“I’m not going to start any war, I’m going to stop them,” said Donald Trump in his first speech after winning the American elections this Tuesdaywith an advantage much greater than that predicted by the polls. That phrase is, without a doubt, a declaration of intentions from the New York magnate, who returns to the White House with a Republican turn to foreign policy of the first world 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 look to the US and the analysts consulted by 20 minutes match: international geopolitics will not be the same with Trump than with Kamala Harris.
The war in Ukraine
“Trump could force Zelensky to negotiate peace at almost any price and assuming great losses.”
Trump has even stated that will end the war in Ukraine and has not hidden his close relationship with Vladimir Putin, who surely desired a victory for the Republican candidate, according to American Adam Dubin, professor of International Law at the Comillas Pontifical University: “Trump is very skeptical about the intervention in Ukraine and will lend less support for Zelensky His presidency may mean. that the United States stop sending weapons to kyivwhile with Harris we would have seen continuity with Joe Biden’s policy, he could even have authorized the shipment of new types of weapons and aircraft, something that the Ukrainian president has been asking for 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 expense of Ukraine’s interests: “He will surely cut financial and military support to Ukraine and even , will loosen sanctions on Russia to force Zelensky 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 their war. He is not interested the expense it entails for the American people and believes that the US has nothing to gain.
“It is very curious that the Democratic Party is now playing the role that the Republicans have historically played against Russia. With Ronald Reagan and other presidents, they had always had the Soviet Union as the great enemy of the United States, but all that suddenly changed with Trump and Republicans are now more pro-Russian than any government in modern US history. The Democratic Party has become the most belligerent against Putin’s Russian expansionism,” Dubin emphasizes.
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 little.”
“Trump has always defended Israel’s right to self-defense and surely will give Netanyahu more leeway to increase its aggressiveness, even authorizing an attack against Iran. “His support for Israel will be unconditional, while Harris would have tried to calm tensions a little and increase dialogue, precisely what Biden was doing, who in recent months had been quite critical of Netanyahu,” says Professor Dubin.
It emphasizes that “the lobby Jewish, who has always had an important role in the North American administration”, is financing Trump: “He has a lot of Jewish support, which He has donated millions of dollars to his campaignprecisely because they believe that their support for Israel will be more decisive. “I even know Jewish people, lifelong Democrats, who have voted for him.”
However, Carlos Sanz believes that there will not be much difference regarding their policies in the region: “Perhaps Trump will support Netanyahu even more and ignore the humanitarian aspect of the war, while Harris would have tried to make both things compatible, but US support for Israel will continue like until now.” Nor does he see Trump escalating the conflict to an open war with Iran: “During his four years in the White House he did not involve the United States in any war, which is already a record, and I don’t think it is special now. interest in starting one against Iran.
José MarÃa Peredo, professor at the European University, also understands that “the priority alliance of the US with Israel will be maintained without major divergences”, except for some nuances: “There may be differences regarding the greater sensitivity of Kamala Harris towards Palestinian rights and the two-state solution, an idea that she herself had defended in the campaign, while Trump will return to the pre-conflict situation, to promote the Abraham Accords to improve Israel’s bilateral relations with neighboring countries and to isolate Israel. Iran in the region.”
The Chinese superpower and Taiwan’s powder keg
“Harris would maintain military support for Taiwan, while Trump would be willing to let it fall into the hands of China.”
“Both Trump and Harris have focused on China as the most important strategic rival of the United States,” says Peredo. However, he predicts that Trump will intensify competition with Beijing: “He already followed a very confrontational strategy during his first US presidency and started a trade war that is likely to be repeated. It is likely that increase tariffs on Chinese products and impose restrictions on the export of advanced or security-related technology to China, while limiting the import of Chinese goods with these characteristics. In that aspect, I see Trump as more aggressive than Harris, who would not be as protectionist.”
“It is interesting because with Trump there will possibly be an escalation in the trade war, with more protectionist policies against Chinese imports and even with legal actions against some of its technology companies, but, on the other hand, Trump has hinted that the fate of Taiwan is not in the interest of the United States and I think I 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,” explains Sanz.
“Kamala Harris would have maintained military support for Taiwan sending a dissuasive message to China that an attack against the island would mean a conflict with the United States. I think that if China could vote in the North American elections, it would surely have voted for Trump,” he emphasizes.
Africa and the rise of jihadism in the Sahel
The US has shown that it does not have much interest in Africa. Trump even referred to African countries as ‘shithole'”
Adam Dubin, who has been an advisor on Human Rights in sub-Saharan Africa, maintains that “the US has shown that it does not have much interest in Africa because in recent decades Russia and China have been gaining economic and military influence” on that continent. “I remember that Trump even referred to African countries as shithole (shithole countries) and Biden has not had a very prominent strategy either,” he says. In that sense, he believes that Trump “could reduce even more.” the North American presence in Africa. “In general, the US is a bit lost in its policy towards Africa, it doesn’t really know what to do,” he emphasizes.
“Yes, I think the trend 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, maybe in a more gradual and multilateral waytaking into account the priority interest that European partners have in the Sahel area,” Sanz agrees.
Peredo also mentions to the emerging power of the BRICSthe forum of emerging countries that has just met in Kazan with Putin as host: “Relations with non-aligned countries are going to be important and an understanding will be sought through bilateral agreements with some of themwith those who are not part of that 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 them that Maduro remains in Venezuela to maintain the anti-communist discourse.”
José MarÃa Peredo points out that for the US “it is important to regain presence in Latin America” ​​and considers that “Kamala Harris was a better asset because, as vice president, she had already carried out representation work in different countries and know better the Latin American realitywhile Trump is closer to populist figures like Milei or Bolsonaro.”
“Regarding Latin America, what really matters to the US is illegal immigration, a highly politicized debate in North American society. Trump has spoken of mass deportationsdefends promoting its famous border wall and could pressure Mexico to better control its border,” says Sanz.
Along these lines, Peredo shares that Mexico is a fundamental country for the EEEU “for the control of immigration and drug trafficking” and reiterates that Harris “due to her experience and Californian character” would have had “greater sensitivity with Latino minorities” and a better relationship with the new Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum.
Focusing on Venezuela, Professor Dubin does not believe that the pressure on Nicolás Maduro will increase after Trump’s victory: “To a certain extent, the US is interested in having an enemy in America, which historically has always been Cuba. I think that even It is good for Maduro to remain in Venezuela in order to maintain the anti-communist discourse. “I don’t see the US sending the CIA to further destabilize the country.”
The future of NATO and ties with the EU
“Trump has even threatened to remove the US from NATO, he is not willing to continue paying the defense costs to European countries.”
Sanz and Dubin warn that Trump can endanger the future of the Atlantic Alliance. “It has come to threaten to remove the US from 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 taking into account his partners,” says the Complutense professor.
“Last week I was in the European Parliament and in Brussels I saw a certain fear of a victory for Trump, a character they consider much more aligned with the concept of ‘strong leader’ embodied by Viktor Orbán or Putin,” says Dubin, who highlights that Trump not only “could start reducing funds in NATO,” but also “sees the European Union as a threat to the US economy and has an interest in weakening it.”