The "Reset" & The Reshuffling

An analysis of U.S. foreign policy, the Uranium One deal, and the shifting geopolitical landscape from 2009-2014.

Deconstructing the Uranium One Deal

The Uranium One controversy illustrates how a routine corporate transaction can become a political flashpoint. By examining the timeline and regulatory process, we can separate fact from fiction and understand the deal's actual context and scale.

Corporate & Regulatory Timeline

2007

Uranium One acquires UrAsia Energy. Founder Frank Giustra divests his entire stake, years before the controversial CFIUS review.

June 2009

Russian state-owned ARMZ (Rosatom) acquires a 16.6% stake in Uranium One, not through a cash purchase but in exchange for mining interests.

June 2010

ARMZ moves to acquire a controlling 51% stake, triggering a mandatory review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS).

October 2010

CFIUS unanimously approves the transaction. No single agency objected, meaning presidential intervention was not required.

U.S. Assets in Context

While Uranium One held rights to ~20% of U.S. licensed uranium production capacity, this figure was misleading. It represented a tiny fraction of global production, and no uranium was ever exported to Russia from these sites.

The CFIUS Approval Process

Approval is a collective, consensus-based security assessment, not a unilateral decision. All nine member agencies must concur for a deal to pass without presidential review.

Treasury (Chair)
State
Defense
Homeland Security
Energy
Commerce
Justice (AG)
U.S. Trade Rep.
OSTP
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
No objections raised by any member.

Autopsy of the U.S.-Russia "Reset"

Launched in 2009 to reverse a "dangerous drift," the "Reset" policy aimed for pragmatic cooperation on shared interests. It achieved significant early successes but ultimately collapsed under the weight of strategic disagreements, leading to a new era of confrontation.

New START Treaty

1,550

Deployed strategic warheads limit per country.

Afghan Supply Route

35,000+

U.S. troops transited via Russian airspace.

Iran Sanctions

UNSC 1929

Russia votes for stringent sanctions on Iran.

The Evolving Geopolitical Triangle

The "Reset" with Russia unfolded in parallel with the U.S. "Pivot to Asia," a strategy seen by China as a containment effort. The failure of the former and the pressure from the latter accelerated a deep Sino-Russian strategic alignment against U.S. primacy.

Intersecting Timelines (2011-2014)

Year U.S. Policy Action Sino-Russian Response / Alignment
2011 "Pivot to Asia" formally announced. Trust with Russia shattered over Libya intervention. China & Russia upgrade to "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership."
2012 Magnitsky Act passed, targeting Russian officials. U.S. deepens engagement in SE Asia. Putin returns, launches his own "Pivot to the East," prioritizing ties with China.
2013 U.S.-Russia confrontation over Syria deepens. U.S. challenges China's ADIZ. Xi Jinping's first foreign trip as leader is to Moscow, signaling deep personal and strategic alignment.
2014 U.S. & EU impose sanctions on Russia for annexation of Crimea. Russia & China sign a monumental 30-year, $400 billion "Power of Siberia" gas deal.

Sino-Russian Economic Alignment

Western sanctions in 2014 were a catalyst, pushing Russia to finalize massive energy deals with China, cementing an economic pivot to the East and creating an alternative to Western markets.

Legacy & Consequences

While the "Reset" achieved tactical goals, its strategic failure was profound. It did not create a stable partnership but instead contributed to a more challenging geopolitical landscape, solidifying the very anti-U.S. bloc it implicitly sought to prevent.

State of U.S.-Russia Relations

A comparison of the relationship across key domains at the start of the "Reset," its peak, and its collapse reveals a dramatic deterioration. By 2014, trust had evaporated and confrontation replaced cooperation on almost every front.

  • Solidified Sino-Russian Axis: An authoritarian bloc actively challenging the U.S.-led order.
  • Protracted Syrian Conflict: Diplomatic deadlock led to a humanitarian catastrophe and the rise of ISIS.
  • Dangerous Precedent: The 2014 annexation of Crimea set the stage for further aggression in Ukraine.