Reflections on Trump's Second Term

There is a certain segment in Türkiye that wholeheartedly wished for Trump to win the U.S. election and was overjoyed when he did. At first glance, their reasoning seems quite justified. Democrats have always maintained a cold attitude toward Türkiye, and during Biden’s presidency, this took the form of an overtly hostile stance. This was hardly surprising; during his campaign, Biden openly stated that his administration did not support the legitimate government in Türkiye and would work with opposition forces to oust it. While they fell short of achieving that, Biden and other Democrats repeatedly dismissed and belittled Türkiye across various platforms, frustrating many in the country to the point where they began yearning for the Trump era.

Yes, Trump had his flaws, but at least he did not exhibit categorical hostility toward Türkiye. Erdoğan could easily reach Trump to discuss matters directly. Beyond the political relationship, there seemed to be a deeper, almost populist, affinity. Trump represented the voice of the "forgotten" Americans in the Midwest and Bible Belt—those often mocked and marginalized by the coastal elites whom Democrats represented. Trump’s simple English, down-to-earth demeanor, and nationalist rhetoric struck a chord with many, including some in Türkiye.

Another reason behind Trump’s appeal lies in his business background, which many found reassuring for reasons I can’t fully understand. There's a common belief that prioritizing economic issues over political ones leads to a more stable world. This may work in highly polarized political climates, where focusing on economic interests can seem like a refuge. However, the opposite is also possible—economic priorities can escalate political tensions. Personally, I find it more meaningful to navigate between these extremes, using political pragmatism to temper economic excess and vice versa. Allowing an overly economic mindset to dominate politics, as Trump seemed to do, can lead to undesirable outcomes. For instance, the logic of ending some wars because they are not economically viable could just as easily lead to starting worse conflicts if they appear profitable.

The Democrats campaigned on the slogan "America's Back," but it quickly became clear that this was nothing more than a thinly veiled neoconservative agenda, pushing for increased militarism. This approach led directly to the Russia-Ukraine war and indirectly to the Israel-Palestine conflict. While Israel saw an opportunity in the Democrats' militaristic stance and seized it, the second war emerged as an unintended and uncontrolled burden for the Democrats.

The Russia-Ukraine war spiraled out of control, with the Democrats failing to crush Russia economically. Instead, they faced a militarized and resilient Russia, strengthened alliances with China, and an unyielding India that refused to sever ties with Moscow. The Israel-Palestine war, meanwhile, became a crisis the Democrats neither expected nor could fully manage, forcing them to offer reluctant support.

It’s increasingly clear that the U.S.’s real power brokers are dissatisfied with the Democrats’ performance. They’ve turned to Trump as the solution. The worsening Ukraine war required action, but the Democrats, especially under Kamala Harris, were deemed incapable of resolving it. Trump, who criticized the war from the beginning, seemed better suited for the task. At the same time, U.S. policy has shifted to support Israel’s maximalist goals while investing in a broader alliance involving India, Gulf states, and potentially Russia, to isolate China.

Trump is not the paleoconservative some believe him to be. While he may have started with those leanings, he now aligns more closely with a faction of neoconservatives who want to shift the theater of war from Europe to the Middle East. Under Trump, the Russia-Ukraine war is unlikely to end as many expect. Instead, it will be de-escalated and prolonged to exhaust Russia. Recent missile strikes capable of reaching deep into Russian territory send a clear message: the war will continue until Russia is severely weakened.

Europe appears ready to play its part in this strategy. Despite leadership changes in Germany, the incoming Christian Democrats have pledged even stronger support for Ukraine. This signals that Europe will maintain its role in the conflict, as prescribed by U.S. strategy.

Russia’s cautious reaction to Trump’s victory reflects its understanding of these dynamics. While Trump may de-escalate the Ukraine war, his administration is unlikely to grant Russia a decisive victory. Instead, the conflict will be drawn out, keeping Russia debilitated for future reintegration into the global order on U.S. terms. Whether Trump can truly achieve these goals, however, remains a question for another discussion.