Perhaps the most attractive aspect of Trump is that everyone has their own Trump. He says he will ‘drain the swamp’ and gets votes from the anti-establishment. He says, ‘I’m going to cut taxes for the rich’ and gets support from the rich. On the one hand he says he will give Israel unlimited support; on the other hand he goes to the Arabs and says, ‘I will end the Gaza war’. The most interesting thing is that all these discourses are reciprocated. Unlike the Democrats, who are afraid of offending everyone and cannot say anything to anybody, he manages to reach every segment of society in this way.
This personalized Trump experience has brought the conservatives back to power. Of course, this is not just an electoral issue. As the new cabinet for the new term becomes clear, a similar equation exists in foreign policy. While some look at the appointment of Marco Rubio and say ‘look, this guy is working for the neocons’, others point to Tulsi Gabbard and rejoice ‘here’s the isolationist Trump we’ve been looking for’. However, Trump’s new term codes are based on two words: balance and obedience. The people chosen for the cabinet were chosen to satisfy both wings of the Republican Party, but more importantly to show unconditional loyalty to Trump.
The main reason for this is Trump’s big victory. Unlike in 2016, the absolute victory in this election makes it exceedingly difficult for Trump’s policies to be debated. Moreover, the MAGA crowd, which did not do well in the 2022 midterms, subsequently suppressed the party to such an extent that names like Nikki Haley or Mike Pence, who were publicly identified as neocons, disappeared during the primary process. In fact, after the elections, we realized that the party’s old-timers, like the Cheneys, did not have much of an impact on conservative public opinion. All this makes the MAGA movement the dominant party in the new cabinet.
However, there are arguments against MAGA’s dominance in this balancing act. For example, the fact that members of the Trump cabinet such as Pete Hegseth have signaled ‘continued support’ on the Ukraine issue has created the impression that the neocon wing of the party could be strong in the new administration. But it is a little more complex than that.
The wind of peace in Ukraine
As the Ukrainian war enters its third year and the tide has turned in Russia’s favor, all eyes have turned to Trump’s biggest promise, the ‘peace on day one’ plan. Of course, cabinet members’ statements on Ukraine are still confusing. So, what will Trump’s Ukraine policy be?
One of the most important aspects of Trump’s policy is his personal aesthetic. The image of himself created by his actions should be very positive. For example, Trump cannot accept Biden’s disgrace in Afghanistan. In this respect, he is more concerned with aesthetics than other politicians. In Ukraine, an environment in which Russia swallows the whole of Ukraine will not make Trump look good. If a peace process is to succeed, Ukraine cannot come to the table with weak and reluctant allies. No matter how much Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. told Zelenskyy that ‘you have a month’s allowance left’, the Trump administration cannot take such a stance. Why should Russia negotiate peace if support for Ukraine is going to be cut anyway? For a realistic peace deal, the U.S. needs to give the impression that it will continue to provide arms support if the talks fail. Whether Trump likes it or not, the country he leads is a party to the war in Ukraine. So, he will have to balance the desire for peace with the bells of war.
The situation on the ground is working against Ukraine. Despite lowering the recruitment age to twenty-five, the manpower problems have not been solved. The U.S. is urging Ukraine to lower the age to eighteen. But the 18-25 age group is the smallest demographic group in Ukraine. Conscripting them will exacerbate Ukraine’s demographic crisis in the coming years. In addition, there is a desertion crisis in Ukrainian brigades that cannot enter the rotation. Between January 2024 and August 45,543 Ukrainian soldiers deserted. The total number of desertions since 2022 is 81,167. In other words, half of the desertions in the entire war took place in the last 8 months. These are, of course, ‘minimum’ figures. Desertions that Ukraine can keep track of. It is difficult to know the real number.
Besides, Ukraine’s Kursk adventure is not going well. While waiting for the Russian army to move its troops in a panic, they had to move their own troops to protect the Russian territory they had captured. This accelerated the Russian advance in Donbass. At 490 square kilometers, Russia gained the most territory in all but the first month of the war. This is precisely why Trump’s final withdrawal of support for Ukraine would weaken his hand in peace talks. Trump would prefer a Ukraine that has solved its manpower problem at the peace table.
A similar equation in Syria
Over the past three days, the world has been shocked by the offensive launched by Syrian opposition groups in Aleppo. The offensive resulted in the capture of Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, which has been the scene of fierce clashes for more than four years during the Syrian civil war. In addition to Aleppo, the Syrian National Army (SNA) captured the Kuweires airbase to the east of the city and surrounded the Tal Rifaat region controlled by YPG-PKK elements.
The emergence of such a chaotic environment in Syria can be seen as ‘the footsteps of the Trump era’. Statements such as ‘reconsidering relations with the YPG’ in Project 2025, the Republican presidential preparation programme, as well as Trump’s desire to withdraw from Syria, raise this possibility. However, I believe that these developments are independent of the foreign policy of the Trump era. Trump has not even taken office yet and he has to prioritize domestic issues. In particular, he will seek to reduce Democratic influence in the Pentagon and the intelligence community.
In my interviews with Atlantic Council member Rich Outzen and George W. Bush-era security adviser Dov Zakheim over the past few years, I have often heard the statement that ‘west of the Euphrates, the U.S. would not be bothered’ about Turkey’s operations in Syria. The equation that has emerged today should be assessed mainly between Iran, Syria and Turkey. We need more time to observe the new U.S .policy in the region.
In conclusion, it is useful to see Trump’s foreign policy as a pendulum that will swing back and forth between MAGA and neoconservative balance in the coming years. The direction in which the pendulum will swing will be determined by Trump rather than the Pentagon. This is why other countries will try to ‘humour’ Trump in their relations with the U.S. As I said, everyone has their own Trump… Let’s see how many different Trumps the next four years will show us!
