Putin's “American guru” changed his opinion about the US. What does this mean for Ukraine and Europe

Since Washington's diplomatic lunch to Moscow's hard strategies on Ukraine, Iuri Usakov's route says more about Russia than Kremlin would like to recognize.

Iuri Usakov, the one next to Putin, at the meeting with Trump in Alaska Photo: AFP

In the official photograph of the American-Russian summit in Alaska, a man with detained, impassive features, stayed near Vladimir Putin. It is called Iuri Usakov – former ambassador to Washington, now presidential adviser on foreign policy and one of the last “guru” of America in the entourage of the Russian leader. With a discreet presence, rarely intervening publicly, Usakov has the role of refining Putin's messages to the outside. And behind the scenes, one of those who “translate” America for Kremlin and vice versa.

From economic optimism to ideological hostility

In 1998-2008, Usakov lived in Washington. Ten years of diplomatic meetings, elegant dinners and a prudent optimism regarding the future Russian-American relationships. He was regularly meeting with American diplomats, White House councilors, but also with private sector experts, in a constant effort to open channels for American investments in Russia.

At that time, Usakov seemed the incarnation of the “reformed” Soviet diplomat: loyal to the official line, but enough to look for common points. He wanted American companies to come to Russia, but he insisted that “politics” would not interfere with business – even when the courts controlled by Stat confiscate assets or arrest businessmen.

But that time ended

In 2008, Usakov returned to Moscow and entered the Presidential Administration. Slowly but surely, he became another man. It was not a break, but a slow but visible transformation: from an open diplomat to the West in an official official that the US will not only profit, but global domination. Against the background of the 2011 protests and the fear of the Kremlin towards a “Russian spring” inspired, Usakov's attitude was dark, writes politico.com.

In the diplomatic notes of 2013, he was already beginning to talk about the “Western interference” in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and, above all, in Ukraine. After the annexation of Crimea, in 2014, Usakov asked, with a disturbing sincerity: “Why do the Americans hate us?” It was a question he never said when he was walking through the Dupont Circle neighborhood in Washington.

America, between cultural sympathy and strategic enemy

Usakov's question received a personal answer, but revealing: “I do not hate Russia. I sing Russian folk songs. I read Russian literature. I hoped in an open Russia.” But that Russia no longer exists. Neither in the mind of Usakov, nor in the official Kremlin strategy. It all came back to the idea of a hostile West and a Ukraine who “belongs” to Russia.

Despite the tensions, Usakov continued to maintain contacts by 2022, when the open war in Ukraine cut off any dialogue bridges. In the meetings from 2015–2016, he was already fascinated by Donald Trump. He called him “fresh” and seemed to see in him an alternative to the old international liberal order. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump seemed a “disruptor” that could be understood – and may be manipulated – by Moscow.

Trump: Strategic opportunity or unpredictable risk?

Today, even Putin's loyal counselors seem to have doubts. Trump, they say, is neither the perfect enemy nor the reliable ally. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Because it changes the position from one day to another. And Russian diplomacy, trained in patience and cold calculations, is afraid of chaos.

More and more voices from Russia-among them, and some of Putin's circle-begin to look at JD Vance Vice President as an option for the future. An authentic isolationist, who could-one day-really take the US outside NATO. Russia plays long -term.

Ukraine – the red line of the Kremlin

As for Ukraine, there is no real debate to the Kremlin. Ukraine is, in the vision of Putin and its counselors, including Usakov, an inseparable part of the “Russian world”. NATO has nothing to do there, and the loss of Crimea or Donbas is not negotiable. This dogma is now official – taught in schools, presented on state television, mentioned in briefing notes for the Alaska summit.

American diplomats can hope in a compromise. But they do not seem to understand that it is not about the territories, but about identity. Russia wants to win at the table of negotiations what could not impose on the battlefield: a subordinate Ukraine, a fractured West, a multipolar world in which America no longer dictates the rules.

A homogeneous team versus a fragmented administration

Putin has people like Usakov – veterans of the US relationship, old school diplomats, well connected and perfectly aligned. The Trump administration, on the other hand, remains an improvised team, without real expertise on Russia, dominated by a transactional vision of geopolitics. When they talk about Ukraine, they use terms of “real estate”, as if it were a sale of land, not a confrontation of civilizations.

Kremlin's long game continues

For Russia, the Alaska summit is not a diplomacy test, but a stage in a wider project: withdrawing the Western influence from the former Soviet space, rewriting the international order and, perhaps most importantly, the resuscitation of the Russian imperial dream. Without Ukraine, this dream remains impossible.

And as long as Putin are people like Iuri Usakov – loyal, pragmatic, but deeply convinced that America is the enemy – nothing is truly negotiable.