What a Trump presidency means for global wars and European security

Donald Trump said he would end Russia’s war in Ukraine if he returned to the White House – but any rushed deal will likely leave Kyiv much weaker and European security in even greater peril.

Another major flashpoint a Trump presidency will immediately seek to influence is the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.

Mr Trump came close to direct war with Tehran during his first term in office and prior restraint could well give way to direct confrontation this time around.

US election latest: World leaders congratulate Trump after historic win

Then there is the overwhelming longer-term challenge posed by China, with North Korea another growing headache especially after Mr Trump tried but failed to woo the leader of the hermit state during his first stint as commander-in-chief.

Prior to the Republican’s win, hostile and friendly capitals around the world were gaming what a second Trump White House might mean for their respective national interests and for the most pressing global security threats.

Mr Trump’s track record of unpredictability is a challenge for traditional foes – but also for Washington’s closest allies, in particular fellow members of the NATO alliance.

The president-elect has made no secret of his frustration at how the US has for decades bankrolled the security blanket that protects Europe.

During his first term as president, Mr Trump threatened to withdraw the US from the alliance – a move that would almost certainly sound its death knell. His rhetoric did help to spur allies to dig deeper into their pockets and spend more on their militaries, though.

But the damage of years of underinvestment is deep and the pace of recovery is too slow for European NATO allies and Canada to credibly stand on their own as a potent military force any time soon.

In terms of immediacy when it comes to global crises, the impact of Mr Trump’s victory will be felt most acutely by Ukraine and also by Iran.

In the run-up to the election, the then-nominee repeatedly claimed he would quickly end the Ukraine war, though without explaining how or what peace would look like.

In an indication of where his priorities lie, however, he has accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of being the “greatest salesman on earth” for securing tens of billions of dollars in weapons and other assistance that Washington has given to Kyiv.

Yet – coupled with Ukraine’s willingness to fight – that military aid is the biggest reason why Ukraine has managed to withstand almost 1,000 days of Vladimir Putin’s war.

Stop the flow of American weapons, and Ukrainian troops – despite their own ingenuity and the support of other allies – will simply lack the firepower to keep resisting the onslaught.

By contrast, US vice president Kamala Harris made clear that she viewed continued support to Ukraine as being as vital to US and Western interests as it is to Kyiv’s – a far more familiar stance that echoed the view of her NATO partners.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

While US support for Ukraine will undoubtedly change under a Trump administration, that is not the same as facilitating a complete surrender.

The president-elect – who portrayed himself as the ultimate dealmaker and adopted a new election slogan, “Trump will fix it” – will not want to be held responsible for the total absorption of Ukraine into Mr Putin’s orbit.

Putin and Iran

His relationship with the Russian president is a particularly interesting dynamic.

During his first term, he infamously said he trusted Mr Putin’s denials over his own intelligence agencies when it came to claims about Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

Read more:
US election result in maps and charts
Trump delivers victory speech
What Trump’s win means for Starmer and the UK

But with the right advice, might the returning President Trump be able to use his connection with Mr Putin to the West’s advantage?

At the very least, it adds a new level of unpredictability – which is perhaps the most important element when it comes to assessing the likely impact of the second Trump term.

On Iran, in stark contrast to his approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine, Mr Trump may well back much greater US military support for Israel’s conflict against Tehran and its proxies – perhaps even direct involvement by US forces in strikes on Iran.

He has an even tougher stance towards Tehran and its nuclear ambitions than Joe Biden’s administration.

His decision to rip up a major nuclear deal with Iran was one of his most significant foreign policy acts during his four years as president.

It is also personal, with Iran accused of hacking the Trump campaign in recent months – an attack that will surely only heighten tensions with Iran during the second Trump term.