Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
There are three geopolitical flashpoints that could ignite a great-power confrontation between the collective West and nations aligned with the emerging multipolar world: Israel / Iran, Russia / Ukraine, and China / Taiwan.
The incoming Trump administration has branded itself as a peace-making entity. But is this claim accurate? Moreover, given the realities of great-power politics, is peace even attainable?
On the Ukrainian front, the past week has marked the most significant escalation in hostilities since the high-intensity phase of the war began nearly three years ago. This development ushers in a new chapter of uncertainty and fear.
The escalation was triggered by President Joe Biden’s decision to overturn a longstanding NATO policy that prohibited Ukraine from launching long-range missile strikes into Russian territory due to concerns over nuclear escalation. In short, that is precisely what has happened.
Last Thursday, Nov. 21, Moscow launched a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile at a munitions factory inside Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin also announced a significant shift in Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The updated policy now permits Moscow to initiate a nuclear strike if it is attacked by a nonnuclear state (such as Ukraine) that is supported by a nuclear power like the United States, the United Kingdom, or France.
Western think tanks have largely downplayed the severity of this change in Russia’s nuclear posture. However, the Carnegie Center for Russia Eurasian Studies raised concerns, stating:
Taken as a whole, the updated doctrine significantly lowers the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. The problem is that the lower this threshold becomes, the harder it is to convince anyone that any such threshold actually exists.”
While this may be a blasé take in the face of potential nuclear annihilation, analysts do not anticipate any significant escalation from Russia—either up or down the conflict ladder—until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Turning to the flashpoint in West Asia, where the ongoing genocide in Palestine continues, Trump has stated he wants the war concluded by the time he assumes office but has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “finish the job.” In this context, it appears the Israeli administration is working to secure a temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon as a “gift” to Trump. This move could create the political flexibility needed to continue to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The overarching question remains whether Trump, given these developments and his belligerent stance toward China, is genuinely the anti-war candidate he campaigned as. This is challenging to determine, particularly in light of his prior presidency, which included episodes of violence and brinkmanship with Iran and Russia, as well as his selection of hawkish cabinet members whose aggression varies by region.
Another pressing question is whether the United States has the capacity to maintain a hawkish stance—both militarily and economically—over the next four years of Trump’s presidency.
Tune in to State of Play as we dissect Trump’s foreign policy challenges, from Russia’s nuclear brinkmanship to escalating tensions in West Asia, and what these developments mean for America’s role in an increasingly volatile world.
Original article: mintpressnews.com
