This week, President-elect Donald J. Trump has made an unprecedented historic comeback. Truth be told, I wasn’t very fond of the man during his first term as POTUS (2016-2020); perhaps, it was mainly due to his conducting of politics in a purely business manner; but like so many others, it took me a Biden to appreciate Trump. If my memory serves me well, it was Seneca who said: “It is folly to say, ‘What I have said must remain fixed.’ There is no disgrace in having our opinions change with circumstances.”
For make no mistake, his admirable win reflects Americans’ profound resentment for and frustration with the self-righteous and lunatic wokeist establishment in the United States, that has over the course of the past four years destroyed the U.S. economy; embroiled the country in a huge money-laundering operation in Ukraine; and pushed the world to the precipice of a Third World War, which would have been inevitable had Trump not won.
The outsider’s perspective of the average global citizen, is that the United States foreign policy remains unchanged irrespective of who sits in the oval office. This absolutist view of the modus operandi of an omnipotent U.S. political establishment is somewhat unrealistic. True, the fate of countries like the United States and Russia cannot—as it should not [much emphasis added]—be left to the whims of a single individual nor to the swings of the popular sentiment. Notwithstanding, the presidency office in both countries has a considerable weight to throw in on major questions such as that of war [emphasis added].
Now, following the historical trend-line, it is safe to infer that the U.S. foreign policy proceed from the U.S. Russia policy. Hence, the overarching foreign policy of the United States is virtually formulated at the Russia Desk. That being said, let us start with the impact a Trump 2.0 presidency would likely have on the ongoing Ukraine crisis.
Perhaps it is best to begin with the following statement: unlike President Biden, no evidence has been produced thus far that would implicate either President-elect Trump or any person in his immediate circle in the Ukraine money-laundering operation. The Biden administration has poured billions and billions of taxpayers dollars in “military and defense aid” on the Ukrainian Clown Boy Zelensky, and has hubristically driven the country to what has been presumed as irreversible brinksmanship with Russia (prior to the elections result this week). Trump, however, has openly stated on multiple occasions that if he were elected he would definitely reverse course and mend the United States relations with Russia [emphasis added].
President-elect Donald J. Trump is first and foremost a businessman after all, who fully comprehends the futility of continuing to support the losing side in a conflict. In simple terms, he sees U.S. aid to Ukraine as a waste expense. More importantly still, thanks to the briefings he’s had on nuclear weapons during his first term as president, he came to understand the urge and need to maintain détente with Russia. In other words, Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) will continue to be President-elect Trump’s compass in navigating U.S.-Russian relations, as it was in the days of his first presidency [emphasis added].
The world can breathe a sigh of relief, now that both President-elect Trump and President Putin have expressed their openness and willingness for dialogue and cooperation vis-á-vis international security and world peace. Putin has congratulated Trump on his win and commended his courage while speaking at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club yesterday.
In a nutshell, my wager is that Trump will strike a deal with Putin that would—if not bring the Ukraine crisis to an end—ensure the discontinuation of the United States direct involvement and U.S. aid to the Ukraine.
As for the conflict in the Middle-East, Trump’s return to the oval office would probably embolden Netanyahu to press on with his war against Hezbollah, Iran, and their allies in the region.
“Donald Trump will as president give Benjamin Netanyahu a “blank check” in the Middle East, possibly opening the way for all-out war between Israel and Iran, the former CIA director and US defense secretary Leon Panetta predicted,” (Pengelly).
It is no secret that President-elect Trump values and praises resolve. Over the past few weeks, then Republican candidate Trump applauded Netanyahu for not giving in—or, “listening,” as he put it—to Biden’s request to step down in Lebanon. Simply put, he expressed his approval for Israel’s incursion into the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese south with the aim of neutralizing Iran’s crowned proxy in the region.
The Syrian file, nevertheless, would still be open for negotiations in order to address Russian interests in the country.
But, with respect to Hezbollah and Iran, it is highly probable that President-elect Trump would grant Netanyahu loose reins [emphasis added].
All that said, as per my prior analysis in, “Middle-East: War Is at Hand, What Is Next?” Further escalation in the Middle-East would present an opportunity for a quid pro quo exchange between the West/United States and Russia. The West would drop the Ukraine case in exchange for Russian concessions in the Middle-East. Such an exchange better serves Russia’s strategic interests than the alternative.
In fine, there wouldn’t be a dramatic shift in the United States stance towards the Middle-East to alter the current course of events. Moreover, I suspect President-elect Trump would love to see operation“The Returning Shah” through [emphasis added].
When it comes to East Asia, despite his erstwhile hardline stance towards China, President-elect Trump did make the effort during his previous term to keep the U.S.-China rivalry within the confines of trade and global economic hegemony. Insofar he is keen to undermine China’s growing economic clout on the international level, he is prudent enough as not to push their relations to the brinksmanship of war. Whether he would suspend defense aid packages to Taiwan or not remains unclear at this point.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Regarding North Korea, then President Trump has met the North Korean leader thrice back in 2019, the third time took place “few steps inside North Korean territory,” which has surprised Kim Jong Un, who then perceived it as an opportunity to put the “unpleasant past” behind; whilst Trump remarked that it was a great honor to have that meeting (Doubt).
President-elect Trump has always been outspoken about his concern of a nuclear exchange with any other nuclear power—whether such power enjoys a nuclear parity with the United States or not. One thing he has reaffirmed time and time again, and that is: he categorically opposes nuclear weapons, and hopes for all nuclear weapons to be dismantled [emphasis added].
Hence, the wager is that once in the oval office, Trump would certainly call South Korea to stand down and cease all provocations against the North.
This, in short, sums up my speculations as to how the returning President Trump would address strategic files in relation to key global theaters, such as: Ukraine, the Middle-East, and East Asia.
Related publications: “Trump’s Assassination Attempt, Netanyahu U.S. Visit, and Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony: Destroying the Possibility of Peace;” “Middle-East: War Is at Hand, What Is Next?” And, “From the Middle-East to East Asia: The Orchestration of a World War Face-off ”
Reference
Doubt, James. “Trump Meets North Korea’s Kim Jong Un And Says Nuclear Negotiations Will Resume.” NPR, 30 June 2019, www.npr.org/2019/06/30/737365074/trump-to-meet-kim-jong-un-at-dmz.
Pengelly, Martin. “Trump Will Give Israel ‘blank Check’ Which May Mean All-out War with Iran, Says Ex-CIA Chief.” The Guardian, 7 Nov. 2024, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/trump-blank-check-netanyahu-war-iran-panetta.
Be First to Comment