US election hangs over Price of War conference

The question of what happens to the international global order if Donald Trump wins next year’s election and goes full-blown “America First” cropped up throughout the Price of War conference in London today.

Attempting to predict what a Trump victory would mean for geopolitics is perhaps a futile exercise, said Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman of King’s College London, who made the keynote speech at the one-day symposium, hosted by CERGE-EI Foundation and Reaction. After all, Trump’s guide to policy is essentially “what suits him on the day.” 

Plus, what Trump says and does are often two very different things, argued Greg Swenson of Republicans Overseas. For instance, he may have been criticised for appearing far too chummy with Putin when the two leaders met but that didn’t stop him from whacking sanctions on Nord Stream 2. 

Despite these caveats, the world – and particularly nations at war – need to prepare for a new era of heightened American isolationism. 

As former US Ambassador Lew Lukens points out, Trump’s “America First” policy appeals to a huge swathe of US voters. And “over half of the members of the Republican House of Representatives don’t want to send any more money to Ukraine.” 

Speaking earlier in the day, Dame Melinda Simmons, the Former Ambassador of the UK to Ukraine, was adamant that Ukrainians will continue to fight, even if Washington – Kyiv’s biggest military funder by a mile – did withdraw its support in light of a Trump victory. We must remember that “this is an existential war for the people of Ukraine,” she reasoned. If supply of US weapons dries up, it will not stop them. 

Nor would withdrawal of support from Washington really mean that weapon supplies would dry up, says political commentator Tim Montgomerie. More likely, European nations would realise that “they need to bear more of the burden when it comes to military spending.”

Aside from the question of how the outcome of the US election will impact war in Ukraine, panelists also addressed how current conflicts could impact how Americans choose to cast their vote. 

The spiralling crisis in the Middle East was of much relevance in answering this latter question. 

Biden’s steadfast support for Israel could start to become a problem for him, said Lukens. While war often helps an incumbent, this doesn’t tend to apply with a proxy war: “US troops are not involved so it’s not quite the rally around the flag thing.”

And, as increasingly distressing images emerge from Gaza, “there are democrats who are very concerned about his administration’s pro-Israel policy.” This is mobilising the Israel-sceptic vote in the States, threatening to weaken the democrat coalition and increase the likelihood that Arab Americans and left-wing students will give the ballot box a wide berth. 

What’s more, Donald Trump ruled during a relatively peaceful era compared to the today’s global turmoil. This, Lukens adds, enables him to project a narrative: “If I was still president, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine and Hamas would never have attacked Israel.” Both, of course, unfalsifiable claims – but ones which nonetheless could sway some voters. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life