After the Red Wave – Post-Election Politics

A red wave swept across the United States after a challenging campaign that forced voters to choose between Donald Trump’s and Kamala Harris’ opposing value systems.

One thing is certain: the MAGA Cult is back, and it has only grown stronger after Biden’s four years in office. After all, in his victory speech Trump referred to a “movement” rather than a Party.

Considering Trump’s appointments for his cabinet and other high-ranking administration positions, it’s difficult to predict how this movement will alter the political landscape of the United States in the future. In addition, his controversial agenda will affect not only US policy but also the new global order, which might become multipolar as a result of rising tensions from countries such as China, North Korea, India, Russia, Iran, to name just a few. With the motto “America first,” his isolationist approach might seriously undermine the concept of “indispensable nation” often invoked by Madeleine Albright.

To understand the new international political scenario after these elections, ytali spoke with Michael Bociurkiw, a global affairs analyst, writer, contributor to CNN Opinion and frequent commentator on BBC World Television, BBC World Service Radio, Bloomberg TV, CTV, CBC and Al Jazeera, a Senior Fellow at the Washington DC-based Atlantic Council, attached to its Eurasia Center, the author of “Digital Pandemic,” published in 2021, and a former spokesperson at the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Other Topics of Interest

Lithuania to Invest in Ukraine’s Palianytsia Hybrid Missile-Drone

Investment in the missile drone is to be part of a €10 million investment in Ukrainian arms production

Michael Bociurkiw

Analisa Bottani: The second term of Donald Trump’s presidency will entail a reshuffling not only of the government’s domestic policies but also of the global economic and political balances. In your opinion, what are the sociological and cultural factors that led to Trump’s landslide and divisive victory? With the Democratic Party facing growing challenges, what might be the potential outcome in the short and medium term?

Michael Bociurkiw: I think several factors were at play here. First of all, the Democrats weren’t able to effectively gain traction with the majority of American voters.

I don’t think they talked enough about the economy. Some people say they were too woke, that they talked too much about reproductive rights, so on and so forth. Issues that didn’t really impact people who had difficulty putting food on the table every day, or couldn’t find a job, or were in food bank lines and that sort of thing.

So, I think the Democrats would be wise to spend the next four years or whatever just reevaluating their messaging and their policies, to really do a lot of research on what really resonates with the American people. I think also at play is that a large, large number of Americans just feel excluded from decision making. They feel they don’t have control over their daily lives, and this, in a way, was a big protest vote against the élite.

And I think the Democrats were seen as a party that was smug, and that Kamala Harris’ nomination was a coronation. Also, what happened, of course, was that Joe Biden held on for too long, he didn’t want to step down. His ego got in the way and took precedence over what was best for the party. There was a party revolt and Kamala Harris just didn’t have enough time to define herself, to work on proper messaging.

I mean, they spent a lot of money on advertising and social media, but in the end, of course, it didn’t work for them. And I think also what’s happening is we’re seeing an America that is turning inward. A lot of Americans don’t want their taxpayers’ money going to conflicts that are far away.

They don’t see the connection anymore between what happens thousands of miles away, for example, the war in Ukraine or the war in Sudan or tensions on Taiwan Strait with their daily lives. What they want is more focus on immigration, sealing the borders and on improving the economy, measures like minimum wage, that sort of thing.

Let’s talk about Trump’s foreign policy, focusing on US-Russia ties, which have reached their lowest point since the height of the Cold War. As you noted in your latest analysis: “According to the Institute for the Study of War, Putin stated during his Nov. 7 Valdai Club address that he is open to discussions meant to ‘restore’ US-Russia relations but that the United States must initiate these negotiations, and implied that Russia will only consider a reset in US-Russia relations if the United States drops sanctions against Russia and ceases supporting Ukraine – terms that exclusively benefit Russia and offer no benefit to the United States.” In light of the unpredictable nature of both leaders, will the process of reshaping these ties be feasible? Apart from Ukraine, sanctions, and, of course, the Middle East, what other topics will be discussed?

When it comes to Putin and Trump, I see more incompatibilities than compatibilities. I see more opportunities for friction than for non-friction. I would have thought that after his victory, Putin would have ceased or at least reduced the number of strikes on Ukraine (instead, they’ve increased in frequency and ferocity – including on the southern port city of Odesa overnight Friday).

So, the opposite is happening. In fact, we’re bracing for a terrible barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv. This isn’t the sign of a leader who’s trying to promote appeasement or trying to do any favors for Trump.

On the other hand, it’s a very complicated situation and it could be Putin trying to gain as much territory and cause as much damage to the Ukrainians as he can in this kind of window of opportunity in this period, which is in a way vulnerable. He knows that the Biden administration has shown a lot of weakness from the very start of the war. The drip-feed approach to providing weaponry has been a disservice to the Ukrainians.

And also the inability to ramp up sanctions, and the inability, most importantly, to allow Ukraine to strike deeper inside Russia at the very launch pads where these missiles and drones are coming from. That’s what they need to do right now. That’s what they needed to do a long time ago.

But Biden has just not grown the spine to allow the Ukrainians to do this. The only thing someone like Putin responds to, and I’ve said this many times, is strength. And we have not seen that. There’s an obsession in the Biden White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon and Department of State of what might happen should the rat (Putin) be backed into a corner, and that he’d reach for tactical nuclear weapons. They’re falling for his bluffs. I’ve also been told some around President Biden fear a possible future where Russia implodes.

All that sends a bad message to dictators around the world, whether its leaders are in Tehran or Pyongyang or Xi Jinping in China. Leaders now only see fuzzy lines. They don’t see red lines.

And that is a problem when we’re looking at the Taiwan Strait and deterrence to prevent China from moving on Taiwan, or to reduce the ferocity of Chinese incidents in the South China Sea against Filipino fishing boats and Filipino naval boats. So having said all that, I think there is a window of opportunity for Biden to not only give that permission for Anglo-French missiles to be used deeper inside Russia, but also to fast track everything that’s been pledged to get to Ukraine. And I think the green light to allow US contractors to come into Ukraine to do maintenance and training and fix things is a very, very good thing.

But that alone is not enough to change the course of the war.

Also, on the sidelines, in this window between the election and Inauguration Day, I see European leaders are starting to huddle and take it upon themselves to try and bring an end to the war. So, I think you’ll see, this has been voiced by the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, that there is a window of opportunity now to try and settle the war – well before Trump and his pick of mostly untested mob of cabinet picks take control of the Ukraine file. The time for empty rhetoric and for selfie-taking in Kyiv with one of the world’s most famous elected leaders is over: it’s time for forceful and decisive action. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said “we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.” Let’s see her stand up to Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani and press for a reversal of the policy to prevent Italian weapons from being used on Russian soil.

European leaders are apparently discussing three or four things for the Ukrainians: of course, Number One is territory. It will be getting a guarantor for any agreement that’s been made, for example, Turkey, because whoever guarantees the peace, they are ultimately going to be on the hook for defending Ukraine – and that could mean boots on the ground. Thirdly, there are going to be reparations and justice, and war crimes charges.

And then, fourthly, will be the issue of reconstruction of Ukraine, which is now north of half a trillion dollars. So, if they were able to do that between now and January 20, it will be a miracle. But it’s good that they’re talking about it, that they’re putting out feelers.

The problem is that there’s lots of daylight between what Zelensky wants and what Putin wants. And I don’t think Putin is in any mood or any position to just walk out of occupied territory and give it back to the Ukrainians. They’ve spent a lot of money, a lot of time russifying these areas, rebuilding them.

They’ll want to keep that land bridge between Russia and Crimea. They want to keep Mariupol Port. So, I can’t see an end to this.

And then, just a few days ago, there was an International Republican Institute (IRI) poll showing that Ukrainians want to hold on to the territory. They don’t want to give anything up. They’re willing to fight on.

At the end of the day, Ukrainians do not want to give up territory, and do not want to live under Russian occupation, because they very well know from their ancestors that it’s hell on earth. And they know from reports coming out of occupied areas of Ukraine that it’s hell on earth there too. The russification, the destruction of culture, the persecution of people for speaking Ukrainian or thinking like Ukrainians.

So that’s where we are right now. And then having said that, who knows? I mean, if nothing happens between now and the inauguration, maybe Trump will be motivated by making a quick deal, by also wanting to show that he can achieve things by looking like the tough guy. And he will push Putin to the negotiating table. But I don’t see that right now.

I think Western allies really have to show strength to Putin and push him back, given the ramping up of Russian mischief all over, not only in Europe but also in the United States, in the Red Sea, where reporting shows that they’ve been giving targeting information to the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels to strike commercial ships, poisoning opponents on foreign soil, burning down warehouses in the UK linked to Ukraine, getting rid of opponents in Spain, testing the civil aviation system to see whether parcels can be exploded on cargo aircraft. GPS blocking on civilian aviation routes too. The list goes on. And this is trademark KGB craft, probing and seeing where the weaknesses are and exploiting them.

The free world needs a strong coordinated approach that not only involves Europe and North America, but also Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. It is good that Europe, the United States and Canada have come together to finally unfreeze those billions in interest payments that have been earned from seized Russian sovereign assets in Europe. That’s going to help Ukraine bring in a lot of money and it shows strength and resolve to Russia.

And yes, Saudi Arabia, I am still expecting that they will hold another peace summit. I would have thought something would have been announced by now, but if they are going to have that summit, it will be only if Russia is at the table and of course Ukraine and then also China will come too. So that could bring quick results if it happens, but time is ticking away.

But Saudi Arabia is kind of the new diplomatic power on the block. And so is Qatar, and they have had positive impact on the war in Ukraine. So that could sideline Trump in a way.

And finally, China. Aside from helping Russia on the periphery in this war, I’ve always said if Xi Jinping called Putin today or tomorrow, and demanded a stop to the war, he would comply because Xi is the senior partner in the room. And Putin has to listen to him. And I think that’s another reason why Putin has not yet used tactical nuclear weapons, because China told him he can’t.

When it comes to negotiations, the only country left out seems to be Ukraine, which relies on Western military and economic support. Being there in Ukraine at the start of the invasion allowed you to analyze the conflict as it developed, making you a crucial observer who could understand the main nuances of the Ukrainian political context. Following Trump’s win and his phone conversation with President Zelensky (which also involved Elon Musk), what is the prevailing mood in “the war room” and among the public opinion?

I’ve been here before, during and after the election, and I’ve seen how life goes on as normal. People are not panicking. They’re hoping for the best.

They remember that Trump was the one who approved millions worth of Javelin anti-tank missiles in 2019 and beyond. That made a huge difference. It became part of modern folklore here, the Javelin missiles and also sanctions.

And these are things that Barack Obama was reluctant to do. So, you know, they’re not over-fantasizing in terms of what can happen in the future. They’re pragmatic.

But I do sense among everyone that there’s a growing fatigue, weariness that they want to see an end to the war. And I don’t know how that syncs with Zelensky’s hardcore position of not giving up any territory, not making any concessions. It could put him a little bit out of sync with his own people.

But at the end of the day, like I said, people here want the war to stop. They want the missiles to stop, the drones. They want the bloodshed to stop.

The military cemeteries are getting to full capacity. There are some villages in Ukraine where there are no men anymore. There are divided families.

There’s plenty of injuries. Visible injuries, invisible injuries, the list goes on. The damage has been very extensive, not to mention the economic damage caused by the sirens, the attacks.

A big problem Ukraine has right now is not enough men, not enough infantry. And it’s a political problem for Zelensky, because if he does crack down harder, it could really hit his approval ratings. But in war you have to make tough decisions, and they need more men at the front lines. More infantry.

So that’s something they have to work out. But again, at the end of the day, one thing that Ukrainians know well, is that there’s no way in hell that they want to live in the hell on earth that Russian occupation brings.

In their latest phone conversation (“there was no conversation,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov), Trump told Putin “not to escalate the war,” as reported by The Washington Post. On X, Tymofiy Mylovanov, President of Kyiv School of Economics, claims that “Putin has a vested interest in intensifying the conflict to leverage negotiations before Trump takes office.” As stated by The New York Times, “the Russian military has assembled a force of 50,000 soldiers, including North Korean troops, as it prepares to begin an assault aimed at reclaiming territory seized by Ukraine in the Kursk region of Russia, according to US and Ukrainian officials.”

You are currently based in Kyiv. Is it possible to make any predictions in the short term?

I think the way it looks is that with the tens of thousands of Russian troops, along with North Korean troops, amassing near Kursk, there is a possibility that the Ukrainians will be flushed out. But I don’t know how much leverage that piece of territory still provides Ukraine. I think they’ve made a huge, huge point that, number one, they’re great fighters.

Number two, they humiliated Putin. Number three, they’ve shown the weaknesses in the Russian front, in the Defense ministry that has been hollowed out by years of corruption. It showed lack of coordination among the different arms of the Russian government.

And it also almost showed insubordination towards Putin, because there was a slowness of the state arms to react to the Kursk invasion. But overall, things do not look good at the moment for the Ukrainian side. The Russians are making advances, and a big reason for that is the lack of Western weaponry that was promised, the lack of maintenance, and the lack of men.

And Ukraine lacks sufficient air defense systems as well to shoot down those Russian missiles and drones. It’s not the size of Israel or New Jersey. It’s a huge country. It can’t be done by the air defense system alone. It also needs the ability to shoot deep inside Russia, where these drones and missiles are being launched from.

Trump has always viewed NATO as obsolete and still believes that European members should commit 2% of their GDP to defense spending. Without US guidance, Europe might be left to fight this battle alone. According to Ruth Deyermond, a senior lecturer at the Department of War Studies at King’s College in London, “how does NATO survive as a meaningful alliance when the leadership of its dominant member is compromised by relations with its primary adversary?” With a weaker NATO and an isolated Europe, is Putin’s dream of a “polyphonic” world getting closer?

This war is becoming globalized, and the West should call it for what it is. It’s now a global war, with the stepped-up activity or participation of North Korea, with thousands of troops, aside from providing missiles and lots and lots of ammunition to Russia. They are now present on the ground. While the DPRK troops lack modern battlefield experience, imagine for a moment that they do survive the Russian meat grinder approach to fighting and miraculously return home to use those skills to menace their neighbors. And we do not know for sure what Russia is offering to Pyongyang and Tehran in return for their assistance. Intelligence? Satellite imagery? Nuclear technology?

This also potentially causes problems in Asia-Pacific, instability there, because now Seoul has to think about whether it should provide military aid to Ukraine, something it’s been reluctant to do. And then, you may have seen, Taiwan gave missile batteries to Ukraine, US-made ones. And then we have China on the periphery as well. So that’s where things are with that.

This interview has been republished with the author’s permission. The original appeared in ytali and can be read here.