NEW OLD PRESIDENT

The electoral process in the United States has reached its conclusion, yielding a result that may be characterised as both predictable and sensational. Donald Trump has been elected president, having previously been elected in 2016 but losing to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He is now back in the White House. He achieved victory with a decisive electoral score of 295 to 226 in favour of his opponent, Kamala Harris.

Fears and predictions of post-election riots did not materialize, possibly because Trump's win was substantial, making any challenges through mass street protests seem futile. There have been numerous instances throughout world history of significant political comebacks, the implications of which have been quite pronounced. While it is possible to reiterate that "the US presidency is an institution, not an individual," Trump's victory represents a distinctly different situation.

Today, expressions of congratulations are being extended to the presidential candidate who has emerged triumphant. These sentiments are being conveyed by a diverse array of individuals, including those who view his return to the White House with optimism and those who perceive his victory as a source of distress and concern.

The Azerbaijani Dimension

Additionally, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, extended a congratulatory message to Donald Trump. He underscored the significance of fostering a comprehensive and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States of America, emphasizing the importance that the Republic of Azerbaijan places on this partnership. Aliyev made the following statement: "During your initial presidential term, you demonstrated a noteworthy commitment to fortifying the bonds of friendship and collaboration between Azerbaijan and the United States, thereby facilitating the sustainable and consistent advancement of our partnership. I am gratified to note that during this period, our partnership, founded on mutual trust and support—including our joint endeavours in several pivotal domains such as combating global challenges and terrorism, enhancing international peace and security, and ensuring Europe's energy security—has witnessed a period of dynamic and upward progress. In this regard, it is particularly noteworthy to underscore the unwavering support extended by the United States to Azerbaijan's energy strategy. He proceeded to elaborate on the aforementioned points. "By capitalizing on the extensive potential of our engagement with the United States, we are dedicated to further enhancing and intensifying our bilateral partnership across a comprehensive range of domains, including political, economic, energy, security, environmental, and digital transition, among others."

The formal congratulations, however, mask important diplomatic nuances. During the tenure of Donald Trump as President of the United States, relations between Baku and Washington indeed progressed in a positive and dynamic manner. It is widely acknowledged that the American approach has been somewhat inconsistent over time, regardless of the administration in power. However, the ascension of Joe Biden to the presidency, which has been characterized as the "most pro-Armenian president," has resulted in a notable cooling of relations and the emergence of growing disagreements between Baku and Washington. These developments have even led to speculation that relations between the two countries may be on the brink of a crisis. Consequently, in the aftermath of Trump's victory, Azerbaijan is optimistic about the prospect of a potential normalization of relations with Washington and the resolution of the outstanding issues that the previous democratic administration was unable to address.

Trump's Perspective Road Map

Azerbaijani experts referenced another remark made by President Ilham Aliyev regarding Donald Trump. The head of state highlighted that the United States had not engaged in any new military conflicts during Trump's tenure, which he regarded as a noteworthy positive development. During his election campaign, Trump made the promise to "end the Ukrainian war in 24 hours," yet he did not elucidate the means by which he would achieve this.

A considerable number of political analysts have characterised Trump's victory as a near-disastrous development for Ukraine. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the most significant failures of the United States with regard to Ukraine did not occur during the Trump administration, but rather during the tenure of Democratic presidents. In 2014, following Russia's return of Crimea "to where it belongs," the United States "forgot" its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum, which was undertaken during the Barack Obama administration and Joe Biden was vice president at the time. During his tenure, Biden was unable to fulfil the promises he had made to Kiev regarding the Ukrainian conflict. In the early stages of the conflict, the US adopted a cautious approach, initially reluctant to provide military or financial assistance to Ukraine.

Following the US election, Vladimir Zelensky was presented with the chance to engage in discourse with Trump, which he subsequently described as gratifying. It would appear that Trump did not apply the same level of pressure to Ukraine as had been anticipated by the Democrats. It is recalled that the initial package of sanctions against Russia was imposed during the tenure of President Trump. Therefore, it is challenging to substantiate the claim that Trump has been unduly lenient towards the Russian Federation. In light of these observations, it seems prudent to adopt a cautious approach to expectations for Trump's second term.

It is worth considering the veracity of statements such as "Donald Trump will pull the US out of NATO." Trump previously articulated a similar sentiment during his initial presidential term, characterizing the North Atlantic Alliance as "obsolete." Nevertheless, following a meeting in spring 2017 with the then-Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, he publicly retracted his previous statements, asserting that he no longer considered NATO to be obsolete. Presently, the statements made by Trump regarding NATO are less radical than those made prior to his first term. Despite his pledge to "speak firmly" with NATO members regarding compliance with a single provision of the North Atlantic Treaty—namely, that member states should allocate a minimum of 2% of their budgets for defence and security—it is notable that this stipulation was rigorously upheld during the Cold War. In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a notable decline in military spending as funds were redirected toward social programs, effectively serving as a means of buying votes. Discussions surrounding augmented military spending gained momentum in the wake of events such as the Crimean crisis. If Trump is now presenting Europeans with an ultimatum regarding their military spending commitments in exchange for US security guarantees, this action is incongruent with the narrative of wanting to dismantle NATO. Additionally, Macron's expressions of concern and his aspirations for a "consolidated policy" within the European Union warrant examination. It is widely acknowledged that following Britain's departure from the European Union, France has sought to establish itself as a leading power within the EU, aiming to transform the union into a sphere of French influence. This ambition partially elucidates Macron's endeavours to establish a European army. France is not a dominant member of NATO; however, it is the sole member of the EU to possess nuclear weapons. In light of these circumstances, Macron's attempts to establish a unified anti-Trump stance within the EU appear to be driven more by personal ambitions than by Trump's actual policies.

Defeat of the Pink Ponies

It would be prudent to await the inauguration of the Trump administration and the formation of the new presidential cabinet before drawing conclusions. After all, many apocalyptic predictions made during the first presidential term did not materialise as anticipated.

Nevertheless, one crucial factor should not be overlooked. The primary focus of American voters participating in presidential elections is on domestic issues, rather than on foreign policy matters such as Ukraine, Georgia, or the EU. The appeal of slogans such as "Let's make America great again!" is evident. A considerable proportion of the American population is disinclined to embrace the political experimentation pursued by the Democratic Party. A considerable number of citizens express a preference for a return to the political rhetoric that was prevalent in the 1980s. As a performer and television personality, Donald Trump is adept at garnering applause from a mainstream audience, rather than from an "advanced audience" at a university in Massachusetts or California. Despite their disapproval, Democratic politicians appear to have overlooked the fact that these commentators do not exert a significant influence on public opinion, as they often assume.

Trump is an "unsystematic" politician who has, perhaps inadvertently, become a focal point for voters who are fatigued by post-Cold War political figures. This electorate has been somewhat derisively labelled "pink ponies," which contrasts sharply with more hawkish counterparts. Throughout the era of global confrontation, Western political institutions gradually became populated by individuals who had yet to move beyond a state of "Gorbi-Yeltsin euphoria." These individuals articulated persuasive arguments in favour of democratic advancement while simultaneously advocating for expanded rights for a diverse array of political movements, including those pertaining to LGBT rights and the Black Lives Matter movement. In practice, they encountered difficulties in addressing urgent issues facing the United States, particularly those related to the economy and society. Although they are reluctant to acknowledge it, it was Trump who initially vanquished the "pink ponies" in the Republican primaries and subsequently compelled the Democratic candidate to contend with heightened scrutiny during the national elections for a second time.

Democrats failed to capitalise on numerous opportunities throughout the course of their campaign. The lackluster debate between Biden and Trump resulted in a shift in the electoral landscape, necessitating a candidate change midway through the race. The attempted assassination of Trump was once again attributed, albeit indirectly, to Biden due to his unfortunate remark, which was believed to have contributed to the escalation of tensions. It is argued that the Democratic Party has lost its ability to communicate effectively with the general electorate. A further cause for concern is the apparent inability of the Democrats to engage with the electorate, which has contributed to yet another electoral defeat.

It is possible that those engaged in traditional political activities will derive meaningful insights from this experience. Nevertheless, historical evidence indicates that those who adhere to a particular ideology or belief system, often referred to as "pink ponies," are unlikely to abandon their convictions even in the face of substantial challenges or setbacks.