Trump’s promise to end all wars may not materialise. But at least the ongoing wars could show some signs of conclusion.
NEW DELHI: When Donald Trump stormed into the White House for the second time, as the 47th President of the USA, among his many claims was that, “I am not going to start a war. I am going to stop wars.” In his first stint as President, the USA did not get actively involved in any new war, though it continued bombing inconvenient nations. He also initiated a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which could have been well avoided. But there were no major wars, and the legacy he inherits now is marked with raging conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East, and a potential one with China. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s volatile personality will terminate or intensify them.
Trump’s inward looking policies make it clear that the USA will not get involved in external conflicts but focus purely on “America First”. To give him his due, he must be credited with some shrewd strategic judgements in his first term. He identified and pointed out China as the main strategic threat of the century, though his model of countering China was by diminishing its economic clout through trade wars and sanctions. He also correctly identified the need to wean over Russia to the western side, rather than antagonising it and forcing it towards the Chinese embrace. One of the greatest strategic blunders of the Biden administration was the manner in which they forced Russia into isolation and virtually provoked the needless war with Ukraine in a bid to weaken Russia.
Trump’s return will strongly impact the Ukraine war. His personal equations with the leaders will determine his stance. In Putin, he sees a strong man image of himself, and called him, “A great guy we can do business with,” in his earlier tenure. Volodymyr Zelenskyy—on the other side—he holds with scarcely concealed disregard, calling him, “A great salesman. Whenever he comes to USA, he leaves with a cheque of $20 billion in his pocket.” He had been critical of the Biden administration’s decision to bankroll Ukraine’s war with aid of over $160 billion. With him in the White House, there is no doubt that US aid will drop drastically. That would spur other allies like Germany, UK, France and others to reduce their own aid. Shorn of external aid, Ukraine can fight for just 45 days before facing economic and military collapse.
Perhaps Putin is banking on just that. He congratulated and praised President Trump on his election victory and hinted that he is ready for dialogue. At the same time, Russia has intensified its attacks in the Donbas and Kharkiv regions, and over the past month has captured over 680 square km of Ukrainian territory. Putin makes no secret of his plan to take as much of Ukrainian territory as possible and then force a peace purely on his terms—which implies that Ukraine would be spared further losses, but what Russia has got, it keeps.
Trump’s return may just hasten a peace process, because he would be more amenable to the ground reality of letting Putin keep what he has got, rather than continue a war which Ukraine has no hope of winning. He does not harbour the same notion of European security and the fears of Russia inching westwards will not mean much to him. Neither will the idea of Ukraine’s entry into NATO—the raison d’etre off the war—carry much resonance. So at the end of it, Ukraine’s bid to join NATO would be swept under the carpet, (perhaps with some security guarantees as a sweetener) and Russia’s gains accepted as a fait accompli (as with Crimea in 2014). This model could be the basis of a peace accord which may emerge by around March-June 2025, and then it would be back to business, all around.
The Middle East war would be influenced even more strongly. Irrespective of the administration that came into power, US support to Israel would have continued unstinted. But Trump will be more vocal and open about it, and let Israel complete its job, without bothering about things like humanitarian concerns. It is not surprising that Netanyahu was among the first to send a gleeful congratulatory message to Trump at the news of his re-election.
In his previous term, Trump had proposed a “Deal of the Century” for the Middle East, which was brokered by his son-in-law. That deal virtually gave a carte blanche for Israel to keep its settlements in the occupied territories, recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and even shifted the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and pushed the Palestinian cause under the table. Israeli supremacy in the Middle East is an integral part of US policy, and Trump will pursue it even more aggressively. But a long-term Middle East war is ruinous even to US interests. So while Netanyahu will be given a nod-and-a-wink to continue his military actions, eventually internal dissensions and subtle US pressure will be brought to bear to end the war, or at least broker a ceasefire. Though that would take place, only after Israel is seen to have attained its military aims against both Hamas and the Hezbollah.
It is Iran that would have the greatest apprehensions at Trump’s return. Under his watch, the US reneged on the Iran-US nuclear deal in 2018, which re-imposed sanctions on Iran and forced it to go back to its nuclear program. Iran is now an estimated 60 days away from “breakout time”—the time required to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear device. Removing Iran’s nuclear capabilities is high on Trump’s priorities. He is likely to encourage and even actively support Israeli actions to permanently derail Iran’s nuclear program, even if it involves a military strike on its capabilities. There is trepidation in Iran, with a joke going around that prime land in Teheran should be offered to Trump to build his Trump Towers there, as that would act as a hedge against any potential strike.
Trump’s plans to end the wars, basically hinges on the fact that the winners get to keep what they got, the losers lick their wounds, and all sides get back to business as usual. In the light of the pointless conflicts going on in Ukraine and the Middle East, it might actually save further devastation.
But although Trump has pledged to end all wars, the US may well find itself embroiled in potential conflict with China over its claims in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. Chinese belligerence over Taiwan is growing and in October, it launched an exercise with over 150 ships and aircraft that surrounded the island in a simulated invasion. China’s plans for “reunification of Taiwan, by military force if necessary,” has a small window of opportunity in the period 2025-2027 and it hinges on the fact that the USA would not intervene. With Trump’s “America first, and the rest can look after themselves” attitude, they may be tempted to take the gamble. It would be a high-stakes risk, but is within the realms of possibility.
Trump’s promise to end all wars may not materialise. But at least the ongoing wars could show some signs of conclusion. There is a danger that his erratic personality and impulsive behaviour could lead him to take decisions that could actually precipitate conflicts, rather than end them.
But the focus will be on economic concerns in which trade wars will increase, dealings would be largely transactional, and even allies like NATO are likely to be sidelined, if it does not serve US interests. India too will feel the fall-out, especially in the field of trade, tariffs and visas. But, overall, the trajectory of Indo-US ties is likely to continue, and may actually increase with the personal rapport between Prime Minster Modi and President Trump. The next four years would see periods of turbulence and unpredictability, which will impact not just the USA, but much of the world. In this unpredictability lies the danger. This is what India should insulate and protect itself against, to maintain our national interests in the years ahead.
* Ajay Singh is the internationally acclaimed author of seven books and over 200 articles. He is a recipient of the Rabindranath Tagore International Award for Art and Literature and a regular contributor to The Sunday Guardian.President Trump and the wars