Trump's Crew Sets Up New Order

‘Barack never took Putin seriously. He screwed it up’ - Joe Biden was to say that about the 44th US President Barack Obama. Biden was referring to Obama's mild and inadequate response to the Russian annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014. The current (still) president is quoted, in a tone negative to Obama, by Bob Woodward in his acclaimed book “War”. Biden was said to have identified Barack's position as one of the reasons that ultimately led to the Russian full-scale assault on Ukraine in 2022.

However, after nearly three years of Russia's war on Ukraine, to which the US has given a helping hand (not without an intertest, of course), it seems that the 82-year-old Biden will be ending his term with a rating similar to that given by Biden himself to his younger colleague. He could have done more, however, he did not.

The Ukrainians, although grateful to Biden for his multi-billion dollar aid plan, were slowly coming to the conclusion that they were in for a slow, long, but in time - death with a Democratic administration. There was little indication that Kamala Harris, who heralded the continuation of Biden's policies, would bring any breakthrough.

Therefore, when Donald Trump won in America on 5 November, some people in Ukraine welcomed the result with a certain amount of optimism. This sounds rather absurd, given that the Republican, during his campaign, repeatedly called Zelensky a ‘best salesman’, sent various signals towards Putin and, most importantly, assured that he would bring peace ‘in 24 hours’, which would de facto end with the division of Ukraine.

Trump, however, brings with him an attribute that gives Kyiv a shadow of hope: unpredictability. The new president is disrupting the existing order, and Ukraine needs a change. This does not mean, of course, that he will suddenly change his course towards Kyiv, but under certain circumstances (more on this later) it creates some opportunities for the Ukrainians.

Trump's gang, with the slogan 'America First' on its lips, has one primary target: China. Almost all members of his potential cabinet are 'China hawks' who see Beijing as the absolute foreign policy priority to which all others must be subordinated. And that means downgrading US engagement in every other part of the globe. But will they all be dancing to the American tune? Will Moscow be on board with US terms? While Washington's plans may look favourable to Russia in theory, a closer look reveals some problems.

What does Donald Trump's new deck of cards look like? Let's just focus on the people who will have a real impact on the foreign policy of the Republican administration.

The name of JD Vance, the Vice President-elect, has been around for a long time. Initially an opponent, over time he became an ardent supporter of Trump. He became famous after the publication of his book 'Elegy for the Bidocs' ('Hillbilly Elegy') in 2016, in which he described the difficult experience of growing up in a working-class family in the Rust Belt region. The book became a bestseller and was made into a movie by Netflix in 2020. Vance has long been an advocate of ending the war in Ukraine as soon as possible, more on that later.

The following names only emerged after Trump won the election. Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida, will replace Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State. Blinken was one of the biggest anti-Putin hawks in the Biden administration (unlike Sullivan, for example). Rubio has turned his attention to China, which he has been talking about for more than a decade.

The extremely important position of National Security Advisor will be filled by Michael Waltz, following Jake Sullivan. Congressman, also from Florida. A National Guard colonel and former Green Beret. Also a 'China hawk'.

While these nominations were greeted with calm and some satisfaction, subsequent appointments began to cause increasing consternation. It began with the announcement of Pete Hegseth as a potential secretary of defence. While Hegseth is a war veteran and officer, and also works on behalf of US veterans, he is better known for his role as a Fox News television host. Significantly, Hegseth has so far paid less attention to strategic issues and focused more on fighting the woke culture, and this is most likely the purpose of his appointment - to remove those with progressive and left-wing views from the army.

In addition to Hegseth, the nominations of Max Gaetz for Attorney General and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence were astonishing. Gabbard, among others, has repeatedly expressed views in line with Kremlin propaganda.

However, it should be borne in mind that all of these nominations (except Waltz's) must first pass through the Senate, which is likely to happen at the end of January. Rubio's nomination should not be in jeopardy, but Hegseth, Gaetz or Gabbard may have trouble getting through the Senate, even though the chamber has a Republican majority. Some analysts have suggested that Trump was aware of this, and that the appointments were more about awarding loyalists than actually picking them. Time will tell who remains from this group. Almost certain to stay are Rubio and Waltz - two of the most important figures in foreign policy making. Hegseth, on the other hand, is likely to focus mainly on ideological values. This hypothesis may be partly confirmed by today’s information. Matt Gaetz withdrew his candidacy for Attorney General.

So, knowing these names, what can we predict about their plans for the world's three hottest flashpoints? Ukraine, China and the Middle East?

Let's start with Israel, where there is probably the least doubt. All three - that is Rubio, Waltz and Hegseth express full support for the Jewish state and its war against militant groups in the region, as well as a tough stance on Iran. In all likelihood, Netanyahu will be given even more leeway to "finish the job", as Trump himself put it. Rubio, when asked what he thought of the numerous Palestinian civilian casualties, replied: 'I think Hamas is 100 per cent to blame'. He has also made his opposition to a two-state solution known in the past. Waltz points out that seven American citizens are still being held by Hamas. Hegseth's position is less well documented, but also strongly pro-Israel.

But perhaps the most notable pro-Israel move is the appointment of Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the United Nations. Stefanik has long been critical of the international body. She has accused the UN of anti-Semitism for criticising Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in October called for a 'complete reassessment of US funding to the UN'.

All these facts point to a difficult four years ahead for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Hegseth said that in 2020, Iran can return to the table 'limping and begging'. The table in question is the negotiating table for the JCPOA, a nuclear deal that the previous Trump administration walked away from during its tenure. Both Rubio and Waltz recently stated that Israel should not be deterred from directly attacking Iran's nuclear weapons programme.

If Tulsi Gabbard's nomination is successful, it is worth recalling her stance on Turkish President Recep Erdogan, whom she has described as an 'Islamic megalomaniac who wants to establish a caliphate with himself as its supreme ruler' and who is 'helping ISIS'.

So the winner is one - Bibi Netanyahu, described by Niall Ferguson as the Bismarck of the Middle East.

Holding back the dragon

A major change, or rather a 'painful squeeze', is likely to come for the People's Republic of China. All three - Rubio, Waltz and Hegseth - are classic American hawks who see China as the greatest threat America has faced for decades. And it has to be said that the entire 'foreign policy' line-up has been largely determined by the 'China key'.

Rubio is the biggest veteran on the issue, having worked on China for 15 years. The future (most likely) Secretary of State was one of the first elected Republicans to speak out against US corporate executives who he said were seeking profits by collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party. The 53-year-old supports a ban on TikTok. He has also been more explicit than Trump about his willingness to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

In September, Rubio weighed in on China in a 60-page report analysing China's economic success and the Made in China 2025 campaign, highlighting Chinese growth in a number of areas - green technology, robotics or shipbuilding. The Republican seems aware of Beijing's many achievements, but also of its problems. As we can read in the report:

“Suppose today is the high-water mark of China’s power. Even in such an optimistic scenario, the CCP will still present a real, existential threat to American industry and workers for years to come. And Communist China will still be a more formidable adversary than any the United States has faced in living memory.”

In his 2023 Senate speech, he went on to lament that the greed of big business had contributed to China's rapid growth, which the CCP had exploited by stealing trade secrets and exporting authoritarianism around the world.

Waltz, on the other hand, argued in his essay in The Economist on 2 November, co-written with Matthew Kreoning, that Washington should reduce the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East as soon as possible in order to focus its full attention on China. Missiles sent to Ukraine or ships aimed at the Middle East could instead be directed at China, Waltz argued. Once stability is restored in Europe and the Middle East, America will finally be able to prioritise China. - Waltz's essay reads. He describes the situation between the US and the Chinese Communist Party as a 'cold war'.

Hegseth, for his part, has recently published a book, “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” - which is a manifesto against woke culture. While promoting the book, he instead said that 'China is building an army specifically designed to defeat the United States of America' and that the US is a decade behind and preparing for a war that has already been fought. He has also gone viral on X with recordings of him saying that the US loses every time in Pentagon war games and loses its aircraft carriers to Chinese missile attacks.

John Ratcliffe, who will take over as head of the CIA, has also described China as 'the greatest threat to the US and the free world'.

Looking at the profiles of Trump's inner circle, it is therefore not surprising to see his proposals to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports. As Reuters reports this time, the move could prove extremely painful for Beijing, citing data we covered in a recent episode on China. Opinions are divided, with some arguing that the tariffs could actually help China.

At this point, however, it is also important to note the presence of another person in Trump's deck - business baron Elon Musk. The eccentric billionaire, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, is set to take over the government's DOGE efficiency department. So Musk, although not directly linked to foreign policy, will be close to Donald Trump, just as he was during the election campaign. Musk, on the other hand, has something of an opposite view on China compared to Rubio, Waltz or Hegseth. He runs his businesses there, most notably Tesla, and has repeatedly called for cooperation with the Middle Kingdom, as opposed to calls for escalation. David Goldman of the Asia Times also expresses hope that the Trump administration's approach to China will be business-like, pinning his hopes on Rubio's expertise. The question, then, is which side of his entourage Trump will listen to. For now, all signs point to a strong crossover.

Ukraine at the altar of powers

Finally, we are left with Ukraine. This is where an analysis of the leading cards in Trump's deck ends with a bleak, at best, ambivalent result. While the first nominations - Rubio, Waltz or even Hegseth - could have been greeted with moderate optimism. Yet Tulsi Gabbard, is not an ally of Kyiv, to put it mildly.

It is important to note that when Russian tanks entered Ukraine most of the nominees expressed sympathy and declared the need to strongly support Kyiv, but over time the views of many have evolved and are now aligned with Trump's announced search for peace talks.

Rubio, two days after the outbreak of the war, called Putin a murderer and vested his sanity. After the November election, however, he said: I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong in standing up to Russia, but at the end of the day, what we are funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion, or that country is going to be set back 100 years.’

Waltz also expresses a degree of empathy towards Kyiv. He criticises the Biden administration, saying that the panic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the insufficient threat of retaliation against a Russian buildup against Ukraine led to the events of 22 February 2022. Today, however, like Rubio, he is of the opinion that peace talks are the priority and gives reasons why the Americans have the tools to force both sides to do so.

In the case of Ukraine, it is simply a matter of being sent to talks under the threat of halting arms supplies. In the case of Russia, it is the other end of the same stick. If you don't sit down for talks, we will increase arms supplies to Ukraine and we will also squeeze your gas and oil sectors,' threatens the new national security adviser. Faced with this pressure, Putin is likely to seize the opportunity to end the conflict. - Waltz concludes.

Hegseth, like the two above, initially supported Ukraine's rearmament. He called Putin a war criminal who wants to restore the USSR and called for accelerated aid to Kyiv. Later, however, he was heard to undermine the valididty of NATO.

By contrast, Tulsi Gabbard, the future director of national intelligence, had bought into the Kremlin's narrative from the earliest days of the war, accepting Russian claims to Ukraine as legitimate. She also claims that Ukraine should never join NATO and should remain neutral. She also claimed that there were chemical weapons laboratories in Ukraine - information that was spread by the Russian media.

Some comfort may come from the nomination of South Dakota Senator John Thune to lead the Senate. In previous statements, Thune has been vocal in his support for Ukraine. In March, when discussions were underway to approve a multi-billion dollar aid package for Kyiv, he stressed that 'America must not withdraw from the world stage'.

It is also hard not to notice Elon Musk's many tweets sympathetic to the Russian interpretation, in which the billionaire sympathises with the arguments put forward by Moscow. He was also the one involved in a conversation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, when the Ukrainian congratulated Trump on winning the election. According to sources, the conversation was "good".

What does all this mean? US foreign policy will be defined by China, and this is how Rubio and Waltz see it. Policy towards Kyiv will be derivative of that towards Beijing. The main conclusion is therefore one - freeze the war to focus on China.

A funeral march under Trump's baton?

How do Trump and his team plan to do it? Officially, nothing is known, but Alexander Ward for the WSJ has tried to provide some details. First, Russia would be expected to keep its territorial gains, i.e. about 20% of Ukrainian territory. It is unclear what would happen to Kursk, but from Moscow's point of view, it would be best to retake that part pending negotiations, otherwise it would probably have to be traded. In addition, Ukraine would be expected to give up its aspirations to join NATO for the next 20 years.

In return, the Americans would be expected to promise Kyiv enough weapons to guard against a potential Russian attack in the future, providing deterrence at the same time. Meanwhile, the border itself would become a demilitarised zone almost 1,300 kilometres long.

Who would guard it? Certainly not the Americans or UN troops, according to Trump. “We are not going to pay for it. Let the Poles, the Germans, the British or the French do it.” - a member of Trump's staff was reported to have said. The Ukrainians, however, would retain the right to assert their territorial claims through diplomatic means.

As brutal as this may sound, if it actually happened, Ukraine would be forced to engage in these talks. The disputant of Kyiv's fate today is Washington. There is, of course, the possibility that Kyiv will not agree to this, but without American weapons and support it could end up even worse. There is also talk of an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, but this is highly unlikely. The Americans would also have to agree to such a move (as the Ukrainians would still be dependent on them). It is also likely that the Russians will put this issue on the agenda during the negotiations, and given the attitude of Trump's team and the policy of limiting proliferation, they are more likely to be able to count on US support on this issue.

However, there may be some hope for the Ukrainians ... in the attitude of their arch-enemy. In theory, the plan benefits Moscow. It gives it the Donbass, Crimea and most of the Ukrainian coast, which can be 'sold' to the population as a great victory of SMO. It gives Russia time to rebuild its resources, regroup and think about the next step of military action (for no one is under any illusion that this will happen). It also provides, in theory, a 'neutral' Ukraine - which was the December 2021 objective.

But a closer look reveals a number of problems. First, the rearmament of Ukraine. It is difficult to estimate the scale of this, but if it is to be a deterrent to Russia, it could mean significant arms transfers. Second, Ukraine will not be idle during this period; it will be given the time and, most likely, the resources (not only from the US but also from Europe) to develop its own arms industry and military technologies (including ballistic missiles).

Third, the internal situation in Russia. Much depends on whether sanctions are lifted, how frozen Russian assets and the issue of reparations are dealt with. If all these issues are 'settled' by the Americans in line with Moscow's wishes, a temporary end to the war sounds more benign. But if the Russian economy continues to come under severe pressure, the problem will not go away at all, and may even grow.

Recently, the Russian Centre for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting published an analysis stating that "the current monetary policy carries an unacceptably high risk of triggering a recession. As a result of the Central Bank's actions, the Russian economy is actually facing the threat of stagflation - simultaneous stagnation (or even recession) and high inflation. “ Moreover, the end of this 'war economy' may not necessarily mean a recovery, but rather a deepening of the recession, since the country now relies mainly on arms programmes.

Not everything will be explained by the ongoing war. The country will put some of its labour force back to work, but most of it after the traumatic experience of war. The experience of other societies - particularly European countries after the First World War - shows that hordes of demobilised soldiers and unemployed defence workers are a recipe for political instability.

In other words, it is not easy to stop a country which pushes all its resources towards war. With its momentum, it will naturally continue to search for one. If the drive ends in a rotten peace that also displeases Moscow, Putin's regime could find itself trapped in the bubble of an extremely militaristic, decrepit state that cannot find an outlet for its 'war pump'.

Add to this the fact that, from Moscow's perspective, Kyiv would further entrench a 'hostile, fascist regime' which, albeit on a truncated scale, would also undermine the Kremlin's legitimacy and its legacy as heir to Kievan Rus'. There is also the question of 'Russian pride'. The Americans intervene whenever they like and say when should the most important war for us since 1945 end? This is a slap in the face for Moscow. This is not necessarily a key argument, because if such a solution suited Moscow across the board, it would be acceptable. But as we can see, it is not a black-white situation.

Let us not forget that the European Union and individual countries that are slowly developing their military capabilities will not disappear from the equation. At the beginning of 2022, they moved faster than the Americans to help Ukraine - we are talking mainly about Central and Northern Europe. Over time, the western part of the continent also joined in. The 'abandonment' of Ukraine by the Americans could, in theory, be an incentive to further motivate the Europeans to support Kyiv and invest in their own security more broadly - a trend that is also potentially negative from Moscow's point of view.

Overall, in a "peace" scenario, with the Russian economy in recession and many people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, it is reasonable to assume that Moscow will seek another conflict. It is unlikely to target NATO, i.e. the Baltic states, due to its current weakness, but the Caucasus, Central Asia or even Belarus could become its targets.

Trump's pattern of walking away from the JCPOA deal in 2018 offers some background. Trump went into the 2016 election with the announcement that he would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal as one of his main campaign themes. However, as Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute notes in Foreign Policy, "a policy review and phased approach that spanned 16 months took place before Trump left the JCPOA. It was not until October 2017 that Trump first decertified Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, and it took until May 2018—one-third of the way into his first term—to formally exit the deal. Moreover, when Trump did finally leave the JCPOA, his administration had a policy ready to implement: the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign. “

Of course, it cannot be assumed that the same will happen with Ukraine. The issue is even more pressing and the region less in line with Trump's sympathies, but this fact alone shows that it can take months to calibrate a great power's course. Meanwhile, as we have reported more than once, the Russians are capable of waging a war of this intensity for another year and a half, or 18 months - about as long as it took Trump to walk away from the JCPOA. A recent article in Foregin Policy, 'Russia's War Economy Is Hitting Its Limits', reminds us of this: "At some point in the second half of 2025, Russia will face severe shortages in several categories of weapons.”

As you can see, the situation is very complex. The so-called 'peace' will rest on the powder keg that is the Russian Federation. Of course, one can assume that the Americans, in line with the doctrine of the isolationist faction in Trump's cabinet, will lock both sides in a room, hand over their pens, walk out and close their eyes to what happens next. But the world doesn't work that way, and since everything is connected by an invisible thread, it will (sooner or later) force the Americans to react.

And so, slowly tracing we come to the source of this (not unfounded) Ukrainian hope. When the details of the draft peace agreement come to light, all these problems will come to the surface. Either a new approach to the Ukrainian question will emerge from them, or they will be imposed by force. But even then they will not go away. And if left unaddressed, sooner or later they will also take a toll on American interests - whether defined as American prosperity or American security. And then the cost of inaction will be decidedly higher, as was the case with Joe Biden's post-factum analysis of Barack Obama's actions in 2014.

Biden, who in the last weeks of his term decided to unblock the ban on attacking targets in the Russian interior using American technology. A very important decision, although, as with many actions of the democratic president - much too late.

Sources:

1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/08/trump-ukraine-russia-war-peace-deal-putin-zelensky/
   
2. https://x.com/OstapYarysh/status/1856583851897700424
   
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/12/trump-builds-hawkish-team-marco-rubio-mike-waltz
   
4. https://kyivindependent.com/marc-rubios-stance-on-russias-war-in-ukraine-what-we-know/
   
5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/12/rubio-trump-state-china-hawk/
   
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/us/politics/trump-rubio-secretary-of-state.html
   
7. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/11/politics/video/marco-rubio-donald-trump-cabinet-pick-digvid
   
8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/12/trumps-cabinet-here-are-his-picks-for-key-roles-elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-pete-hegseth-and-more/
   
9. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-taps-fox-news-host-who-said-us-must-stand-by-strong-ally-israel-to-head-pentagon/
   
10. https://www.newsweek.com/marco-rubio-five-times-he-spoke-out-china-1984357
    
11. https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0
    
12. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/13/7484208/
    
13. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/08/trump-ukraine-russia-war-peace-deal-putin-zelensky/