On the meaning of the Trump era
In these days following the presidential vote in the United States, I have repeatedly reiterated that the possible positive aspects of a Trump administration were decidedly overestimated, in the circles – let’s say – of dissent, or in any case in favor of multipolarity. I have also emphasized how it was appropriate to wait for the first nominations, because from the formation of the team it would have been possible to understand much better what the orientation of the next four years would be.
Now we are actually starting to have a picture, even if some boxes are still missing.
What emerges appears substantially as a confirmation of what could reasonably be expected, with some observations.
First of all, even if some of the old neocons who had accompanied the first presidency have been eliminated (Pompeo, Bannon, Haley…), some of the key positions just defined still refer to the neoconservative area of the Republicans and, even if more or less everyone agrees on the disengagement from the Ukrainian front, this does not mean that they can be defined as moderates or pacifists. On the contrary, a team of rather warmongering ultras emerges. Only the focus shifts from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and, above all, China.
This is only an apparent contradiction, because if it is true that the neocons were the absolute protagonists of the unleashing of the war in Ukraine, and staunch supporters of the strategic opposition to Russia, it is also true that the complete (and disastrous) failure of their strategies required a revision of the geopolitical designs. The operation carried out by Trump, therefore, with the active collaboration of numerous neocons, essentially consisted in unloading the elements most compromised by the Ukrainian failure, as part of the process of cleaning up the image of a great power: those to blame for the failure are them and the Dems. Let's turn the page.
What we can therefore expect from the new American administration is not a four-year period of moderation, or of openness to the changes that are happening in the world. Moreover, Trump’s slogan is – from this point of view – very clear: Make America Great Again means precisely rebuilding the hegemonic role of the United States, threatened by the strategic errors of recent years.
In concrete terms, the Trump administration will act in two directions, one internal and one international, but with the same objective. On the internal level, the intention is to rebuild the country’s productive and industrial capacity, severely compromised during the decades of globalization. And to do so, it will largely use a policy of tariffs and other protectionist measures, aimed at rebalancing the balance of payments with Europe and China, and incentives to relocate strategic industrial production to the US (also taking advantage of the good situation in terms of energy). The objective is clearly to take commercial power away from competitors (still Europe and China), rebuild a productive base capable of reviving exports, and give the middle-lower classes impoverished by the financialization of the economy a breather.
In international politics, therefore, we can expect measures aimed at cornering the aforementioned countries that – from its point of view – have exploited the USA for too long (both as an outlet market and as a military umbrella). As for the European countries, we will most likely see growing pressure to increase military spending (notoriously unproductive), both by increasing their contribution to NATO and by taking on full support for Ukraine. In reference to which it is quite evident that this administration is also light years away from any viable idea as a basis for starting a peace negotiation. Which, moreover, is not actually considered indispensable. The point is not in fact to reach a stable agreement (which would imply concessions to Russia that Washington is not willing to make), but rather to opt out of the burdens (political, economic and military) of the conflict. After all, in this the Americans have an excellent experience of hasty abandonment of allies – see Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Europeans will take care of keeping the fire alive long enough – very appropriately well charged in this by the previous administration.
As for China, we can expect an escalation of the trade war, and above all the intensification of efforts aimed at building an offensive belt around the People's Republic, with the aim of creating a Pacific NATO, and/or extending NATO up to the Chinese coast. All this seasoned with continuous attempts to destabilize Central Asia, to make the development of a full and effective Eurasian geopolitical unity as precarious as possible. It is very unlikely that all this is aimed at triggering a kinetic conflict with Beijing, within the presidential mandate, but it is not to be completely ruled out that there will be some incidents here and there, to keep tensions high and test the Chinese reaction. Always strictly via proxy, however.
The area where the negative influence of the Trump team will be felt most is certainly the Middle East, since they are all essentially die-hard pro-Zionists. No less than the Democrats, certainly, but more than some perhaps expected. Nevertheless, it is not clear how far this support would be willing to go. From this point of view, the signals that are arriving are contradictory; on the one hand, for example, there is full and clear support for the choices made by the Netanyahu government, which for its part shows great confidence in the support of the new administration, while on the other hand messages are being sent out so that the war will be concluded by the date of inauguration, or the possibility of a withdrawal from Syria is being aired…
The international political line, as far as the Middle East is concerned, will probably be placed on a median line. This means that its support for the Israeli state will not cease, indeed it will probably go further, on a political level, but it will have limits on a substantial level. This means that, for example, Israel will continue to have full coverage at the UN, that probably even Smotrich's idea of full annexation of the West Bank will be endorsed, and that US diplomacy will continue to be committed to acting as the longa manus of Israeli interests. But the price of this support will be the opposition of some limits to Tel Aviv's action. For a whole series of reasons, in short, the support will remain within a scope that does not jeopardize US interests in the area (and beyond), which essentially means not pushing the Gulf countries (further) towards Iran and Russia, and not further inflaming the region. Even if the disengagement from the Ukrainian front will free up resources (economic and military) to be diverted to Israel, it is unlikely that Washington will be willing to support a prolonged war; also because the IDF is already starting to have serious personnel problems, and has even begun to enlist mercenaries, and therefore in the case of an active kinetic conflict, which extended in time and space, it would sooner or later need boots on the ground support from the United States. This is something absolutely unthinkable. Summing up in a joke, one could say that Trump's policy towards Israel will probably be rich in highly visible demonstrations (as the composition of the team foretells), but much more stingy with truly substantial facts.
In more general terms, looking at the profound meaning of this second Trumpian mandate, my personal opinion is that we are facing a transition phase, absolutely internal to the US hegemonic power system.
The last decades have been dominated by a very aggressive imperialist ideology (and strategy), which however has ended up accelerating the process of decline of American hegemony. In the face of this, the majority of the political-economic-military system of the United States has proposed - as a solution - an intensification of aggression (which culminated in the triggering of the conflict in Ukraine); for this considerable power bloc, largely bipartisan, it is a bit as if, having now taken a long lead, it is unable to slow down, and does not know how to do anything other than continue on the same path. Then there is a part of this system that instead feels the urgency of a change of direction, but - being a strong minority - has had to resort to a tactic that is quite unusual for the USA, namely political populism. From this point of view, Donald Trump, with his particular character, had and has the characteristics to present himself as an outsider (even though he is not one at all), and to mobilize a good part of the American people against the elites - even though he is actually acting on behalf of a fraction of them.
Trump's function, within this plan, has been and is therefore that of a battering ram, necessary to break through certain resistances and overturn the balance of power, but absolutely temporary. It is important to keep in mind that Trump is 78 years old, at the end of his mandate he will be 82. And in any case he cannot be elected a third time. These four years, therefore, will serve to ferry the American empire towards a new route, to start a realignment of the great geopolitical strategic lines, and to prepare the ground for a new power group, destined to lead the country in the coming decades. It is absolutely no coincidence that the Trumpian team is largely composed of people (relatively) young people, just as it is not at all a coincidence that the vice-president is not an almost ornamental figure (such as Harris was, for example) but, on the contrary, represents the politically finest mind of the entire team. Clearly, he is the heir apparent destined to succeed Trump in four years. Provided, of course, that things go according to plan.
Trump's short season, in short, is not destined to lead America towards peaceful coexistence in a multipolar world, renouncing the traditional hegemonic role exercised in the last century, but is - at least in intentions - the midwife of a renewed America, which rediscovers its will to power, and faces the challenges of the present in the perspective of a new American century. In short, to make America great again.