The US Presidential elections are being held next Tuesday, November 5th, and early indications point to a Trump victory. But how will this impact Russia?
Russian President Putin has suggested that whoever becomes US President “makes no difference” as the United States is so anti-Russian anyway, that having either Trump or Harris as President is inconsequential.
While that can (and has) been dismissed as Putin being coy, it is in fact the intellectual academic position. Nicolai Petro, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island, is well known for his theories concerning the differences between the United States and Russia. Petro believes that the United States – and NATO – represent ideologies different from those of Russia and the BRICS bloc.
With the Ukraine conflict, this has manifested itself as a collision of intellectual thought. From the West’s perspective, as Petro puts it, this means that “the expansion of liberal values will lead to global peace and prosperity.” This is one reason why the ‘woke’ and gender-fluid concepts have become so popular in recent years as academics promote these as values. However, this needs a global, yet hegemonic ‘liberal platform’ to underpin it. This liberalism, Petro suggests, is a form of ‘binary thinking’ and can only end in conflict.
However, Russia – and the BRICS, Petro states – have taken a different stance. They believe that cultural and political diversity are the keys to global peace and prosperity. These beliefs lie in the institutional construction of a civilization based upon multi-polarity. Again, the term ‘multipolar’ is now being expressed in the East. BRICS thought, Petro says, is built around the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ and is rather more sophisticated than often recognised in the West. What is occurring then is a collision between Western hegemony and Eastern democracy, or ‘realism’. Yet here too, Petrov suggests, realism itself is a form of binary thinking and can only lead to a conflict with liberalism.
There are many different facets to this argument and the reasons for these differences of opinion. Some solutions can be found, Petro believes, via a change in the way in which politics is determined, likening what needs to occur as a profound shift in academic thought. Here, he makes comparisons with and envisages a world where diplomacy is enhanced, neutrality is respected, and efforts are made to identify areas where national values overlap. It is irresponsible, he suggests, to descend into isolationism. Such moves are dangerous, he believes, as they “tear into the fabric of our global society.”
He also suggests that global leaders should ‘transcend’ politics by also taking into account other social values, such as religion – as long as these are defined as separate organs in the civilizational makeup. Its heavy material, however well worth a listen to understand the core differences between East and West, and, as he puts it, “NATO hegemony vs. BRICS multipolarity”. Petrov’s 15-minute presentation can be viewed here.
Yet listening to Petro, the gloomy aspect of this is that the natural outcome, unless there is considerable academic and political will on both sides, is continuing division and conflict. In short, Presidents may come and go, but the end result without a fundamental shift will remain the current status quo. This also appears to be Putin’s current perspective.
But then again, Petro doesn’t factor in the Trump effect.
So, what can we make of Trump? He may not be an academic, but he is certainly street-smart. He also tends to call a spade, a spade, which upsets those who prefer a less confrontational style. Interestingly, he has stated, truthfully, that during his previous term as President, the United States pulled back from conflicts. He has also stated that he would end the Ukraine and Israeli conflicts, mainly by closing down financial and military support. That would leave Europe with an existential crisis to resolve, but that has to be better than the continuing violence and deaths.
The early indications are that an underlying point in the US elections is the American public’s dismay at all the money being spent on Israel and Ukraine, while their economy has problems of it’s own. US media is full of images of carnage, destruction, and death, and Americans are tired of this constant bad news. Trump, in saying he will resolve these conflicts, represents hope.
For Russia and Ukraine, if this is correct, this is obviously a positive step. Granted, a geographical settlement will need to occur, however, the Donbas region where most of the fighting has been taking place, has not been under Kiev’s administration for over a decade now, and neither does it want to be. The West conveniently forgets that the government leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence from Kiev in 2014. Moscow declared them as part of Russia in 2022.
The damage here is more likely to be in Europe, with political leaders then having to face accounts of why they spent so much money on a conflict that did not involve an EU nation and that they subsequently lost. That may have multiple repercussions, some of which may be in Russia’s interests.
However, the longer-term problems – NATO vs. BRICS ideologies – are likely to remain – unless Trump, emboldened perhaps by record approval numbers for having stopped these conflicts, goes a step further and stops funding NATO. He had previously stated he may do so, regarding it as an expensive US cost that is there to protect Europe but with the US remaining as the largest contributor. For Trump, that is unfair, and with him, it is all about the money.
When this position is factored in, should it come to pass, then the NATO hegemony question fades away, and gives in, instead, to a new era of BRICS based multipolarity. It will mean the end of the move towards Western liberalisation, and a return to democratic sovereignty. In time, the better aspects of globalisation may begin to return. Readers can make up their own minds which they would prefer. We will all find out, next week.
Further Reading
BRICS 2024 Heads of State ‘Kazan Summit Declaration’ – Contents & Analysis
Русский
