Global Implications of the US Election for Ukraine, Gaza, and International Conflicts

In February 2023, during a surprise visit to Kyiv to demonstrate solidarity with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, US President Joe Biden experienced air sirens. He subsequently recounted, “I felt something… more strongly than ever before.” He also stated, “America is a beacon to the world.” Global attention is currently focused on who will assume leadership of this self-proclaimed beacon following the upcoming US presidential election. The question is whether Kamala Harris will continue President Biden’s approach, holding the conviction that in “these unsettled times, it is clear America cannot retreat,” or if Donald Trump’s vision that “Americanism, not globalism” should guide the nation will prevail. The current global landscape features scrutiny over the significance of US international influence. Regional powers are pursuing independent paths, autocratic governments are forming their own partnerships, and severe conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and other regions are prompting difficult inquiries into the efficacy of Washington’s involvement. Nevertheless, the United States holds importance due to its economic and military power, and its prominent position in numerous alliances. I consulted several knowledgeable commentators for their perspectives on the worldwide implications of this highly significant election. Rose Gottemoeller, Nato’s former deputy secretary general, declared, “I cannot sugarcoat these warnings.” She added, “Donald Trump is Europe’s nightmare, with echoes of his threat to withdraw from Nato in everyone’s ears.” The defense expenditure of Washington constitutes two-thirds of the military budgets of the other 31 Nato members. Outside of Nato, the United States allocates more to its military than the combined spending of the subsequent 10 nations, which include China and Russia. Trump asserts he is employing tough tactics to compel other Nato countries to fulfill their spending objectives, set at 2% of their GDP; only 23 of the member nations achieved this target in 2024. However, his inconsistent remarks continue to cause unease. Should Harris be victorious, Ms Gottemoeller anticipates that “Nato will no doubt be in good Washington hands.” Yet, she also issued a caution: “She will be ready to continue working with Nato and the European Union to achieve victory in Ukraine, but she will not back off on [spending] pressure on Europe.” However, a Harris administration in the White House would need to govern alongside the Senate or the House, both of which might soon be controlled by Republicans, who would likely be less disposed to support foreign conflicts than their Democratic colleagues. An increasing sentiment suggests that regardless of who assumes the presidency, Kyiv will face mounting pressure to seek resolutions to the ongoing war, as US legislators grow more hesitant to approve substantial aid packages. Regardless of the outcome, Ms Gottemoeller stated, “I do not believe that Nato must fall apart.” She added that Europe will be required to “step forward to lead.” The incoming US president will be tasked with operating in a global environment facing the highest risk of significant power confrontation since the Cold War era. Comfort Ero, president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, informed me that “The US remains the most consequential international actor in matters of peace and security.” She further qualified this by stating, “but its power to help resolve conflicts is diminished.” Conflicts are increasingly difficult to conclude. Ms Ero characterized the situation by saying, “Deadly conflict is becoming more intractable, with big-power competition accelerating and middle powers on the rise.” Wars like that in Ukraine involve numerous powers, and widespread conflicts such as in Sudan pit regional actors with conflicting interests against one another, with some prioritizing war over peace. Ms Ero observed that America is forfeiting its moral authority. She explained, “Global actors notice that it applies one standard to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and another to Israel’s in Gaza. The war in Sudan has seen terrible atrocities but gets treated as a second-tier issue.” According to Ms Ero, a Harris victory “represents continuity with the current administration.” In the event of a Trump win, she noted he “might give Israel an even freer hand in Gaza and elsewhere, and has intimated he could try to cut a Ukraine deal with Moscow over Kyiv’s head.” Regarding the Middle East, the Democratic candidate has consistently reiterated Mr Biden’s strong support for Israel’s “right to defend itself.” However, she has also underscored that “the killing of innocent Palestinians has to stop.” Trump has likewise stated that it is time to “get back to peace and stop killing people.” Nevertheless, he has reportedly advised Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to “do what you have to do.” The Republican candidate asserts his role as a peacemaker. He pledged, “I will have peace in the Middle East, and soon,” during an interview with Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya TV on Sunday night. He has committed to broadening the 2020 Abraham Accords. These bilateral agreements established normal relations between Israel and several Arab nations, yet they were largely perceived as marginalizing the Palestinians and ultimately exacerbating the current unparalleled crisis. Concerning Ukraine, Trump consistently expresses admiration for powerful leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin. He has explicitly stated his desire to conclude the conflict in Ukraine, thereby ending substantial US military and financial aid. At a recent rally, he asserted, “I’ll get out. We gotta get out.” Conversely, Harris has declared: “I have been proud to stand with Ukraine. I will continue to stand with Ukraine. And I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.” However, Ms Ero expresses concern that global conditions might deteriorate regardless of the election’s outcome. Rana Mitter, a prominent China scholar, described Trump’s proposed 60 percent tariffs on all imported Chinese goods as “The biggest shock to the global economy for decades.” Levying significant charges on China and numerous other trade partners has been a consistent threat within Trump’s “America first” strategy. Yet, Trump also commends what he perceives as his robust personal relationship with President Xi Jinping. He informed the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board that military intervention would be unnecessary if Beijing attempted to blockade Taiwan, as the Chinese leader “respects me and he knows I’m [expletive] crazy.”