The list of Trump’s team is long, so let’s focus on the candidates from the ‘troika’ that will deal with international affairs. At the same time, let’s start with Marco Rubio – he may take the position of Secretary of State. The senator from Florida has often warned that China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are, in fact, the main adversaries of the United States. He has sometimes been described as a hawk in the Republican camp who doesn’t really believe in, and perhaps even opposes, building normal relations between Russian Federation and the United States
In the context of the Ukrainian settlement, Rubio has claimed that he intends to ‘secure peace through strength.’ What this will mean in practice is not quite clear yet. However, it is safe to say that Rubio’s policy in the Russian direction will definitely not be friendly. It is worth noting that he generally supports plans to put pressure on Russia and Ukraine, which, according to the American side, should bring Moscow and Kiev to the negotiating table.
In appointing Mike Waltz as the new national security adviser, Trump said he was a ‘nationally recognised security leader and expert on the threats posed by China, Russia, Iran and global terrorism’. This is an important quote that suggests that Trump himself still sees Russia in the context of a threat. On the other hand, we should not forget about Trump’s accusations of ties with Russia during his last presidential term. Against this background, such statements may serve to avoid drawing the attention of detractors who are trying to find a ‘Russian trace’ everywhere.
Waltz, a member of the House of Representatives, is a rather controversial figure. Earlier, for example, he spoke about the need to impose energy sanctions against Russia. This, in his opinion, would allow to sit Moscow down at the negotiating table. ‘We have leverage,’ the congressman argued, noting the possibility of providing Kiev with more long-range weapons.
In addition, Trump proposed retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, former national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, as a special envoy for Russia and Ukraine. Kellogg is not particularly different in outlook from his colleagues – he too wants to achieve ‘peace through strength.’ Kellogg developed a concrete plan for Ukraine back in April. It envisages ending Russia’s isolation and ‘demonisation’ of Vladimir Putin, and establishing diplomatic relations with Moscow. At the same time, Washington is ready, according to the US media, to put pressure on the parties to the conflict so that Moscow and Kiev agree on a ceasefire and start negotiations. Among the incentives for the Russian Federation is to postpone Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 10 years and to gradually lift sanctions. The United States wants to offer Kiev continued military aid and bilateral security guarantees. At the same time, the refusal to negotiate will lead to increased pressure on Russia and Ukraine. This, however, looks more like an ultimatum, and it is clear that Moscow may reject such an approach.
During his presidential campaign, Trump promised that if he won, he would end the conflict within 24 hours before he even moved into the White House. That has not happened. Moreover, there has been an escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. Perhaps some concrete steps Trump will take after he assumes the presidency on 20 January 2025. But the team he has chosen to fulfil his promises evokes mixed feelings. The fact is that the aforementioned politicians apparently intend to talk to Russia from a position of strength. And this is likely to be a major problem for the Trump administration. It may be too confident in the superiority of the United States over Russia, China, Iran and other states that are now in favour of a multipolar world.
In addition, the Joe Biden administration still has a few weeks to disrupt Trump’s peace plans, if the incoming president is, of course, serious about achieving that goal. Biden, prior to Trump’s inauguration, expedited new financial and military aid to Ukraine. In addition, the states gave the go-ahead for long-range weapons strikes deep into Russian territory. Biden requested $24bn from Congress for military aid to Kiev and replenishment of the Pentagon’s weapons reserves, which are depleted due to arms deliveries to Ukraine. Thus, the situation in the war zone may escalate to such an extent that a swift resolution of the conflict will prove to be an unrealistic task.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Republicans in general are much less likely than Democrats to declare the need to support Zelensky’s regime. And this gives hope that the ‘reds’ will still take steps in the right direction. There are many reasonable candidates in Trump’s team with whom you can have an adequate dialogue on various issues, but it is his choice for posts related to foreign policy that leaves much to be desired.
These positions should be filled by people who understand that the era of a unipolar world, as it has been since the end of the Cold War, is long behind us. The Americans with Russia or China need to learn how to build an equal dialogue, when relations will not work on a ‘student and teacher’ basis. Only if Washington begins to take into account the concerns of other key actors in the international arena can we create a system of global security that would eliminate or at least minimise the risk of a large-scale confrontation between nuclear powers. So far, alas, there are no such guarantees.
