Donald Trump is challenging a fundamental notion at the core of American identity – the role of the U.S. as an unchallenged global leader able to intervene anywhere in the world in the name of democracy. Still, there is a chance that Trump‘s self-narcissism does not prevent him from exposing failures of the Hamiltonian-Wilsonian-Jacksonian consensus in U.S. foreign policy and articulating some essential points of a neo-Jeffersonian alternative.

But while the debate on what candidate’s policies and worldview may be more preferable for Russia continues, the overwhelming majority of the Russian political elite and expert community agree upon two things. First, the relationship in the White House is not one hundred percent defined by the person in the Oval Office. Second, since the current crisis between the two states has more profound roots and a long record of mutual grievances the relationship is unlikely to improve--while there’s plenty of potential for its deterioration.

Russian experts are one in thinking that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. But there is no consensus as to how Russia should react. Some argue that the security of Russia and its allies makes it imperative for Moscow to interfere in the conflict with massive aid to the Kabul government. Other experts feel that the threat to Russia from Afghanistan is grossly exaggerated. In the eyes of many, the two extreme positions in Russian politics could be reconciled by monitoring the situation in Afghanistan and attempting to defuse humanitarian tensions.

In its worldview, Russia is a great-power chauvinist and a hard-power athlete. Modern Russia is a status quo player focused predominantly on its nearest abroad. Neither Russian security priorities nor its resources compel Moscow to project power beyond one thousand kilometers from its borders. The basics of Russia’s security strategy are simple: keep the neighboring belt stable, NATO weak, China close and the United States focused elsewhere.