Opinion: US Elections – Global Impact and the Future of (Transatlantic) Multilateralism

The US Votes – The Whole World Watches and Will Act Accordingly

In the coming hours and days, as polling stations close and the world once again focuses on the United States, some things are already abundantly clear. First, this election is somewhat of a “Schicksalswahl” (a choice of fate) not only for American society but also for the West in general. This election may very well decide the course of action for years, if not decades, to come. A triumph of Trumpism and American isolationism will likely embolden strategic rivals of the West globally. Some strategists, politicians, and think tank experts even speak about the emergence of a new axis cooperating against the international rules-based order: „CRINK“—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Their cooperation can currently be observed in Ukraine: China is helping Russia circumvent Western sanctions and delivering dual-use goods that fuel the Russian war economy; Iran is supplying Russia with drones; and North Korea is providing artillery ammunition and, more recently, infantry soldiers.

These countries are united primarily by one factor: they reject the current world order and seek to reshape global and regional security architectures, moving away from a rules-based international order toward a „dog-eat-dog“ world, where the right of the strongest once again becomes the most significant factor in international interactions.

But what would another US withdrawal from the world stage mean? We would likely see even more chaos, violent conflict, and territorial spillover than we do now. Authoritarian revanchist regimes would feel emboldened to challenge the current global and regional security architectures. What is unfolding in Ukraine and the Middle East might only mark the beginning of a new battle for dominance in an emerging global order. Some argue that this shift is inevitable; however, a Trump victory would likely accelerate the speed and intensity of this struggle.

The End of the Age of (Western) Multilateralism

If elected, Trump would likely pull out of COP29, which would be a significant setback in the global fight against climate change, and he may weaken NATO, if not withdraw entirely. Earlier this year, he publicly stated he would not defend NATO allies that fail to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target, even hinting that he would encourage Russia to invade them if they „don’t pay.“ In a recent campaign speech in Michigan, he said, “some of our allies are worse than our so-called enemies,” suggesting that NATO allies are security free-riders—a long-standing complaint of his that nearly fractured the alliance during his first administration. Such rhetoric inevitably weakens the Transatlantic partnership and alliance and such a unpredictable actor as Trump could -even if unlikely- even withdraw from NATO entirely as his former longest-serving security advisor John Bolton called very high.

Another series of trade wars with both China and the EU is a probable outcome of a second Trump administration, potentially dismantling the existing triangular structure of world trade. This would be another setback for EU foreign policy, which has invested considerable resources in addressing the challenges posed by Chinese subsidies and other non-WTO-compliant practices threatening the EU’s internal market.

A Harris administration, however, would likely not employ the same aggressive rhetoric or methods. But even with a renewed Democratic presidency, policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and extensive American subsidies highlight the need for the EU to strengthen its industries. Following the initial steps set by the Draghi report, ensuring timely and efficient implementation will be essential for the EU’s competitiveness.

Is Ukraine the Victim of a “Dirty Deal,” Regardless of the Outcome?

Trump has previously boasted about making a deal to end the conflict in Ukraine, though it’s doubtful he would consider the will of the Ukrainian people. Such a deal would require Putin’s interest in peace, which seems unlikely unless Ukraine is completely abandoned by its Western allies. Unfortunately, many Western societies and governments do not seem to grasp the Pandora’s box they would open if Putin’s Russia were to gain something from this war of aggression, backed by nuclear blackmail. Such an outcome would quickly set a precedent for other revanchist regimes to follow. Moreover, Western support for Ukraine in terms of political, economic, and military resources has fallen short of what is needed. This aligns with the current strategy of the White House, which, even under a Harris administration, is unlikely to change, paving the way for a potentially grim conclusion to this conflict. Ukraine may find itself once again a victim of Western miscalculation regarding Russian ambitions, with Putin’s goal of reclaiming what he sees as Russia’s historic lands, potentially including the annexation of Belarus by 2030 as leaked documents out of the Kremlin reveal.

Quo Vadis EU?

The EU stands at a critical juncture. Without the US by its side, and having failed over the past three decades to bolster its defense industry, the EU may not be able to absorb the impact of an American withdrawal. As Brussels has consistently reiterated (while Paris, Berlin, Rome, and Madrid have failed to take decisive action), Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is a vital issue for the EU. It represents the largest land war on the European continent since World War II—a war of territorial conquest threatening European security, a structure Putin shattered with his invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

This situation should have prompted much stronger EU action after February 2022. However, Ukraine’s battlefield successes and Russia’s strategic setbacks, including Finland and Sweden joining NATO, seem to have diminished the sense of urgency in European capitals. The latest developments in Eastern Ukraine and North Korea’s involvement should serve as a wake-up call to Ukraine’s allies that the current strategy is insufficient.

The EU must urgently ramp up its military production, streamline its defense industries, and prepare to defend itself independently of the US, as the need for credible deterrence—and the possibility of supporting Ukraine without the long-standing support of the US—has become a realistic scenario.