It seems that humanity has managed to turn back the clock to 2016. The sense of déjà vu that haunted me throughout November 6 was too strong: the US presidential election once again didn’t go according to plan, sociologists are scratching their heads in bewilderment because all their predictions have failed, American liberals are crying, internet trolls are gloating, Western Europeans are tense, and Russians are jubilant. At the center of it all is Donald Trump, president-elect again, preparing to turn the world upside down. For real this time.
The election results clearly showed that Americans were fed up with the old establishment and the strange progressive ideas of which Kamala Harris was an ambassador. The false public image created by the Democratic Party’s ‘political technology’ apparatus didn’t help her either. While Kamala was buying up celebrities and giving scripted interviews to loyal journalists under the watchful eye of her PR team, Trump was standing behind the fryer at McDonald’s, driving around Wisconsin in a garbage truck and chatting amicably with blogger Joe Rogan on his podcast. This eventually resonated with the nation, and for most, he was a more acceptable figure.
However, I will not dwell on the reasons for Trump’s victory. The more relevant question now is what his second term will be like. Should we expect something fundamentally new, or will it be a remake of his first rodeo, with managerial chaos, multiple investigations and endless clowning? And most importantly, how will his presidency affect Russia and the prospects for resolving the Ukraine conflict?
The short answer is that no one knows for sure because it is still unclear exactly what kind of environment the Trump presidency will take place in. The Republicans were able to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives, which is a positive, but we don’t know all the names of the people who will hold key positions in the White House. And they will influence his policies.
At the same time, there are indications that Trump’s new four-year term will at least be more meaningful than the previous one.
Firstly, no one will dare question the legitimacy of the elected president. In 2016, Trump’s victory seemed unnatural (Clinton won the popular vote). This led people to see his presidency as a failure of the system and to speculate about foreign interference. Now Trump has safely won both the electoral and popular votes. The Democrats are unlikely to dispute this.
There could be a flare-up of political tensions if Trump starts taking revenge on all those who have wronged him (which the Democrats are very afraid of). But I think a truce is more likely. The Democratic Party is facing a massive internal showdown, with a search for those responsible for its electoral woes. The president-elect has never been particularly eager to follow through on his threats (remember: Hillary Clinton wasn’t jailed).
Second, the Trump of 2024 is not the same as the Trump of 2016. Eight years ago, a somewhat naive businessman who thought running a government was as easy as building skyscrapers in Manhattan entered the White House.
Since then, however, Trump has matured politically, learned to compromise and completely taken over the Republican Party. The bitter experience of his first administration, filled with random and often disagreeable people, suggests that this time he’ll have a clear plan of action and a suitable team under him.
For Russia, the positions of Secretary of State and National Security Advisor are of particular interest. These are the people who will determine the foreign policy of the second Trump administration – and whether he will keep his promise to end the conflict in Ukraine.
There is the former US ambassador to Germany, Ric Grenell. He hangs out in European right-wing circles, opposes Ukrainian membership in NATO and favors the creation of ‘autonomous zones’ there (i.e. recognizing Russia’s control over the south-east). Grenell is being considered for Secretary of State or National Security Adviser – if he takes either position, it would be rather good news for us. It would be doubly good if other foreign policy positions were filled by people with similar views (Marco Rubio or Bill Hagerty).
There’s also Trump’s former national security adviser, Robert O’Brien. He’s also a contender for the top job, but is seen as a ‘hawk’. O’Brien supports military aid to Ukraine, and his selection could be a sign that potential negotiations between Moscow and Washington will be difficult.
Of course, whoever Trump picks, we should not expect a ‘‘ceasefire in 24 hours’ — that is, to put it mildly, an unrealistic exaggeration. But I believe that under him, serious settlement talks could actually begin in 2025. Well, at least there will be an attempt to start a peace process. The other question is what methods will the president use to achieve this? What will his proposal be and what will he ask of Russia in return for concessions?
But it is probably too early to speculate about that. For now, let’s look at the new US president-elect’s first steps.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team