The relationship between the US and Russia must be distinguished between that of the respective heads of state and their governments with what is the natural aversion that exists between the two administrations. The political affinity between Putin and Trump is well known, as is the Russian activity to promote the election of the current US president. However, there is a mistrust of much of the American administration in the broadest sense towards Moscow’s political action; this mistrust derives both from historical situations, which are also present in the opposite sense, and from the obvious geopolitical objectives of Russia, which are at the base of the Kremlin electoral and political programs. The visit of the American Secretary of State to the Russian Foreign Minister and, subsequently, to Putin, shows that the dialectic between the leaders of the two countries continues in a collaborative way, because both need to reaffirm a functional relationship to maintain their role in politics international. The USA is currently in difficulty on several diplomatic fronts: with North Korea they have failed to conclude an agreement that would have been significant, in Venezuela, considered within its own area of influence, Washington is not able to effectively affect favor of opposition to the caracas regime, the Iranian question risks going beyond the already dangerous level of tension underway for a bad management too conditioned by incautious allies and, finally, the relationship with the European Union undergoes continuous deterioration mettemdo in danger the normal and historical development of the transatlantic relationship. Trump has set up a policy of substantial isolation in the international arena, but has not been supported by parts of his administration so as to prevent unfavorable effects for the US and the difficulties for American diplomacy derive largely from these reasons. The relationship with Russia, although conditioned by different and often conflicting visions and interests, is essential to find a collaboration to resolve contingent questions and not oblige the US to make a first-hand but solitary commitment. Russia, on the other hand, needs to have a relationship with the greater power of the planet, which after the invasion of Crimea, has worsened significantly (but not so much for Trump, as for parts of the administration opposed to Moscow). The importance of good bilateral relations, as stated by the Russian Foreign Minister, is essential to prevent the tensions in the various regions from evolving into situations capable of altering the books on which world peace is based. This awareness can favor a resumption of much closer relationships, which can favor a mediation able to satisfy the objectives of both parties. In particular, the issues of Korean denuclearization, which is of strategic interest to the US, have been addressed, but for Russia it is essential, given the proximity to the Asian peninsula, the Venezuelan question, where Russia has expressed its opposition to an export of democracy through arms, of the Syrian and Ukrainian situation and, finally, of the Persian Gulf emergency, which continues to remain so, despite the American declarations of not wanting to embark on a conflict, which would be highly unpopular for Trump. If this visit by the Secretary of State can represent a rapprochement between the two powers, we must also consider the effects this will have on China, as an alternative subject to the USA, to which Russia seemed to have approached; Moscow, despite a framework of normal international dialectics, could play on two tables to exploit the complicated relations between the two countries, due to the ongoing trade wars. This could lead to questioning, but certainly not in the short term, a series of international assets including the Iranian one, the USA will probably not be able to make Moscow withdraw from the nuclear treaty, but a greater diplomatic action by Russia between the USA and Iran could force China to derogate from its principle of non-intervention in order not to renounce its role as a great power to which it also aspires in the diplomatic field. It will be necessary to wait for the developments that this approach, if it really exists, will be able to provoke.