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.
Dmitri Trenin is director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and chair of the research council and Foreign and Security Policy Program.
