How Trump Can Revolutionize the World Order Through Four Conflicts international

Trump’s second presidency has the potential to spark a true geopolitical revolution. There is no certainty as to what he will do – given the unpredictability of character and the ambiguity of his campaign in some aspects – but available indications point towards possibly having a profound impact on international relations. This can happen at various levels, including obviously the business level. Furthermore, there are four struggles through which this influence can become transcendent and permanent. Two wars are in full development (Ukraine and the Middle East), while the other two are potential wars (Taiwan and Korea). Below an attempt has been made to present an analytical study of the available elements.

ukraine

During the campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasized two concepts: his desire to force a peace agreement and his unwillingness to continue paying for Kiev’s war effort. It has never defined the ideological characteristics of the first or the calendar of the second. It is possible that he too may not know exactly what he wants to do.

Ukraine and its partners hope the Pompeo Doctrine may prevail, with Trump’s former secretary of state proposing to force Vladimir Putin into at least a relatively reasonable agreement through a series of measures that would lead them to believe Will that it is not in their best interest to fight. These measures would include increased energy production (by the US and, ideally, Saudi Arabia) which would lower prices, increased military spending by NATO countries, strengthening the US defense industry, and a large loan – not non-repayable – aid. – To Ukraine. But, within the Trump universe, Pompeo is part of a minority conservative class that won’t necessarily be able to enact his principles. Another class, the isolationists, would insist on a very different policy. Trump, for his part, has said he would stop the war immediately, and is loathe to spend more money.

In the previous legislature, Republicans blocked approval of a new aid package for months under the influence of the Trumpist theory that it is absurd to spend so much American money in Ukraine. Ultimately, they gave the green light, in all likelihood because Trump understood that without that help the November presidential election would have resulted in Ukraine’s defeat and the Republican nominee universally held responsible for that debacle.

There is no doubt that Trump would not want to go down in history as the leader who presided over the complete collapse of Ukraine. But the balance between that and his America First policy is extremely complex when existing aid is already inadequate and Kiev is losing. It is possible that due to lack of political will there will be complete defeat.

The context is that European countries have made great efforts to support Ukraine in the event of an invasion, but US support is irreplaceable. Not only is the United States by far Ukraine’s number one military supporter (about 56 billion euros by 2022, compared with about 10,000 from Germany and the United Kingdom, according to Kiel Institute data), but it is the only country with the necessary intelligence. Ability to provide assistance and special abilities. The EU is far from having managed to raise its productive infrastructure to be able to compensate for the absence of earlier support from Ukraine. The United States, however limited, is an indispensable pillar.

On the other hand, the arrival of North Korean troops has given Putin a significant injection of strength. At the same time, he undoubtedly understands the hesitation and fatigue of his opponents. He will insist.

Complete Russian victory would be a historic change. But even an agreement that sanctioned a strong territorial reduction and curtailment of the foreign policy independence of what remains of Ukraine would be a geostrategic success for Russia that would not only have ramifications for the region, Rather, with understanding will come change in global relations. That Western democracies can be held back in matters of vital importance only by superiority of will. This would be a message with immeasurable impact globally: both to European allies, who would be directly touched by the reality of American isolation from the region, as well as to the entire galaxy of authoritarian regimes dissatisfied with Western primacy, which would be vulnerable to its weakening and Confirm the disintegration of relations between its main representatives.

middle east

Trump’s first presidency made clear his full support for Israel and its colonization plan, as well as his determination to redesign the map of the region, fostering alliances with Sunni monarchies , which will sideline the Shia axis. The Biden administration has provided heavy military support to Israel. They may get even bigger benefits from Trump at the political level.

A study by Brown University in the United States estimates that Washington has given Israel about $18 billion (€16.8 billion) in military aid between October 7, 2023 – the day of the infamous Hamas attack – and October 30, September 2024. . An addition to the annual supply of approximately 4 billion in recent decades. Israel’s brutally disproportionate response, an unbearable collective punishment, would not have been possible without all this. However inadequately and ineffectively, the Biden presidency has attempted to draw some boundaries and maintain, at least rhetorically, an attachment to the two-state solution. Now the situation may become even worse.

To begin with, Benjamin Netanyahu can count on more than two months of complete freedom from dealing with the outgoing and illegitimate US administration, until the new president is enthroned on January 20. He is likely to continue his campaign under the argument that intense conflict is his best guarantee of remaining in power. Then, you have a president who is very happy with illegal colonization and who broke up the nuclear deal with Iran that Barack Obama sealed and the Europeans wanted to keep. It is worth remembering that the Israeli Prime Minister recently made some veiled threats of regime change in Iran. Trump can put pressure on him to end the war and take credit. If this is the case, it is possible to expect a greater willingness on the part of the White House to make concessions in the face of Israel’s colonialist abuses and transactional relations with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni regimes, which would allow them a wider range of interests. action if in parallel they carry out large contracts for the purchase of arms – a plan previously seen emerging in the presidency.

This will have many consequences. This would not only undermine the Palestinians’ aspirations and their rights, but it would also push Iran further into the arms of Russia and China, and strengthen North Korea as well as the nascent Asian authoritarian axis.

taiwan

Although relations with China of the new Trump presidency will be marked from the beginning by tariffs that the United States may impose or new restrictions on access to sensitive technologies, an essential strategic point in the medium and long term will be the signals that the new President will send message from Taiwan

It should be remembered that Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated that the “rejuvenation” of China he seeks includes Beijing asserting control over the island. Biden has been the most outspoken US president to promise to defend Taiwan if it is unjustly attacked.

Although the desire to maintain the primacy of the United States over China is a central part of Trump’s speech – and coincidentally, it is the only bipartisan consensus in Washington – isolationist tendencies and reluctance to engage in combat operations are an essential part of his policy. . If Beijing perceives Trump as reluctant to activate itself to defend Taiwan, this could change its calculations about the opportunity for military action to subdue the island.

Korea

Close ties between Pyongyang and Moscow raise many concerns. The first reason is obvious: through military support for Russia, North Korea wants to receive assistance from the Kremlin in return – military technology, food, energy – and in general not to depend only on China, to expand its options, Likely to have triangular capacity rather than just bilateral. But some wonder whether the activation of this mutual war support clause is a move to strengthen the options for attacking South Korea. It’s unlikely, but it’s not fair to rule anything out, especially if the separatist wing prevails in the new Trump administration.

There is no certainty about what Trump will do. Neither of the worst-case scenarios may materialize. But his first presidential record and the recent campaign give the impression that – unlike what happened in 2016 – he will not surround himself with statistics. Establishment Republicans—who curbed his tendencies—. So he didn’t even think he would win, he didn’t really have a program or team prepared. This time it is different. This time, deep rifts in the network of alliances built by the United States after 1945 and frequent changes in the geopolitical landscape seem more likely.