rubio-Lavrov meeting in Riyadh, Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, named the region as a potential setting for US-Russia cooperation: “We need to pursue joint projects, including, for example, in the Arctic.” The Arctic region makes sense as a setting for cooperation as the two sides have explicitly expressed interest in exploring cooperation in energy, investment, and geopolitical issues. Western sanctions on Russia have led Moscow to step up its cooperation in the Arctic with China in joint energy ventures and grand plans for Arctic shipping. US officials now see Arctic cooperation as a potential means to “drive a wedge” between Moscow and Beijing.

In my meetings in Moscow with American and Russian diplomats and businessmen over the past few weeks, it is clear that many are interested in diverse forms of Arctic cooperation, from cultural diplomacy that celebrates the commonalities of Indigenous peoples on both sides of the Bering Strait, to scientific diplomacy to understand and adapt to climate hazards faced by both nations. Business interests, however, are at the top of the agenda.

Trump’s suggestion to acquire Greenland, not ruling out military or economic coercion, has reignited global concerns over Arctic stability. Trump’s threats against Denmark, a NATO ally, have caused alarm in the Euro-Atlantic community. While some Russian state media pundits celebrated Trump’s statements, Russian diplomats criticized the destabilizing effect of the proposal and said that Trump’s plan “can only bring uncertainty and tension to the region.”

Together with Trump’s desire to acquire Ukraine’s resources and reduce the US’ dependence on Chinese rare earth, it is clear that rare earth minerals are a key focus of Trump’s political worldview. Greenland has large deposits of rare earth elements and is strategically positioned alongside Arctic shipping lanes and offshore oil deposits. Putin’s offer to open Russian rare earth minerals to joint exploration with the US may also have implications for Arctic cooperation.

Trump has grumbled about Russian and Chinese ships “all over the place” near Greenland, indicating an element of great power competition in Trump’s Greenland fixation. This is a misunderstanding of Arctic security, as Russian and Chinese military activity is far from Greenland, occasionally operating together in the Bering Strait near Alaska. Greenland may, however, play a role in North American defense as a radar outpost to detect threats coming from across the North Pole.

The announced plan to revamp diplomatic relations and restore the staff of the countries’ diplomatic missions will significantly reduce the current obstacles to US-Russia scientific cooperation in the Arctic. By making it easier to issue visas and travel between the two countries, Americans and Russians will again be able to conduct joint research, expeditions, and scientific conferences and build models to better understand the unfolding climate emergency. Scientific cooperation to understand the changes affecting sea ice, permafrost, ecosystems, and local communities has been blunted by the political fallout of the war in Ukraine.

Cooperation in the Arctic can help build regional stability. More importantly, Arctic cooperation will build trust between the US and Russia that could complement or spill over into other crucial fields of cooperation such as arms control, Middle East peace, and global health.

Pavel Devyatkin is a senior associate at the Arctic Institute (Washington, DC) and a PhD fellow and lecturer at HSE University (Moscow). @PavelDevyatkin

If Moscow sticks to it, the Russian agreement to a pause in attacks on infrastructure would be a major concession; for while Ukraine will also cease its attacks on Russian infrastructure, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electricity system have been vastly more damaging and valuable to the Russian war effort. Hence Russia’s initial refusal to agree to such a moratorium when Ukraine and France first proposed this last month. The pause in these attacks will also limit Ukrainian civilian casualties, many of which have been collateral from Russian strikes against infrastructure.

Trump did not agree to Russia’s prior demand that during a ceasefire the US stop arms supplies to Ukraine. For any US and European critics of Trump who are still capable of thinking objectively about the peace process, this should lead them to question the hysterical condemnations of the US President as a “traitor” and “Putin ally”.

On the other hand, Russia continues to reject the US-Ukraine call for a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire because the war on the ground continues to go its way. We do not yet know the final figure for Ukrainian losses during their latest defeat in Kursk, but it appears to be substantial. Having driven the Ukrainian army from the sliver of Russian territory it still held, Moscow will be free to throw all its reserves into its offensive in the Donbas.

How far and fast this will proceed is impossible to say. US military aid to Ukraine has resumed, and European aid continues. However, the advantage unquestionably lies with Russia. At best, Kyiv can hope to continue the pattern of the past year, whereby the Ukrainian army falls back very slowly from position to position, inflicting heavy casualties in the process. The chance of a much greater Ukrainian defeat cannot however be excluded.

That is why the present EU and British approach to the peace process is so very questionable from Ukraine’s point of view. For the EU may eventually have to play a critical role in persuading the Ukrainian government to accept what even in the very best circumstances will be a painful peace settlement. Instead, at present all the talk continues to be of a “coalition of the willing” providing a powerful peacekeeping force as an essential part of a peace settlement.

This is simply not going to happen. Several EU governments openly oppose it. The Russian government has repeatedly rejected it and insisted that any peacekeepers be from neutral countries. And even the British government, which together with the French is leading the push for such a force, has stated that it would only be possible with a US “backstop”, or guarantee of armed support. Trump has ruled this out.

What this British and European project can do, however, is encourage the Ukrainians to hold out for it as part of a settlement, if not as an actual goal then as a bargaining counter to try to extract concessions from Moscow in other areas. This, though, would depend on the Russians being willing to bargain — and if they don’t think it is a serious threat, why would they?

Meanwhile on the battlefield, time is not on Ukraine’s side. It is therefore hard to see why any of its serious European allies (as opposed to a politically bankrupt establishment posturing for the dregs of domestic advantage) would think that this empty proposal for a European force is to Ukraine’s advantage.

Russia continues to insist that for the duration of a complete ceasefire, Western military aid to Ukraine should be paused — by way of compensation for the military advantage that Russia would give up. The Trump administration might agree to this, but the Europeans certainly will not. Moscow also wants as many aspects of a peace settlement to be nailed down as firmly as possible before agreeing to a ceasefire.

Trump and Putin spoke of the need for “improved US-Russia relations” — a radical difference from current European rhetoric about Russia and a crucial goal for Moscow. The problem for Russia, however, as a Russian analyst told me, is that “any agreement with the US has a four-year shelf-life”; in other words, after the next elections a new US administration may tear it up. That is another reason why the Russians are trying to make any agreement as formal, detailed and internationally legitimate as possible.

Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.

The situation in Kursk has deteriorated sharply in recent days: Russian forces have broken through the defenses, almost cutting the Ukrainian contingent in half. Without reliable supply routes, the militants’ chances of holding on are rapidly fading. Open sources record that the only road connecting the Ukrainian Armed Forces has been narrowed to 500 meters, — Reuters.

After seven months of fighting, Ukraine’s losses in Kursk are becoming unjustified. The Russian army is not only driving the enemy out of the occupied lines, but also blocking any attempts to replenish supplies.

In short, Trump’s efforts to arrange a ceasefire and initiate a viable negotiation between Moscow and Kiev may be overtaken by events on the battlefield and render his effort moot.