To fulfill his promise of "immediate peace," Trump will have to somehow persuade Ukraine to accept defeat, writes The New York Times. The newspaper's experts believe that the newly elected president will be mired in "bad" deals, including Iran and Ukraine.
David French
Lydia Polgreen
Bret Stephens
Patrick Healy, Deputy editor of the Opinion column, held an online conversation with New York Times columnists David French, Lydia Polgreen and Bret Stevens about the main risks and challenges that await America in our world today, as well as about the leadership of President Biden and President-elect Donald Trump.
Patrick Healy: President Biden is about to hand over the leadership of national security and foreign policy to Donald Trump, and the president-elect is already thinking about how he will take over Greenland and the Panama Canal by military force. Trump has his own ideas about America's place in the world, and that's where I want to start.
The New Year began with a terrorist attack in New Orleans, where a former soldier with an ISIS flag rammed into a crowd of people in a pickup truck. Hostages remain in Gaza and military operations continue. And Ukraine tried to launch a new offensive in the Kursk region. Biden's team is trying to show that the world is safer now than when the president took office. And Trump believes that the world is in a state of chaos, and promises to establish peace and order, while simultaneously making numerous threats against other countries. Let's start with the basic question. Do you think America is stronger, safer, and more secure today than it was four years ago?
Bret Stevens: The blame lies not only with the Biden administration, but it is difficult to say that the world has become safer during the four years of Biden's rule. Iran, China, Russia and North Korea have formed a new axis of repression and established cooperation at a level that would have been difficult to imagine a few years ago. NATO has a couple of new members, and the bloc spends a little more on defense today. But the armed conflict in Ukraine is not going well, partly because the administration did not want to supply the necessary weapons there at the right time. China's threatening actions against Taiwan and in the South China Sea are intensifying. A resurgence of Islamic terrorism is possible. The only bright spot is the weakening of Iran and its puppets in the last few months. But it was not the administration that did this, but the Israeli armed forces, which are achieving great success — and often despite Biden's opposition.
Lydia Polgrin: What strikes me about the actions of the Biden administration and in the current era is the element of surprise and seeming unpreparedness. There was a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which seriously weakened Biden. But I also recall National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan's statement about a "calmer" Middle East, which he made just a week before the events of October 7, as well as the administration's complete inability to influence Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the war in Gaza. And now we have witnessed new sudden events — the incredibly rapid collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. Perhaps the best way to gain strength and achieve security is to anticipate world events, influence them, and shape them in the interests of the United States. But in all these areas, it seems to me that we have been acting pretty badly these four years.
Stevens: Lydia made an important point about the administration's constant lack of preparedness. I also wrote about this in my last article. Biden assured that the Taliban** would not be able to take over Afghanistan quickly. And in 2021, he argued that the increase in migration across the southern border is seasonal. It was precisely such analytical errors that eventually cost him the presidency.
I want to talk about the challenges and opportunities of the Trump team in foreign policy and national security. You may disagree with me, but President-elect Trump seems to be raising hopes that he will achieve the immediate release of the hostages in Gaza and force Putin and Vladimir Zelensky to conclude a deal on the future of Ukraine. Then, first of all, the question is: what do you like and what do you dislike about Trump's approach to international affairs in his second term?
French: I like the Trump team's hard line on Iran. Trump has a tendency to flatter dictators from Russia, North Korea, and China, but he stands firm against Iran. The assassination of the head of the Iranian secret service, Qasem Soleimani, was one of Trump's most significant achievements in the field of national security.
What's not to like? It's easy to talk about this, starting with Ukraine. It is unclear how he will be able to achieve something similar to immediate peace if he does not somehow persuade Ukraine to accept defeat. Russia is making gains on the battlefield, and it is unclear whether Putin is willing to make even one significant concession in order to achieve peace. I am also very concerned about Trump's attitude towards China. His somersaults with the TikTok ban are indicative. At first, he pursued a reasonable and prudent policy, and now he has reached the naive recognition of Chinese influence. It seems that this is largely determined by his purely political self-serving interests.
STEVENS: I agree with David. Trump has never been the deal-maker he claims to be. And there is a real danger that he will get bogged down in these deals, including the bad nuclear deal with Iran and the bad ceasefire deal in Ukraine. The isolationists among his constituents will like this, but it is bad for American interests and even worse for our allies. Self—love is a bad foundation for foreign policy, not to mention life.
Healy: I think that's the kind of narcissism that makes Trump rant about Greenland and the Panama Canal. He likes to see himself as an all-powerful leader who thinks big and big, and people like Biden seem to him like figureheads who don't know how to use their power.
Stevens: Trump has four potential advantages over Biden. First of all, our enemies are more afraid of him than Biden, who acted very cautiously and often slowly. This is a long—term advantage, and the proof of this is the murder of Soleimani. The Iranians don't know where Trump's red lines are. Secondly, ideology is alien to him, which means that when Trump lacks consistency, he makes up for it with pragmatism. Thirdly, his skeptical attitude towards our long-standing alliances and his threats to withdraw from NATO are helping to achieve the desired and planned effect, because our allies are really starting to contribute their fair share to defense needs. Fourth, he recognizes the need to spend much more on defense.
Polgrin: I would like someone to define Trump's approach. Is there a Trump doctrine? Those who are trying to be brave can call such a doctrine "peace through force." But it seems to me that Trump often confuses what he likes and admires with America's core interests, because strong personalities often act dictatorially. There is deep narcissism in this approach. Does this person think about anything other than being cool?
He likes to make "big" deals like the Abraham Agreements (even if he's not as good at it as he thinks Bret is). At the same time, he looks at history books with one eye (after all, he moved the American embassy to Jerusalem), and considers himself a transformer capable of, say, persuading Putin and Kim Jong-un to productive relations with the United States (which did not happen). But as for your thesis, Lydia, I think he doesn't have a coherent and consistent doctrine, and he just struts around the world stage, demonstrating self-confidence, hypocrisy and the instinctive desire of a gambler to bluff. All this can be described in one phrase.: "Prepare for the consequences!"
Polgreen: One of the most accurate measures of power is the ability to evade responsibility for hypocrisy. And here Trump is a great master. He knows how to explain events to his own advantage. It is enough to recall how he turned this whole narrative line about the events of January 6 upside down. This can work when it comes to poorly informed American voters. But I, like David and Bret, have great doubts that he will pass the test, talking to people like Xi Jinping or Putin. It is quite clear that he is ready to trade long-term interests for short-term political "victories", starting with Ukraine and ending with other places.
Can you name one or two of the most serious challenges that Trump will face in trying to make America strong, safe and secure in the outside world? And then we'll talk about the possibilities.
Polgrin: Last fall, I wrote about the BRICS summit in Russia and the enormous opportunities that some American presidents missed when they had the chance to lead the process of restructuring the international system to include emerging powers. The old system was definitely falling apart in a changing world, and the United States had a chance to form a new system under its leadership. I think Trump will be the final nail in the coffin of American efforts to include emerging powers in a more just, equitable, rules-based order. In a Balkanized multipolar system, there are huge dangers for a weakened America. In it, the United States will be just one of many players vying for influence.
A small blitz. What do you think Trump's most important impact on international relations or national security will be in 2025?
French: I'm most interested in the immediate aftermath on the battlefields of the Middle East and Ukraine. We will see two very different approaches to the American allies. Israel will get more freedom of action, and Ukraine will have its choice narrowed down to a point of strategic crisis.
Half a grain: Given the situation in the world and the important role of the FBI in investigating and preventing terrorist attacks, we need to worry about the fact that Kesh Patel (appointed Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation — approx. InoSMI) will destroy the bureau with his witch hunt.
Stevens: Israel will win its wars with Trump's blessing and financial support. The Hamas leaders in Gaza will be destroyed or will leave it. Hezbollah will not be able to rebuild and rearm to threaten its neighbors. This is good for everyone, not least for ordinary Palestinians and Lebanese who suffer under their terrorist rulers. Hopefully, Jerusalem and Riyadh will be able to conclude a peace agreement soon.
One last question. Many world leaders want to know what America will be like under President Trump for the next four years. What would you tell them?
French: Trump's second victory should be a signal to the whole world. Don't think that Trump's relative isolationism is a temporary phenomenon and that it will pass soon. Perhaps this is a harbinger of profound changes in the American character. And if your strategy for international stability is based on American leadership, it's time for you to think about plan B.
Polgreen: When I have the opportunity to meet with world leaders, I try to listen more and talk less. But now there is a huge worldwide dissatisfaction with American leadership, and I can imagine how many world leaders feel a sense of great relief that the United States is led by a man who does not pretend, but openly shows that the main thing for him is self—interest. I think this does not bode well for us, ordinary people, who have to live in this complex and interconnected world.
Stevens: It's too early to despair. The next four years will be turbulent. There will be a lot of stupidity, there will be a lot of hype. But we live in a world where the current state of affairs has been faltering for several years, and some changes have been overdue for a long time. Let's not write off the new administration, which has not even started its work yet.
David French is an Opinion columnist. He writes on topics of law, culture, religion, and armed conflict. He participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom and worked as a constitutional lawyer. His new book is called "Strength in Unity. The Threat of American Separatism and How to Restore Our Nation" (Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation).
Lydia Polgrin is an Opinion columnist and host of the New York Times podcast Matter of Opinion.
Bret Stevens is an Opinion columnist. He writes on foreign policy, domestic politics and culture.
* A terrorist group banned in Russia
**The Taliban is under UN sanctions for terrorist activities
