• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Dmitri Trenin"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Levant",
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Syria",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

U.S.–Russia Tensions Calming in Syria, but Still Simmering Well Beyond

While the proxy war in Syria does hold the potential for a clash between U.S. and Russian forces, it is only one of several theaters in which a larger conflict between the two countries is playing out.

Link Copied
By Dmitri Trenin
Published on Apr 23, 2018

Source: Axios

The run-up to the U.S. and allied missile strikes in Syria last week brought the U.S. and Russia closer to a direct military collision than they've been since the early 1980s. The strikes themselves turned out to be limited and carefully executed, but Syria remains a volatile arena for U.S.–Russia relations.

The big picture: While the proxy war in Syria does hold the potential for a clash between U.S. and Russian forces, it is only one of several theaters in which a larger conflict between the two countries is playing out.

Although the April strikes appeared to some an expansion of the U.S. role in Syria, they were still largely symbolic. Moreover, their manner of execution may have laid down a pattern of the United States' talking tough to Moscow but stopping short of provoking a war.

As for Trump's recent rhetoric, Russia has gotten used to such aggressive posturing — President Obama placed Russia in the company of ISIS and Ebola as the principal threats to peace in 2014, and Congress included it in its sanctions against Iran and North Korea last year — and no longer takes it at face value.

Moscow has now learned to distinguish between Trump’s words, which the Russians see as a tactic designed to throw opponents off balance, and his deeds. They will be watching the U.S. military’s moves much more closely than the president’s tweets.

The bottom line: In Syria, “deconfliction" between the U.S. and Russia — that is, prevention of head-on collisions — has continued to work. But de-escalation, which would entail a true easing of tensions, is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile, eastern Ukraine, Iran and — should diplomacy fail — North Korea will also remain tinderboxes in the U.S.–Russia Hybrid War.

This article was originally published in Axios.

About the Author

Dmitri Trenin

Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center

Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space

      Dmitri Trenin

  • Commentary
    What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West Revealed

      Dmitri Trenin

Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
SecurityForeign PolicyLevantNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastSyriaRussia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance Gap

    How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?

      Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.