A US-Russian Alliance

It's time to break from the influence of European/Transatlantic elites and forge a new partnership with Russia and the Russian people

Few geopolitical relationships are as misunderstood or unnecessarily strained as the one between the United States and Russia. Since the American Revolution, these two nations—despite their stark differences—have found common ground in shared interests, struggles, and even moments of mutual admiration. Yet a deep rupture formed when the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, injecting an ideological conflict that still lingers today. However, it’s important to separate the Russian government from the Russian people—just as it’s crucial to recognize that the greatest threats to American sovereignty and prosperity haven’t always come from Moscow, but often from the boardrooms and salons of European elites who have long sought to manipulate American power for their own ends.

Now, more than ever, the United States should consider the potential of an alliance—not necessarily with the Kremlin, but with the Russian people. There is a natural partnership to be found, built on shared struggles, cultural similarities, and a mutual interest in pushing back against transnational elites who see both nations as pawns in their broader game.

The history of U.S.-Russia relations stretches back to America’s earliest days. During the Revolutionary War, Catherine the Great refused to support Britain’s efforts to crush the rebellion. She not only rejected British requests for military assistance but also positioned Russia as a neutral arbiter, helping to prevent other European powers from intervening against the American cause. This move was not purely driven by goodwill, but it did indicate that Russian leadership saw American independence as a net positive, a counterbalance to British imperial dominance.

Later, during the American Civil War, Tsar Alexander II sent Russian naval squadrons to New York and San Francisco in a remarkable display of solidarity with the Union. While Russia had its own strategic motivations this act reinforced a recurring theme: Russia and the United States have often found themselves resisting the same global forces, whether they be European imperialists, financial oligarchs, or hegemonic power blocs.

This natural affinity did not last. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 marked a turning point, with the new Soviet leadership positioning itself in direct ideological opposition to the capitalist West. What followed was a century of mutual suspicion, punctuated by fleeting moments of collaboration.

One of the most striking examples of cooperation came during World War II. Despite their vastly different systems of government, the United States and the Soviet Union found common cause against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war, losing over 26 million people, while American industry helped keep the Red Army supplied through the Lend-Lease program. This partnership was not merely one of convenience—it was a recognition that, in the face of a truly existential threat, ideological differences could be put aside.

American and Soviet troops met at the Elbe River in April 1945, a moment of genuine camaraderie that symbolized what could have been. Had history taken a different course, this could have been the foundation for a lasting partnership. Instead, that fleeting alliance was overshadowed by the Cold War, as Washington policymakers—many influenced by European financial and political elites—quickly pivoted toward hostility with the Soviet Union.

From the 20th century onward, many of America’s greatest strategic missteps can be traced back not to Russian aggression, but to the influence of European elites who have viewed the United States as a tool for their own geopolitical ends.

Winston Churchill, who had depended on both the U.S. and USSR to defeat Germany, wasted little time in setting the stage for Cold War tensions with his 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech. This speech, delivered in Missouri with President Truman at his side, served as a clarion call for Anglo-American unity against the Soviet Union—conveniently ensuring that Britain would remain geopolitically relevant by positioning itself as Washington’s indispensable ally in the fight against communism.

But Churchill was not alone. Throughout the postwar era, Western European leaders, long wary of a rising America and eager to reassert control over global affairs, encouraged American hostility toward Russia. Institutions like NATO, ostensibly formed to counter Soviet expansion, became mechanisms through which European elites could steer American foreign policy to serve their own interests. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO’s continued expansion—despite explicit warnings from figures like George Kennan—ensured that tensions between the U.S. and Russia would remain high.

The manipulation of American power by European elites did not stop with the Cold War. Whether it was financial powerhouses in Brussels and London shaping U.S. economic policy through globalist institutions or European leaders influencing American foreign policy to serve their own strategic interests, the pattern has remained consistent. Even today, European policymakers often treat the United States as a disposable asset—stoking tensions with Russia not out of genuine concern for democracy or human rights, but to maintain their own geopolitical leverage while ensuring that America expends its resources on their behalf.

Critics of a U.S.-Russia rapprochement often argue that Russia’s leadership is autocratic, expansionist, and fundamentally opposed to Western democratic values. But history reveals a more complex reality. The United States has worked closely with authoritarian regimes—including Saudi Arabia, Cold War-era South Korea—when it has suited Washington’s strategic interests. Moreover, it is worth asking whether Russia’s political system is truly any more restrictive than that of the European Union, where un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels dictate policies to sovereign nations with little regard for democratic accountability.

More importantly, the focus should not be solely on the Kremlin, but on the Russian people. Like Americans, Russians have a deep-seated skepticism of globalist overreach. They have endured hardship, resisted external domination, and value national sovereignty. In many ways, ordinary Russians have more in common with the average American than with the global elites who have dictated U.S. foreign policy for decades.

If the United States truly wishes to reclaim its independence from European influence and reassert itself as a sovereign power, it must rethink its adversarial stance toward Russia. This does not mean blind trust or naive appeasement, but rather a recognition that a more pragmatic, interest-driven relationship would serve both nations far better than the endless cycle of provocation and proxy conflicts that benefit no one but arms manufacturers and financial oligarchs.

For decades, American leaders have been fed a false narrative: that the only alternative to confrontation with Russia is submission. But the reality is that the United States stands to gain far more from cooperation than from perpetual antagonism. A policy of pragmatic engagement—one that prioritizes the interests of the American and Russian people over the demands of European elites—would mark a necessary shift away from the failed strategies of the past.

The world is undergoing a profound geopolitical realignment. The rise of China, the fractures within the European Union, and the increasing disillusionment with globalist institutions all point to an uncertain future. In this shifting landscape, the United States must choose its partners wisely. Instead of serving as a pawn in Europe’s geopolitical games, America should pursue a foreign policy based on national interest rather than inherited hostilities.

A new approach to Russia could take many forms. It could involve renewed cultural and educational exchanges to rebuild trust between the two nations. It could include selective economic partnerships in areas of mutual benefit, such as energy, space exploration, and technology. Most importantly, it would require a shift in mindset—away from seeing Russia as a permanent adversary and toward recognizing the potential for a constructive, albeit cautious, relationship.

History has shown that when Americans and Russians work together, the world is better for it. It is time to reclaim that spirit of cooperation before it is lost forever.