Letter From the Editors

Immediately after the US election, the Russian press paid a lot of attention to domestic politics – i.e., how partisan and ideological dynamics within America brought Donald Trump back to power. Now that the dust has settled a bit, commentators are mulling over the implications of Trump’s victory for foreign policy.

Three points of agreement are that ideology and values won’t matter as much as dollars and cents; China will face tougher times no matter what; and Trump will have stronger backing on his own turf for the policies he pursues, now that he enjoys higher standing in the Republican Party and his preliminary picks for top positions are staunch supporters. As Dmitry Novikov puts it, “The main thing that guides Trump is personal loyalty and unquestioning adherence to the president’s ideological and personal line.”

Vladimir Brovkin is cautiously optimistic about the implications for Russia. He views as a “very positive sign” the fact that Trump has already turned his back on the “neocons” Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley, who were tough on Moscow during the previous Republican administration.

What this all means for Ukraine is harder to say. Top Zelensky adviser Mikhail Podolyak is counting on Trump’s pragmatic approach manifesting itself in a show of force against the Russian military: “If you want peace, you have to show strength.” However, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs hopes for the opposite: “I don’t think Trump is a hardliner. . . . He doesn’t want war, he wants business. That’s good. If you are truly probusiness, then you are for ending the war.”

The latter position seems supported by Trump’s insistent criticism of US military funding for Ukraine. But that possibility raises the question of whether the EU will follow suit or pick up the slack. According to Artyom Sokolov, the collapse of Olaf Scholz’s parliamentary coalition “opens up the opportunity for Germany to reconsider the format for its involvement in the Ukraine conflict.” Sokolov surmises that German politicians themselves “are having intense internal debates about Ukraine.”

Aleksandr Lukin stresses that whatever foreign policy a leader opts for needs financial backing. In Trump’s case, he explains, “[t]here may be a contradiction between two trends in foreign policy. On the one hand, Trump has built an image of a strong, muscular America that should be respected around the world. He must support that image. On the other hand, Trump says he will cut foreign spending – that is, he is not going to pay to maintain this image. How the contradiction will be resolved is still unknown.”

It’s worth remembering that financial investment does not always translate to a positive image. Novaya gazeta Europe interviewed several activists in Abkhazia who are doing all they can to stop their government from accepting money from Moscow to buy up prime real estate and fund business development projects in the breakaway republic. After a handful of them were arrested for a reported brawl outside the parliament building, others blocked the main highway into the capital.

A protester who calls himself Leon explained: “When you learn that you can’t go to the city, you have to figure out what is happening and why. When people found out that some activists were arrested for political reasons, especially considering that this was a ham-handed arrest of some people everybody knows, people were outraged.” That outrage has since garnered international exposure thanks to articles, blog posts and videos both rooting for and criticizing the Abkhazian dissenters.

Which, curiously, brings us back to a lesson that Trump has taught us well: You don’t have to pay to boost your image around the world if you can harness free publicity. And any publicity is good publicity.