“I’m not going to start any wars, I’m going to stop them,” Donald Trump has stated in his first speech after winning the American elections on Tuesdaywith a much larger lead than the polls predicted. This phrase is undoubtedly a statement of intent by the New York magnate, who is returning to the White House with a Republican turn to foreign policy. of the world’s leading power.
The war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, China and Russia trying to impose a new world order, the BRICS claiming their space, Africa moving further and further away from the West… all the hot spots on the planet are looking at the US and the analysts consulted by 20minutos agree: international geopolitics will not be the same with Trump as with Kamala Harris.
The war in Ukraine
Trump could force Zelenski to negotiate peace at almost any price and taking heavy losses.”
Trump has gone so far as to claim that he will end the war in Ukraine and has made no secret of his close relationship with Vladimir Putin, who surely longed for a victory of the Republican candidate, says American Adam Dubin, professor of International Law at Comillas Pontifical University: “Trump is very skeptical about intervention in Ukraine and will be less supportive of Zelenski. His presidency may mean the U.S. to stop sending arms to Kiev.while with Harris we would have seen a continuation of Joe Biden’s policy, he might even have authorized the shipment of new types of weapons and aircraft, something the Ukrainian president has been requesting for two years.”
Carlos Sanz, professor at the Diplomatic School of Madrid and the Complutense University, agrees that Trump can accelerate the end of the war, although at the cost of Ukraine’s interests: “He will surely cut financial and military support to Ukraine and even loosen sanctions on Russia to force Zelenski to negotiate peace at almost any price and assuming great losses. Trump believes in a policy of America first (America first) and thinks that Ukraine is not his war. He is not interested in the expense to the American people and believes that the U.S. has nothing to gain.”
“It’s very curious that the Democratic party is now playing the role that the Republicans have historically played vis-à-vis Russia. With Ronald Reagan and other presidents, they had always had the Soviet Union as the great enemy of the U.S., but that all of a sudden changed with Trump and republicans are now more pro-Russian than any administration in modern U.S. history. The Democratic party has become the most belligerent against Putin’s Russian expansionism,” Dubin stresses.
The conflict in the Middle East
Trump’s support for Israel will be unconditional, even authorizing an attack against Iran, while Harris would have tried to calm tensions a bit”
“Trump has always defended Israel’s right to self-defense and will surely will give Netanyahu more leeway to increase his aggressiveness, even authorizing an attack against Iran. His support for Israel will be unconditional, while Harris would have tried to calm tensions a bit and increase dialogue, precisely what Biden, who in recent months had been quite critical of Netanyahu, was doing,” says Professor Dubin.
He points out that “the lobby Jewish lobby, which has always played an important role in the U.S. administration,” is funding Trump: “He has a lot of Jewish support, which has donated millions of dollars to his campaignprecisely because they believe his support for Israel will be more resolute. I even know Jewish people, lifelong Democrats, who have voted for him.”
However, Carlos Sanz believes that there will not be too much difference with respect to their policies in the region: “Perhaps Trump will be even more supportive of Netanyahu and disengage from the humanitarian aspect of the war, whereas Harris would have tried to make both compatible, but US support for Israel will be maintained as it has been.” Nor does he see Trump escalating the conflict to open war with Iran: “During his four years in the White House he didn’t get the US into any war, which is already a record, and I don’t think he has any particular interest now in starting one against Iran.”
José María Peredo, professor at the European University, also believes that “the US priority alliance with Israel will be maintained without major divergences”, except for some nuances: “There may be differences in terms of Kamala Harris’ greater sensitivity. towards Palestinian rights and the two-state solution, an idea she herself had advocated in the campaign, while Trump will return to the pre-conflict situation, to push for Abraham Accords to improve Israel’s bilateral relations with neighboring countries and to isolate Iran in the region.”
China’s superpower and the Taiwan tinderbox.
Harris would maintain military support for Taiwan, while Trump would be willing to let it fall into China’s hands.”
“Both Trump and Harris are focused on China as the most important strategic rival of the US,” says Peredo. However, he predicts that Trump will intensify competition with Beijing: “He already pursued a very confrontational strategy during his first US presidency and initiated a trade war that is likely to be reproduced. It is likely that increase tariffs on Chinese goods and to impose restrictions on the export to China of advanced or security-related technology, while limiting the import of such Chinese goods. In that regard, I see Trump as more aggressive than Harris, who would not be as protectionist.”
“It’s interesting because with Trump there will possibly be an escalation in the trade war, with more protectionist policies against Chinese imports and even legal action against some of their tech, but, on the other hand, Trump has implied that the fate of Taiwan is not in the interest of the U.S. and I believe it would be willing to let it fall into the hands of China, in the event of a more or less forceful attempt at reunification by Beijing,” Sanz explains.
“Kamala Harris would have maintained military support for Taiwan sending a deterrent message to China that an attack on the island would mean a conflict with the US. I think if China could vote in the US election, it would have surely voted for Trump,” he stresses.
Africa and the rise of jihadism in the Sahel
The US has shown that it does not have much interest in Africa. Trump went so far as to refer to African countries as ‘shithole'”
Adam Dubin, who has been an advisor on Human Rights in sub-Saharan Africa, argues that “the US has shown that it doesn’t have too much interest in Africa because in recent decades Russia and China have been gaining economic and military influence” in that continent. “I remember that Trump went so far as to refer to African countries as. shithole (shithole countries) and Biden hasn’t had too prominent a strategy, either,” he says. In that regard, he believes Trump “could further reduce” the U.S. presence in Africa. “In general, the US is a bit lost in its Africa policy, it doesn’t quite know what to do,” he stresses.
“Yes, the trend I think will remain the same. Perhaps the disconnection with Africa will accelerate with Trump because of his vision of America fistbut Harris would do something similar, perhaps in a more gradual and multilateral waytaking into account the priority interest that European partners have in the Sahel zone,” agrees Sanz.
Peredo also mentions the emerging power of the BRICSthe forum of emerging countries that has just met in Kazan with Putin as host: “Relations with the non-aligned countries will be important and he will seek an understanding through bilateral agreements with some of themwith those who are not part of the anti-Western alliance promoted by Russia, China or Iran”.
Venezuela and the relationship with Latin America
The US is interested in an enemy in America, it is good for it that Maduro remains in Venezuela to maintain the anti-communist discourse”.
José María Peredo points out that for the US “it is important to recover its presence in Latin America” and considers that “Kamala Harris was a better asset because, as vice-president, she had already carried out representation tasks in different countries and had already been in Venezuela”. she knows the Latin American reality betterwhile Trump is closer to populist characters such as Milei or Bolsonaro”.
“Regarding Latin America, what really matters to the U.S. is illegal immigration, a highly politicized debate in U.S. society. Trump has talked about mass deportationsHe advocates pushing for his famous border wall and may press Mexico to better control its border,” says Sanz.
Along these lines, Peredo shares that Mexico is a fundamental country for the US. “for the control of immigration and drug trafficking.” and reiterates that Harris “because of her experience and Californian character” would have had “greater sensitivity to Latino minorities” and a better relationship with the new Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum.
Putting the focus on Venezuela, Professor Dubin does not believe that the pressure on Nicolás Maduro will increase after Trump’s victory: “To a certain extent, it is in the US’s interest to have an enemy in America, which historically had always been Cuba. I think that even it is good that Maduro is still in Venezuela in order to maintain the anti-communist discourse. I don’t see the U.S. sending the CIA to destabilize the country even more”.
The future of NATO and ties with the EU.
Trump has gone so far as to threaten to pull the U.S. out of NATO, he is not willing to continue paying the cost of Defense to European countries.”
Sanz and Dubin warn that Trump may jeopardize the future of the Atlantic Alliance. “He has reached threaten to pull the U.S. out of NATO. because it is not willing to continue paying all the defense costs of European countries. That would be a major debacle, but with Trump we can expect all kinds of unilateral actions without counting on his partners,” says the Complutense professor.
“Last week I was in the European Parliament and in Brussels I saw some fear of a Trump victory, a character they consider much more aligned with the concept of ‘strong leader’ embodied by Viktor Orbán or Putin,” says Dubin, who points out that Trump not only “could start to reduce funds in NATO”, but also “sees the European Union as a a threat to the US economy and has an interest in weakening it.”