Would Donald Trump bomb Moscow?

Despite, or perhaps because of, Donald Trump’s recent felony conviction by a New York City court, all the polls suggest he is likely to win the forthcoming presidential elections in November. Things could change in the next few months, but policymakers throughout the world would be well advised to prepare for a second Trump administration.

Author: prof. Alexander J. Motyl

Just what Trump’s policies will be is almost impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy, given the large number of imponderables and the systemic turmoil that is sure to affect America in the aftermath of his victory. Trump’s election will have an even less predictable impact on US-Russia relations. The best we can do is highlight some of the “known knowns”  that will form part of the domestic- and foreign-policy context within which Trump will have to act.

With respect to the domestic context, America will continue to be deeply polarised, and relations between Democrats and Republicans will remain hostile. Trump and his allies are highly likely to seek revenge by purging the “deep state,” prosecuting Democratic opponents, and possibly even curbing the media. In the presence of these two factors, civil conflict cannot be ruled out, consensual policymaking will be the exception, not the rule, and parts of the United States—including Washington DC—could become ungovernable.

With respect to the international context, Trump is almost certain to pursue a hard line toward NATO and America’s allies, insisting that they share a greater part of the defense burden. At the same time, he is unlikely to give the Europeans greater policy leeway, thereby annoying them. Far less certain is his attitude toward other countries and regions. Given his policies during his first administration, a hard line vis-à-vis China seems likely. As Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s temperamental twin, Trump will probably side with Israeli against the Palestinians, thereby annoying Iran and Russia.

The question of temperament will loom especially large in the foreign-policy realm. Everyone agrees that Trump is unpredictable. Who could have imagined that he would court North Korea, initiate the Abraham Accords, and supply Ukraine with Javelins—all while moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and claiming to admire Vladimir Putin? His unpredictability is likely to increase during his second term, partly because of his age, partly because he knows that this will be his last chance to justify his belief in his own genius.

What, then, might a President Trump be expected to do with regard to Russia and Ukraine? It’s possible that, as Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban recently said, he won’t give a cent to Ukraine, thereby condemning it to defeat. But it’s also possible, as Trump himself has said, that he would have bombed Moscow when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Finally, it’s possible that he will try to end the war in 24 hours, as he promised, presumably as a result of marathon negotiating sessions with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Given Trump’s mercurial personality and lack of a consistent strategic vision, all three scenarios are thinkable. A rationally inclined neutral observer might easily and correctly conclude that none of these options would serve the world or the United States: abandoning Ukraine would destabilise Europe, bombing Moscow would risk world war, and 24 hours couldn’t possibly suffice to find an equitable solution to the war.

So which course of action would Trump choose? Chances are that he might be most inclined to that option that best serves his inflated ego. Abandoning Ukraine would make him look like a coward, escalating would enable him to play the tough guy, while negotiating would run the risk of failure. Seen in this light, standing up to Putin would do most for Trump’s self-perception and self-worth. And, as luck would have it, it would also be the best approach to ending the war on the West’s terms.

That said, we cannot ignore the Putin factor. Russia’s self-elected president would obviously prefer America’s abandonment of Ukraine to the other two options. But he won’t get it. A 24-hour deal might be to his advantage, were it possible, but given his intransigence, it’s probably impossible. Which leaves escalation by America Putin’s least favorite option because it’s most likely to tax Russia’s diminished resources and undermine his regime.

This analysis seems to point in the direction of a worsening of US-Russia relations under a second Trump administration, but only if one focuses on a limited set of factors and “freezes” the rest. But what if domestic politics infringes, as it is sure to do, on Trump’s foreign policy? He may decide that prosecuting Joe Biden is his only priority, which might imply continued funding of Ukraine or a cut off. Or Trump and the Republicans might make America ungovernable, sparking or inciting massive civil conflict, in which case Russia might be America’s least pressing concern. Or, finally, the soon-to-be octogenarian, hamburger-chomping Trump might, like Putin, part with the world, in which case all bets are off.

In sum, we do not know what Trump’s impact on US-Russian relations will be. They’re unlikely to improve, and they could get much worse. Or, then again, they could become irrelevant to Trump and his America First supporters.

The moral for policymakers around the world is clear: as life becomes infinitely more interesting under Trump, they will have to consider a wide range of contingencies, prepare for the worst while hoping for the second best, and never assume that what seems permanent and stable will always remain so.

Alexander J. Motyl is professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. He served as associate director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in 1992-1998. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia, and the USSR, he is the author of six academic books and the editor or co-editor of over fifteen volumes, including The Encyclopedia of Nationalism and The Holodomor Reader: A Sourcebook on the Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine.

Read More in PostPravda.Info:
The spirit of Kiev, jarred by drone, or social propaganda in Ukraine
The decolonization of Ukraine is underway. If Kiev wins, it will write its own history

Hot this week

Ukraine’s soldiers seek revenge against Putin’s forces in Kursk: ‘We laughed digging trenches on enemy soil’

From crippling bridges bringing supplies to Russia’s troops to defending the territory they have snatched in daring raids, soldiers resting in Ukraine’s border Sumy region tell Askold Krushelnycky they want to push on.

Propaganda surrounding the assassination attempt on Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico

After the assassination attempt on Robert Fico, the propaganda inherent in such cases was basically immediately launched. Wszelaka. We followed it through.

In Kursk, Putin is learning that historical revanchism cuts both ways [OPINION]

Ukrainians may decide to celebrate the liberation of their former capital. Historical revanchism cuts both ways.

The Kremlin fears that the West is trying to break Russia apart. If only! [OPINION]

Russia’s stony-faced foreign minister is getting paranoid. Sergei Lavrov believes that “at present, about 50 countries are trying to break up Russia.” The West is the Kremlin's worst enemy.

In Russia, they conscripted a student for criticizing Joseph Stalin

In Russia, they conscripted a student into the army for criticizing Stalin. "He wanted an argument about Stalin? Well, he lost," - reads the Russian press.

Winter in Sloviansk: The Goal Is to Survive Together with Ukraine. From the series “War in Human Life”

“This is the hardest winter in Sloviansk in all the years of the war,” says Nikolai Karpitsky. He has spent all four years of the war in this frontline city. Specially for PostPravda.Info, he tells how a resident of Sloviansk endures the cold, which the enemy uses as a weapon.

Personal and Collective Responsibility for Russia’s War Against Ukraine

What is responsibility, and how is a feeling of responsibility connected to recognizing a person as a free citizen rather than a serf or a slave? Why do some Russians acknowledge collective responsibility for the war, while others are outraged that responsibility for crimes of the regime – crimes in which they were not personally involved – is being attributed to them?

Trump’s Europe’s Rearmament Could Cost the US

President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policies, his redux of the Monroe Doctrine, and the threats to abandon NATO have triggered a collective angst from the US’s most powerful and proven allies.

Trilateral Peace Negotiations on Ukraine: Participants Seem to Be from Different Parallel Worlds

The trilateral negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States on settling the war concluded on January 24, 2026, in Abu Dhabi. The parties agreed to continue the talks on February 1. But is peace possible if the sides fundamentally fail to understand one another – because they think differently and inhabit different worldviews?

Will Iran Follow Russia’s Path, or Is There Hope for a Better Future?

The January protests in Iran were suppressed with inhumane brutality in the name of a regime that proclaims the primacy of religious morality. Yet such brutality contradicts any morality and any religion. At what point does the religious and moral motivation of the Iranian authorities become necrophilic? Is the degeneration of ideological totalitarianism in Iran into necro-imperialism inevitable – by analogy with what has occurred in Russia?

The Existential Experience of War. From the series “War in Human Life”

The existential experience of war includes not only what a person observes – bombardments, the collapse of vital infrastructure, destruction, and the loss of life – but also what they experience inwardly.

Life in Occupied Kherson: An Eyewitness Account. From the series “War in Human Life”

“Without documents, you’re just a piece of meat,” says Vitaly. “The gangster-ridden 1990s are like a fairy tale compared to this.” Kherson – 256 Days of occupation. An eyewitness account of terror, repression, protests, and the struggle for survival under Russian rule.

Nominations Are Underway for the Russian Platform at PACE. But Is the Russian Opposition a Political Agency?

Can a citizen of an aggressor state be a political agency if their entire country is working toward war? For now, we can speak only of the possibility of manifesting political agency – and only if that agency is directed toward achieving a military victory over the aggressor. Are the candidates currently being nominated to the Russian platform at PACE prepared for this?
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

spot_imgspot_img