Fewer promises, more silence: Trump is preparing to govern
While the world heats up with bombastic statements about Ukraine, what causes discussion is an unexpected silence: that of Donald Trump. The president-elect of the United States was called into question by behind-the-scenes stories, rumors and media reconstructions, there was even talk of a phone call (later denied) with Vladimir Putinand did not comment on the maneuvers ofJoe Biden administration, now in its final weeks, and of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to authorize deep strikes with Western missiles on Russian soil.
Choices that have given rise to a multitude of consequences: from the formalization of theupdate of Russian nuclear doctrine, decidedly more aggressive, to the raising of tension by leaders such as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who evoked the world’s rapprochement with global war.
Trump’s silence is tactical and strategic. And to understand this we need to start from two assumptions. The first: the Biden administration is not reduced in executive powers due to the fact that it is outgoing. The second: to explain the pro-Ukraine moves of the outgoing president, the narrative of an otherness to Trump is often created which on many points exists more on paper than in reality. Let’s add to this a clear fact, and that is that foreign policy news often they are the sum of the comments on statements by individual leaders more than a presentation of facts. Trump, making no mistake, knows that the events attributable to him will be those that occur after January 20, the date of his inauguration. And as on the Middle East, in two months the world can change. Especially in a context like the Ukrainian one, where rumors about possible negotiated outcomes of the conflict are growing rekindling the competition on the field, making it difficult to understand, despite the harsh winter coming, what the situation will be in January.
After all, the war is itself a permanent armed negotiation: Each side, on the ground, tries to strengthen its position as much as possible by thinking about the kind of peace that will be most beneficial for its future. Should we perhaps be surprised by the fact that this armed negotiation has a more acute phase while politics finds itself taking back the hypothesis of a diplomatic end to the war? Not at all. For some time the hypothesis of an end of this type of war has been contemplated in Washington also in the democratic camp, and in a certain sense Trump’s silence also serves to remind us that the president-elect will find himself managing a war in Ukraine which will be first and foremost the result of the balance on the field.
There is a misunderstanding that Trump’s desire to put an end to the Ukrainian conflict involves selling out Kiev to Moscow, an erroneous perception that does not take into account the American desire to consolidate the vision of “peace through strength” also recalled by Volodymyr Zelensky in his post-election conversation with the tycoon.
If – and we repeat if: the facts will speak – Trump’s plan is to negotiate with Russia, even more so will Biden and Starmer’s move to open up to missile strikes to defend the Kursk pocket serve Zelensky to have a Russian territory to be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. Also and above all because the big dilemma for the incoming administration will be to understand whether…Russia wants negotiations! A stony guest of a discourse that too often tends to be simplified, Moscow is advancing on the ground slowly but inexorably, bombing the Ukrainian energy infrastructure, raising the bar in the atomic “rodeo” with the West. In this context, for Biden and Trump the worst thing to do would be to hypothesize a radical alterity between the two presidencies.
Putin, moreover, has no great illusions about the alleged ”pro-Russian” posture of a Trump 2.0, and it is known that his preference for the US elections would have been, before his withdrawal, a reconfirmation of Joe Biden, a leader whose leader he appreciated , in the rivalry, pragmatism and gradualism as well as the common understanding of the balance of power and the red lines that those who grew up politically in the Cold War can well understand. The unpredictability of the president-elect’s agenda, however, is known in Moscow. The first Trump, in office from 2017 to 2021, followed having left with the explicit desire for détente with Moscowhe ended up leading one of the most decisive administrations in recent American history in the fight against Russia. In Trump-one, the Pentagon unblocked for the first time the supply of lethal military aid to Ukraine, which received anti-tank missiles, machine guns and other assets while fighting pro-Russian separatists in Donbass. A decision taken directly by Trump, who worked to support Kiev, overcoming Barack’s prudence.
Furthermore, Trump has surpassed Obama in containing US adversaries linked to Moscow, scrapping Iranian nuclear deals, twice bombing Syrian loyalists of Bashar al-Assad, and planning a failed coup against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela; in the Trump era, trade sanctions against Russian institutions and economic entities have increased and Washington’s projection to attack European energy markets by exporting natural gas to replace Moscow’s blue gold has increased.
From this perspective, Trump’s silences have a wait-and-see value, they prefigure the evolution of the president-elect’s agenda in relation to the evolving situation and prevent The Donald from sow excessive expectations after those – numerous – raised during the electoral campaign (“I will end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours”) and after the victory against Kamala Harris (“I will end all wars“). The showman role is left to Elon Musk. Trump chooses a more institutional, therefore political, posture for himself. And this is not necessarily a bad thing, in future perspective.
How could the Biden administration’s decisions influence Trump’s foreign policy approach, particularly regarding Ukraine?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Foreign Policy Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have a special guest, Dr. Emily Hart, a renowned expert in foreign policy and international relations. We’re here to discuss the intriguing and somewhat unexpected silence of Donald Trump as he prepares for his return to governance. Dr. Hart, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Hart: Thank you for having me! It’s an interesting time in international politics, especially with Trump’s strategic approach.
Editor: Indeed, it is. The article mentions that Trump’s silence comes amidst bombastic discussions regarding Ukraine, particularly as Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer push for deeper strikes against Russia. Why do you think Trump has chosen this period to remain largely quiet on these significant issues?
Dr. Hart: Trump’s silence is tactical. He understands that any misstep or premature commentary could tie him to the increasingly complex dynamics surrounding Ukraine. By withholding comments, he allows himself the space to navigate those issues after his inauguration, when he will have the authority to shape policy directly.
Editor: That makes sense. The article also indicates that the Biden administration, despite being outgoing, retains considerable executive power. How might this influence Trump’s approach?
Dr. Hart: Exactly. The Biden administration is still making impactful decisions that will set the stage for the incoming president. Trump is carefully observing these moves, knowing that any immediate critique could backfire or tether him to the existing narrative that frames him as an adversary to the current administration’s policies.
Editor: Speaking of narratives, the article suggests that there’s an oversimplification of Trump’s intentions regarding Ukraine. People often assume that any negotiation he seeks would come at Ukraine’s expense. How do you see this misconception impacting public perception?
Dr. Hart: That’s a critical point. There’s a pervasive belief that Trump’s inclination toward negotiation implies a willingness to “sell out” Ukraine to Russia, which fails to recognize the complexity of U.S. foreign policy. Trump, like many politicians, is likely to advocate for a “peace through strength” strategy. He might pursue negotiations with Russia, but that doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty. The political landscape is more nuanced.
Editor: Right. And the article brings up a potential shift in balance, particularly the idea that the maneuvers of Biden and Starmer could actually provide leverage for Ukraine at the negotiating table, should Trump choose to pursue talks. How do you interpret this dynamic?
Dr. Hart: The ongoing military actions, particularly missile strikes on strategic Russian territory, can indeed serve as a bargaining chip. If Trump takes office with a strong position backed by the efforts of previous administrations, he may find that he has more leverage in negotiations. But this hinges on whether Russia is even interested in negotiations, which is an enigmatic part of the equation.
Editor: It seems like every move has multi-layered implications. The article also comments on Putin’s preferences regarding U.S. leadership. How might Trump’s previous relationship with Russia shape his administration’s foreign policy?
Dr. Hart: Putin’s previous interactions with Trump indicate a preference for stability and predictability, even if it appears to be in his favor. During Trump’s first term, he sought a détente with Moscow. The key will be whether Trump can balance his inclination for cooperation with the strategic realities that a more aggressive Russian stance poses today. Both he and Biden must navigate the intricacies of their relationships with Russia without underestimating its ambitions on the battlefield.
Editor: It sounds like we’re in for a complex and rather delicate balancing act in the coming months. As we draw to a close, what are the critical takeaways you think we should watch for as this new political era begins?
Dr. Hart: I believe vigilance regarding Trump’s foreign policy strategies will be crucial, especially his approach to Ukraine, Russia, and NATO alliances. How effectively he can navigate the existing geopolitical tensions while charting a unique course will be fascinating to observe. Furthermore, the evolution of U.S.-Russia relations will significantly influence global stability.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Hart. Your insights shed a valuable light on the complexities of international relations as we enter this new chapter. We appreciate your time and expertise!
Dr. Hart: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing how these dynamics play out.