More than three decades after the Cold War ended, the United States continues to treat Russia as an existential enemy rather than a potential partner. This hostility, deeply embedded in Washington’s foreign policy establishment, is not just ideological—it’s also big business for the military-industrial complex. The idea of a stable, cooperative relationship with Russia is a direct threat to those who profit from endless tensions.

As the U.S. enters an era of explosive policy shifts under President Trump and faces increasing economic and geopolitical challenges, it’s time for policymakers to ask a fundamental question: Is maintaining hostility toward Russia really in America’s national interest, or is it just an outdated Cold War relic? The world has changed, but Washington’s foreign policy remains stuck in the past. To break the cycle of conflict, the U.S. must acknowledge past mistakes, recognize where it has fueled tensions, and recalibrate its approach before it’s too late.

Broken Promises and Their Consequences

The seeds of today’s conflict were planted in the late 1980s and early 1990s when U.S. and Western leaders made key assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that were later ignored in favor of strategic expansion. These broken promises are at the heart of Russia’s deep distrust of the West.

1. NATO Expansion: A Betrayal of Trust

In 1990, during negotiations over German reunification, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch eastward.” German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and other Western leaders echoed this assurance, giving Moscow the impression that NATO would not expand beyond Germany’s new borders. Yet, within a few years, NATO began absorbing former Warsaw Pact nations, and by the early 2000s, even former Soviet republics like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined the alliance.

To Russia, this was not just a policy shift—it was a clear betrayal. The U.S. had leveraged Soviet goodwill at a time when Moscow was withdrawing from Eastern Europe, only to push NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep. It is no surprise that Russian leaders, from Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin, saw this as an existential threat rather than a move toward global stability.

2. The False Promise of Economic Partnership

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, there was talk of a “Marshall Plan for Russia,” a Western-led effort to help Russia transition to a market economy. Instead, Russia was subjected to “shock therapy” economics, a disastrous approach that led to economic collapse, hyperinflation, and the rise of corrupt oligarchs. Rather than integrating Russia into the global economy as an equal partner, the West largely left it to fend for itself while celebrating the supposed triumph of capitalism.

This failure had lasting consequences. It fueled deep resentment among Russians who saw the 1990s as a time of national humiliation. Rather than viewing the West as a friend, many Russians came to see the U.S. as a force that had exploited their country’s weakest moment.

3. The Budapest Memorandum and Western Double Standards

In 1994, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan agreed to give up their nuclear arsenals inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia. But when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and later moved into eastern Ukraine, these so-called guarantees proved to be meaningless.

Washington was quick to condemn Russia’s actions as blatant aggression, but the reality is more complicated. Crimea, historically Russian, had been transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in what was essentially an internal administrative decision within the USSR. When Russia moved in to annex the peninsula, it did so in a region where the vast majority of the population spoke Russian and leaned toward Moscow rather than Kyiv. A 2014 referendum (dismissed by the West but accepted by Russia) showed overwhelming support for Crimea’s reunification with Russia. To Moscow, this was not an imperial land grab—it was the rectification of a historic mistake.

The same dynamic unfolded in Donetsk and Luhansk, two regions in eastern Ukraine that have long had a predominantly Russian-speaking population with strong cultural and economic ties to Russia. After the 2014 Euromaidan revolution and the overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainian nationalist policies—including restrictions on the Russian language—alienated many in the east. Separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, leading to years of conflict. Moscow framed its intervention in these regions as a defense of Russian-speaking populations, similar to its rationale for Crimea.

The U.S. and NATO, instead of recognizing the ethnic and historical complexities of the region, doubled down on their narrative of Russian aggression, fueling the war through military aid rather than pursuing serious diplomacy. This failure to acknowledge the reality on the ground—that Russia has largely moved into regions where the population is already pro-Russian—has only prolonged the conflict and deepened the divide between Moscow and Washington.

Addressing the Counterargument

Some argue that Russia’s actions—such as the 2008 Georgia war and the Ukraine invasion in 2022—justify NATO’s expansion. But this ignores the cyclical nature of hostility: NATO’s expansion provoked Russia, which in turn provoked NATO’s further militarization. This is not a one-sided story of unprovoked aggression—it is a story of repeated strategic miscalculations by both sides. Breaking this cycle requires diplomacy, not escalation.

Why the U.S. Keeps Fueling This Conflict

The hostility toward Russia is not just about ideology—it’s also about money. The U.S. military-industrial complex thrives on perpetual conflict, and the so-called “Russian threat” is its golden goose. Every year, defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon reap billions from arms sales, much of it justified by exaggerated fears of Russian aggression.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans foot the bill. Rising inflation, national debt, and domestic instability are ignored in favor of pouring hundreds of billions into a foreign war that does not advance core U.S. interests. This is the true cost of Washington’s obsession with confrontation: working-class taxpayers suffer while the war machine profits.

A Path Forward: Diplomacy Over Confrontation

Fixing the mistakes of the past does not mean surrendering to Russia’s every demand. But it does mean acknowledging where the U.S. went wrong and pursuing a realistic, pragmatic approach to relations with Moscow.

Conclusion: A Choice Between Stability and Endless War

The real threat to America is not Russia—it’s the Washington war machine that thrives on keeping old enemies alive. If the U.S. truly wants to lead the world, it must abandon Cold War thinking and start putting diplomacy ahead of defense contracts.

Vinson Xavier Palathingal is the Executive Director of the Indo-American Center, a businessman, and a political commentator advocating for pragmatic diplomacy and America First economic policies. In 2020, he was appointed by President Donald J. Trump to the President’s Export Council, where he contributed to strategies promoting U.S. trade and business competitiveness. As a leader in the Indian American conservative movement, he has been actively engaged in U.S. foreign policy, economic strategy, and global security discussions.