In just a few days, on 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States. At 78, he will become the oldest person to assume the office. This marks not only his return to power but also the beginning of his second term, following his first presidency from 2017 to 2021.
It has been little more than two months since the 2024 presidential election on 5 November, yet in that short time, Trump has outlined bold plans for his upcoming presidency. He has promised to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, broker peace in the Middle East, and push forward his broader geopolitical agenda. According to the Associated Press, Trump intends to sign over 100 executive orders on his first day in office.
In light of these developments, The Ukrainian Week spoke with American political analysts to explore what the U.S. can expect from Trump’s second term and what his policies toward Ukraine and Russia are likely to look like.
Chris Edelson, Assistant Professor at the American University (Washington), researcher of the U.S. presidential national security power, writer:
– Why didn’t the ‘Civil War’ happen?
– Despite concerns that the US election could spark unrest, the situation within the country appears stable. The matter is that the forces of violence in the US come mainly from the right—as we saw, most centrally, on January 6, 2021 (storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters following Joe Biden’s victory in the elections, – Ed.). Вut also in the El Paso mass murder in 2019 (American Patrick Wood Crusius published a “white” manifesto against immigrants, after which, on August 3, 2019, he shot and killed 22 people in a supermarket, – Ed.), the Pittsburgh mass murder in 2018 (11 were killed in a synagogue, – Ed.) , and the Charleston mass murder in 2016(9 people were killed, the attack was targeted against African Americans, – Ed.).
When Trump won the election, the motivation for violence from his supporters was removed, at least for the moment—there was, quite obviously, no need for another assault on the Capitol because this time Trump had won the election.
But the danger of violence remains. Trump has encouraged and condoned violence, and I worry that we could see more of this. Many of Trump’s supporters see his political opponents as enemies (Trump himself uses this language), and the potential for violence remains.
– Historian Timothy Snyder suggested that under Trump, the U.S. could follow Russia’s lead and become an oligarchy. Do you agree?
– It’s a mistake to view Trump in terms of stability or evaluate him by conventional standards. He’s a bully who seeks to intimidate those he perceives as weak.
As a reality TV star and celebrity, he’s unfit to hold a position of public trust, and he demonstrated this during his time in office—whether in his botched response to the pandemic or his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in the horrifying attack on the Capitol.
What can we expect from the U.S. in terms of domestic policy? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that presidents are largely immune from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in office, meaning the rule of law is broken in the U.S. Trump is a man defined by corruption. Under his leadership, the U.S. will be a government centred around one person—Trump—who will dispense favours to his friends and allies while using government power to punish or intimidate his critics and perceived enemies. Elon Musk has become a central figure in shaping the agenda for the new administration.
– The cornerstone of Trump’s agenda is immigration. What can immigrants expect?
– Trump has called immigrants animals, has lied about immigrants eating pets, and blames them (unfairly) for many of society’s ills. Many of this supporters are energised by this and are eager to see deportations. I expect that we will see at least some of this—I do not know on what scale, but we will find out soon. Many immigrants are understandably deeply worried, as Trump has demonised them and there is the potential for violence against immigrants—both from the government and from Trump supporters. In this sense, Trump’s plans are very, very serious.
– Will Trump actually be able to buy Greenland and annex Canada?
– Trump is ill-suited for geopolitics and is likely to blunder through it. If we look at his actions during his time in office, we see that he pulled out of a deal that seemed to be successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That was a disaster.
In foreign policy, Trump is in way over his head, but others have told him he knows what he’s talking about, which has only emboldened him to spout whatever nonsense comes to mind.
The real danger with Trump is that he’s been made president. He talks about taking Greenland and the Panama Canal, and it’s unclear to me whether he means by purchase or force. He’s also mentioned making Canada part of the U.S. I’m not sure whether he’ll act on any of these ideas, but I’m concerned about whether they could lead to U.S. aggression, either through intimidation or the actual use of force. One can imagine Trump imitating Putin (whom he admires) by pursuing expansion. I don’t know for sure if this will happen, but it’s certainly worrying.
Overall, we can no longer count on the U.S. as a reliable ally for democracy or as an actor supporting the international order based on the rule of law and a rejection of wars of aggression.
– What will Trump’s stance on Russia be?
– In the past, Trump has praised Putin for his decision to invade Ukraine. Trump seems to defer to Putin and to see him as a role model. Trump is in over his head when it comes to geopolitical matters, and Putin knows this.
The other problem is that Republican party has, almost without exception, fallen in line behind Trump—which means many Republicans are attracted to Putin and skeptical of the need for the US to support democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine. Again, it is reason for concern.
I do not know how that will play out. But there are some Republicans who understand what is at stake and perhaps that will matter.
The most we can hope for is that there will be some competent people in government who can guide him away from serious mistakes. This was often the case when he was in office before, but he has shown that he seeks to install loyalists in top positions—people who are loyal to him, rather than competent, experienced people.
A very powerful office has been given to a man who is completely unsuited for the job and plans to surround himself with a mixture of sycophants and conspiracy theorists. This is madness, and will be a very challenging situation for other countries. It is something that dictators like Putin, Xi, Kim, Orban, Erdogan and others may seek to exploit.
Christopher J. Devine, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Dayton, Ohio:
– Why were the elections in the U.S. held without widespread unrest, and why is there none even before the inauguration?
– It is likely that if Donald Trump had lost, there would have been a violent response of some sort at least as significant as what we saw on January 6, 2021. This is because Trump almost certainly would have denied, as in 2020, that he lost, and many of his supporters would have followed along. Democrats, however, readily accepted the outcome of the 2024 election, even though they were unhappy about it. That is why there is a peaceful transfer of power taking place in the U.S. right now.
– Many people are worried about the influence of Elon Musk and other major industrialists on Trump. What’s your take—how serious is this threat?
– These are big questions which we can only speculate about at present. The important thing to remember is that Trump, as president, is constrained by the U.S. Constitution. He cannot simply appoint oligarchs to power; at best, he can nominate cabinet secretaries and other high-level officials, subject to Senate approval.
– Historian Timothy Snyder draws a comparison between the situation in the U.S. and Russia. He suggests that oligarchs might be using Trump, much like Boris Yeltsin was used in Russia, to consolidate their power. After that, they could replace him with someone else, carrying out an “heir operation” in an American style.
– Trump is prevented from seeking another term as president. If there is a fundamental threat to the constitutional order, he will be forced to hand over power to someone else. I suspect such a threat would come in 2028, when Trump is at the end of his term.
– How serious do you think Trump is about “purchasing” Greenland from Denmark?
– It is unclear what Trump’s true intentions are regarding Greenland. I’m not even sure that he understands how such an acquisition would work; he seems to think Denmark simply can turn it over to the U.S., without any input from the people of Greenland.
I suspect this is a combination of publicity-seeking on Trump’s part, and a message to international foes and allies alike that he is so unpredictable in foreign affairs that they ought to tread carefully.
Perhaps it is a signal to Russia, specifically, of his determination to dominate the Arctic. Or perhaps he is more interested in mining opportunities in Greenland. Or it could simply be that this is a very large, proximate territory that would represent a significant growth in the size and power of the United States. It is just very difficult to get inside Trump’s mind, nor should one assume that he is acting on a particular logic or strategy.
– Some believe it’s in Trump’s political interest to continue supporting Ukraine. After all, he needs to offset the humiliation of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he’s also tied to, as the troop withdrawal negotiations began during his presidency.
– I continue to follow the war in Ukraine closely, and with great concern. As my responses will show, unfortunately, I don’t expect Trump’s election to be favourable for Ukraine’s interests. It’s painful to watch this unfold from here.
Sadly, I don’t believe Trump cares about the interests of the Ukrainian people. Given his past statements and behavior, it’s also possible he may be more sympathetic to Putin’s interests—though it’s hard to say for sure. I think Trump’s primary motivation regarding the war in Ukraine is simply to end it and claim credit for bringing “peace.”
He promised during his campaign that he would end the war immediately, making it, in his view, a matter of ego. With the U.S.’s leverage over Ukraine, he may be able to force a bad deal simply by threatening to withhold future financial and material support.
This, of course, would be tragic for the Ukrainian people. But Trump’s track record in politics gives us little reason to believe that he will be motivated by morality, justice, or even the interests of the American people, let alone Ukrainians. I think he sees the war in Ukraine as he sees nearly everything else—as being about him, first and foremost. His interest is in getting a deal done to end the war; sadly, I don’t think he really cares about the specifics.
Grant Reeher, Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University:
– Predictions that the presidential election would divide the U.S. didn’t come true. Does this suggest the country is more stable than expected?
– That’s a sharp observation. I think there are two main reasons. First and foremost, the alarmist forecasts were often deliberately exaggerated to make political points. This is the most extreme example of broader messages like “democracy itself is on the ballot” or the claim that 2024 was an “existential election.”
Second, the domestic risk likely comes more from the right than the left (though both extremes contribute), and in the elections, the party on the right won across the board. So, in a way, there’s less reason for these attacks. However, that factor is much weaker compared to the first, as both extremes don’t need an electoral excuse to strike. Ultimately, I think the risk was overstated. Touch wood!
– Immigration is one of Trump’s most sensitive issues. What can we expect, and how might this impact the U.S.’s relations with other countries?
– Look for a serious and sustained effort on immigration and border security. If there’s one promise Trump needs to deliver on, it’s this one. I doubt you’ll see the level of expulsion of illegal immigrants that is being promised, but I do expect there to be some serious changes regarding border security, going forward. If the border with Mexico can be better secured, this will help the security of both countries.
I don’t see this, in itself, greatly affecting the rest of our foreign policy or relations with the world. It will certainly affect our relations with Mexico and Central America, however.
However, it is unlikely that the U.S. will interfere in Mexico’s internal affairs. The governance issues in Mexico run so deep that it’s doubtful any U.S. president could offer meaningful assistance. Addressing them would require massive aid, significant government reforms, and a sustained fight against the cartels. Mexico would likely resist such an extensive intervention, and the U.S. public would be unwilling to fund it or send troops—assuming they would even be welcomed by the Mexican government or its people.
– And what about Greenland – the proposal to buy it from Denmark? Clearly, this ties into the race for control over the Arctic. Despite the Russian fleet being in relatively poor condition, it still seems more formidable than the American one.
– I’ve read more in recent years about the importance of the Arctic, but I doubt that Trump is motivated by those strategic considerations in this case. It strikes me as more ego-driven. If, somehow, this could be pulled off, Greenland would be a lasting legacy of Trump as president. I can’t see inside his head, but I imagine he’s thinking of this as some kind of present-day version of the acquisition of Alaska, and maybe even contemplating something like “Trumpland” for a new name!
– Much like with Iran, when he pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear deal, one might say Trump is determined to do things his own way, reshaping the global security system.
– There’s an opportunity here for the U.S. Pulling out of the deal gives President Trump a chance to negotiate a new one, though relations have soured since Obama secured the original agreement. Politically, he could pitch this to his right-wing as an improvement over the original deal, one that better controls Iran’s influence.
What worries me about his foreign policy, beyond whether I agree with some of the key directions he’s outlined, is the quality of the team he’s putting together in the White House. Many of the most important positions are not being filled by the best and the brightest, to borrow a phrase from a book about the Kennedy/Johnson administrations.
That could hurt him—and the U.S.
This post was originally published on here
