From Nezavisimaya gazeta, Sept. 4, 2024, p. 3. Complete text:
Once every four years, the entire world is gripped by a surprising desire to predict the outcome of the US presidential election. It would be one thing if only the Americans tracked the approval ratings of the presidential candidates, listened to their speeches from the bully pulpit and watched the televised debates. To them, it really seems that their lives could somehow change for the better depending on who becomes the next president. And if that doesn’t work out with the current election, then it definitely will with the next. Which will come in four years.
True, the current election is being called almost seminal in America, because if [former US president] Donald Trump returns to power, then, American experts say, a virtual civil war will begin. And if [US Vice-President] Kamala Harris is the one to move into the White House and remove the prefix “vice,” then, according to her main rival, militant socialism will reign in the US, and the country will be overwhelmed by a flood of illegal immigrants from the south.
Meanwhile, this is a purely American affair, and it’s the least of all concerns for citizens of other countries. But in terms of international affairs, there’s nothing more important today than two ongoing regional conflicts – the conflict in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Moreover, the US is playing a decisive role in both conflicts by supporting a specific side. And, as people in Moscow and the Arab world believe, if Washington stopped supporting Kiev and Tel Aviv, then combat in both cases would supposedly end.
Because of this, Russia, Europe, Ukraine and the leaders of Palestine and Israel are delaying any decisive political and military initiatives “until November,” clearly awaiting the result of the US presidential election, in the apparent belief that, as soon as the new government is established in the US, both conflicts will be, if not fully resolved, then at least temporarily quelled. But is that really the case?
I’ll start with the Israel-Palestine conflict [see Vol. 75, No. 41, pp. 3‑11]. The hopes of Arab countries and the Palestinians themselves that a new American administration will somehow be able to influence Israel and force it to end its military actions are fundamentally a no-go. If Donald Trump is elected president, Israel will get a loyal ally who is even more reliable than the current government in the White House. The Republicans will be fully on Tel Aviv’s side, and it’s completely pointless to hope for something pro-Arab from them.
If the Democrats hold on to power, they are also closely connected with Jewish financial capital and will never exchange support for Israel for sentiments like “human rights violations” or “ending the humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip.” Unconditional support for Israel is, as American politicians love to say, a bipartisan matter. So there are exactly zero prospects for any changes in US policy concerning this country and its behavior in the Middle East.
The Americans are even more determined to support Ukraine in the conflict with Russia, regardless of who is in the White House. Such support is, again, a question of consensus among the ruling elite. Russia was seen as little more than a weak link for both the Democrats and the Republicans since the early 1990s, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is not so much a threat, but an obstacle to America’s sole control of the world.
And since [the US] succeeded in setting not just Ukraine, but also basically all of Europe against Russia, this course completely suits both the Democratic and Republican political elites in the US. Naïve expectations that, if Trump becomes president, there will be a chance of reaching an agreement on Ukraine will, I think, be dispelled as soon as he becomes (if he becomes) president.
I think in this case, Trump may propose some kind of Ukraine “peace plan” to Moscow. But the conditions set for Russia will make Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s proposal to “first return the Crimea to Ukraine and then start talks” [see Vol. 75, No. 15, pp. 17‑18] look like a masterstroke of peacemaking diplomacy by comparison.
If Harris wins, she will continue to support Kiev and could also give the Ukrainian leadership the green light to use American weapons for any attacks on Russian territory, including its main political and economic centers. The Americans will naturally do this through the hands of Ukraine and its European allies.
Having worked in Washington for over 25 years – from the [former US president Bill] Clinton administration to the current one – and knowing how the American political system functions from the inside, I can say with certainty that it is hopelessly naïve to think that Washington will do anything that runs counter to the plans of the ruling American elites. As experience shows, the results of the US election will not cause any fundamental changes in the country’s foreign policy. Accordingly, Washington will never refuse to support Ukraine and Israel.
There is no reason for Russia or the divided Arab world to wait for the results of the US presidential election. But it would make sense for Moscow to take advantage of the remaining months until the new US president is inaugurated (which will not happen until Jan. 20, 2025) to achieve its goals, including military ones. Especially since both US presidential candidates are currently occupied with domestic matters and are unlikely to be able to switch to external stimuli during this campaign period, no matter how much they want to.