The impending U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be not just another voting event but potentially a pivotal moment with far-reaching consequences for international relations, especially for Ukraine and the Middle East. Stakes have never been higher, and the outcomes could align support or divide efforts on the global stage.
After more than 1,000 days of brutal conflict with Russia, Ukraine is at the forefront of discussions about the future of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. plays a sizeable role as Ukraine's main backer, providing military and humanitarian aid which has proven to be indispensable for the embattled nation. Yet, reports indicate concerns from Ukrainian officials about the potential outcomes of the U.S. election. According to Bloomberg, either candidate victory could lead to reduced support for Ukraine. If former President Donald Trump wins, his past rhetoric suggests he may push for negotiations with Russia, which could, alarmingly, weaken Ukraine's position and embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump has previously indicated intentions to shift U.S. diplomatic tactics, aiming for what could be portrayed as favorable terms to Russia. According to reports, Donald Trump has signaled he would “settle” the conflict shortly after taking office, raising alarms among Ukrainian leaders who fear any settlement might result in Ukraine conceding to Russian demands.
Despite these grim prospects, there’s rising concern among U.S. allies, particularly if Vice President Kamala Harris were to win the election. Analysts speculate she might face hurdles maintaining unwavering support for Ukraine's military needs as Congress grapples with spending caps and possible shifts in public sentiment—especially as bipartisan support for international aid has been waning.
On October 25, just days before the elections, polls indicated Trump and Harris were tied, particularly within seven key swing states. These states could very well dictate not only the election outcome but also change the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy for years to come.
Meanwhile, the situation isn't much different when it concerns the Middle East. There, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's recent diplomatic visit yielded scant results, with violence flaring as Israel bombed targets seen as linked to Iran's military capabilities only days after his departure. This escalation not only showcases the fragile stability of the region but also the limitations of U.S. influence under its current administration.
Israel's aggressive military posture has raised fears of broader conflict, particularly as tensions escalate following Blinken's visit aimed at negotiating peace. The humanitarian toll has been staggering with increasing civilian casualties, and it leaves many wondering what the future holds if the U.S. continues its staunch support for Israeli military actions.
Critics of U.S. foreign policy contend Washington’s uninterrupted military aid enables Israel’s aggressive campaigns, which, instead of bringing peace, lead to cycles of retaliatory violence. Almost 50,000 lives—Palestinian, Israeli, and Lebanese—have already been lost to the conflict, highlighting the human cost of continued hostilities, exacerbated by the U.S.'s unyielding backing of military efforts.
To many international observers, it is evident: the world needs U.S. leadership to shift away from perpetuating violence and redirect toward long-term strategies for peace and humanitarian aid. There’s growing sentiment calling for Washington to reevaluate its support of Israeli military operations and instead advocate for sustainable conflict resolutions.
Looking at these complicated dynamics, the stakes around the U.S. election cannot be ignored. Whether for Ukraine or the Middle East, the outcomes of the election this coming November could define international relations for years to come. The political will of American leaders could reshape policies, potentially changing how nations interact and respond to humanitarian crises.
With international politics at such a crossroads, global leaders will be watching closely to see how the U.S. navigates its future foreign policymaking under new leadership, and what this could mean for war-torn areas still caught up in violence, suffering, and the desperate calls for peace.
