What a Trump victory means for the world
Donald Trump’s mandate to lead the American public through the next four years is unequivocal but the implications for the rest of the world are much less clear.
For while the new-old president has done more to question the fundamentals of US foreign policy than any president in living memory, he has been surprisingly ambiguous about how he would replace it.
Among America’s foes, Russian officials and commentators have celebrated, Iran is believed to have been so worried that it plotted to kill him, and China remained tight-lipped.
Allies were split between an almost ecstatic leadership and public in Israel, to a nervous Nato, and Ukraine losing no time in launching a charm offensive.
So what does Donald Trump’s victory mean for civilians in Gaza, soldiers in east Ukraine, and all the rest of us who didn’t get a vote?
Ukraine
In his debate with Kamala Harris, Mr Trump notoriously refused to say he wanted Ukraine to win its war with Russia.
But he has also claimed that he will “get it resolved very quickly”.
Speaking alongside Volodymyr Zelensky in New York in September, he repeated that promise: “If we have a win, long before Jan 20th, before I would take the presidency, long before that, I think we could work out something that is good for both sides.”
Ukrainian soldiers watching the election results on a mobile phone screen in a cafe in Sloviansk on Wednesday morning were unsure exactly what that would mean.
“I think our future won’t depend only on Trump,” said Olekseii, a soldier. “There are other parties supporting Ukraine and those who stand against Ukraine. But I hope for their common sense and they will continue to help.”
But sources in Kyiv on Wednesday told The Telegraph they thought Trump might appoint an envoy to broker between Ukraine and Russia before the end of this month, and talks could be under way by December.
Mr Trump has been vague on how he would achieve any deal to end the war.
JD Vance, his running mate, has suggested that Ukraine should give up both occupied territory and military ambitions to join Nato in exchange for establishing a ceasefire.
That will be difficult for Ukraine to accept, and it is not obvious Russia would be interested in settling for the current lines when it seems to be taking more and more land.
Fears of cutting aid
The worst fear in Kyiv is that Vladimir Putin demands more land than he currently holds, that Ukraine refuses, and Trump allows Russia to press ahead with its offensive.
Even if the current line of contact were frozen, the question of who would police a ceasefire would have to be addressed. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) inspectors failed to effectively enforce peace after the first and second Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015.
Ukraine and its European allies are unlikely to resist Trump’s pressure for talks, because Trump would probably threaten to cut all aid if they did.
Instead, Volodymyr Fesenko, a Kyiv-based political analyst, said they would seek to make sure the talks, and whatever settlement comes from them, were as much in Ukraine’s favour as possible.
For example, Kyiv may accept that the path to Nato is blocked but ask for separate American security guarantees, akin to its deals with Israel and South Korea.
‘The worst-case scenario’
The charm offensive is already under way. Volodymyr Zelensky began laying the groundwork for such a scenario with August’s incursion into Kursk, and a meeting with Trump in New York in September. He followed up with a warm message of congratulations on Wednesday morning.
Wednesday’s result was far from the worst outcome, said Mr Fesenko.
“The worst-case scenario for us was a political crisis in the US: If the election had been closer, Trump had refused to recognise the result, and there was an internal conflict in America it would have been exploited by Russia, China, and everyone else. Aid for Ukraine would definitely have dried up.”
The second-worst option, Mr Fesenko said, would have been Kamala Harris winning the White House but the Republicans controlling Congress, resulting in legislative deadlock.
House Republicans blocked Joe Biden’s Ukraine aid for four months last winter, directly contributing to the Russian capture of Avdiivka and the advances it has made ever since.
For soldiers on the frontlines these are questions of life and death. But there’s not much to do but joke about them.
“So, Trump promised to end the war in a day,” Pavlo Kazarin, a columnist and soldier wrote on Facebook. “Our unit has ambitious plans for the weekend”.
The Middle East
At first blush, Trump has a straightforward attitude towards the Middle East crisis.
At an event dedicated to combating anti-Semitisim during the election, he vowed to ban refugees from “terror-infested areas like the Gaza Strip” and said: “If I don’t win, I believe Israel will be eliminated.”
Amit Segal, a commentator on Israel’s Channel 12, said: “In Israel in general, and in Netanyahu’s office in particular, Trump’s victory is met with great relief.
“The confrontation with the Democratic administration, which escalated to threats of a weapons embargo, is now replaced by two leaders who were both targets of Iranian assassination attempts this year,” he added.
“This doesn’t mean that Trump will attack Iran, but it does mean that he and Israel understand exactly where the octopus head is and what needs to be done about its arms.”
US security services briefed Trump on a foiled suspected Iranian assassination plan in September. An Israeli man was arrested the same month on suspicion of working with Iran on a plan to kill Benjamin Netanyahu.
But Trump has also criticised how long the war in Gaza is taking. In April he urged Israel: “You’ve got to get it over with, and you have to get back to normalcy.”
He thanked Arab-American and Muslim voters who supported him because they believed he would bring peace to the region.
On Wednesday, Hamas urged Trump to “learn from Biden’s mistakes” in trying to broker a ceasefire.
‘Politically devastating’
Ordinary Gazans displaced by the Israeli military campaign were divided between the hope that any change must be a good thing, and the sense that Trump would simply lift even the tiny restraints Mr Biden had placed on the Israeli campaign.
“Despite the destruction, death and displacement that we have witnessed, what is coming will be more difficult, it will be politically devastating,” a man called Abu Osama told Reuters.
The truth is that Trump’s Middle East policy may not yet be fully formed.
It’s no secret that the regime in Tehran would have preferred Ms Harris to win. Trump’s last stint in office saw him rip up the nuclear deal, kill Qassem Soleimani, a Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chief, and pursue a “maximum pressure” policy that threw Iran’s economy into chaos.
Mr Netanyahu, who on election day fired Yoav Gallant, Israel’s former defence minister, for advocating a deal to free the hostages and end the war in Gaza among other issues, will feel as though he has the backing to continue the multi-front Middle Eastern war until total victory, whatever that means.
Trump wants ‘Iran to succeed’
But Trump has also spoken about ending wars, not starting them.
“We can expect a continuation of the maximum pressure strategy… with the goal of changing Tehran’s malign behaviour,” said Holly Dagres, an Iran watcher at the Atlantic Council.
“But Trump also said that he wasn’t interested in regime change and wanted Iran to succeed and not have a nuclear weapon – meaning there is room for a deal of some sort.”
Trump is also receptive to other regional elites, particularly Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, who understands his transactional approach to dealmaking. He also wants the violence to end and to find a viable path to a Palestinian state.
“Gulf states, chiefly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, likely believe there is more to be gained under the second Trump presidency, such as US security guarantees, arms deals, and a tougher stance on Iran,” said Dr Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern security at the Royal United Services Institute.
“It is difficult to see how a Trump administration will pivot to improve the situation for Palestinians.
“Trump in recent weeks indicated that he was prepared to give Israel freer rein, provided that the war ended by the time he entered office. What happens between now and January will be watched closely, and nervously, by those in the Middle East,” said Dr Ozcelik.
Trump’s previous term saw the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem in an effort by Mr Netanyahu to gain the American greenlight for the annexation of parts of the West Bank. That plan did not come to fruition, but Right-wing settler groups have expressed hope it could be revived.
This is not the Middle East Donald Trump knew when he left office in 2020, however.
In the post-Oct 7 world, his Abraham Accords on Arab-Israeli normalisation are more or less dead, and there is no path back to them without addressing peace and the question of a Palestinian state.
Mr Biden tried to set up a deal along these lines, but failed.
China
Donald Trump appears to have two opinions about China.
The first is that it is a massive commercial competitor that threatens American prosperity and must be challenged, even if it means triggering a major trade war.
The second is that Xi Jinping, the president of China, is a great bloke.
“He controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. I mean, he’s a brilliant guy, whether you like it or not,” Trump said about president Xi in an interview with Joe Rogan last year.
That was not an aberration.
“I had a very strong relationship with him… I got along with him great,” he told the Wall Street Journal in September. That means China would not attack Taiwan because Xi “respects me and he knows I’m [expletive] crazy”.
But Trump was definitely not Beijing’s preferred candidate. Last time he was president, Trump ignited a trade war, blamed China for Covid-19 and launched a controversial FBI-led crackdown on Chinese economic espionage.
In this year’s campaign he promised to wildly expand anti-Chinese tariffs – up to 60 per cent – and revoke its most-favoured-nation trading status, a designation that means America must grant it the most favourable trade conditions as it has with other countries.
The investment bank UBS has predicted that could halve China’s annual economic growth. Trump has just received a clear mandate to do just that.
China remaining ‘consistent’
Chinese officials are playing it cool for now.
“Our policy towards the US is consistent,” Mao Ning, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, told a regular press conference in Beijing when asked how Trump returning to the Oval Office would affect US-China relations.
That may reflect a sense in Beijing that America will be an adversary, whoever is in charge.
Mr Biden, after all, maintained and, in some cases, tightened Trump’s China tariffs, built up Pacific alliances to contain China’s territorial ambitions and explicitly pledged to go to war to defend Taiwan if it is attacked.
Trump has accused Taiwan of “stealing” America’s chip industry and implied it should pay for protection, repeating themes he has raised in previous interviews.
Last week Chinese officials seized on Trump’s claim that Taiwan is “stealing” America’s chip industry to argue the breakaway island would soon realise “America first” means allies second.
Nato
At a rally in February, Trump recounted a conversation with an unnamed Nato leader who asked whether America would defend his country from a Russian attack.
“I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re a delinquent?’”, the Republican recalled. “‘No I would not protect you, in fact, I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’”
It is an incredibly alarming remark. Trump cannot simply quit Nato. A recent law makes that impossible without overwhelming endorsement in Congress.
But he doesn’t have to quit the alliance to undermine it. Simply by questioning the need to defend allies who have not paid their way could be enough to undermine the perception among adversaries, particularly Russia, that Nato’s collective defence clause is serious.
European and British officials have, at least officially, been preparing for a Trump victory.
Dame Karen Pierce, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, has been diligent in building ties and trust with Trump’s camp.
Sir Kier Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have both congratulated Trump on his victory and vowed to find common ground – although the Republicans have been openly angered by reports of Labour activists campaigning for the Democrats.
‘Looking bleak’
In April, Emmanuel Macron said in a speech at the Sorbonne that Europe must respond to US-China competition and the war in Ukraine, or face a “mortal” moment.
On Wednesday morning he rang Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, to signal European unity in response to Trump’s victory.
But the truth is, Britain and Europe have not spent enough money to take up the slack if Trump leaves them to look to their own security.
The European Council for Foreign Relations warned in a paper last week that Trump’s policy and personnel choices could destabilise the western Balkans, possibly leading to another war between Serbia and Kosovo.
And that’s without taking into account the burden of taking over the American contribution to Ukraine.
“His domestic economic policies will require huge funds to be diverted from somewhere – almost certainly American defence. We are likely to see major calls for defence spending and investment across NATO – but this will take years to build up and be hugely expensive at a time of economic stagnation,” said Dr Russell Foster, senior lecturer in British and international politics at King’s College London.
“The future of Western defence is now looking very bleak.”