This article by Dr. David Bennett analyses the prospects for the second Trump administration to help bring peace to both Syria and Ukraine by convening international conferences as well as the benefits to the United States of President Trump applying domestic policies in accordance with a neo-Progressive Republican Tradition.

The presidency of Joseph R Biden (2021 to 2025) has thankfully come to an end as he could be ranked as one of the was the worst presidents of the Unted States of America (USA) since James Buchanan (1857 to 1861), who allowed a majority of the Southern states of the USA to secede between the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in November 1860 and Lincoln’s  inauguration in March 1861.

That Biden was such an abysmal president was despite and not because of his cognitive mental decline.  For Biden was a sinister American president who was prepared to ‘sell out’ the more or less free world so that he was the twenty-first century equivalent of the far-left politician Senator George S Mc Govern who lost his bid for the presidency in 1972 in a landslide election defeat.

The ‘Mc Governite’ foreign policy agenda of President Biden was manifested by his betrayal of the Afghan people to the Taliban in August 2021 by precipitously withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan.  Indeed, it is plausibly possible that the Biden administration colluded with the Taliban to help bring this barbaric group to power.  Consequently, a judicial investigation should be undertaken by the second Trump administration as to whether there was a deliberate betrayal of Afghanistan by the Biden administration.

This betrayal of Afghanistan by the Biden administration was a direct signal to Russia’s Vladimir Putin that he could ‘get away’ with invading Ukraine in February 2022.  Indeed, in a potential repeat of the Afghan debacle, President Biden was possibly also prepared to also betray Ukraine because his initial response to Moscow’s invasion of that nation was to offer to fly the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky into exile to help facilitate an expeditious Russian takeover of his nation.

That the USA belatedly rallied to support Ukraine by providing military aid was due to President Biden’s cognitive decline because this allowed former president Barack Obama and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step into the breach to help ensure that military assistance was provided to Kiev.  Furthermore, Nancy Pelosi’s staunch support for the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has been a contributing factor which has helped deter mainland China from invading that island when President Biden if left to his own devices might have been prepared to let that island go.

It also seems that President Biden might have allowed Iran to acquire nuclear weapons because his administration inexplicably eased economic and financial sanctions against the Iranian regime when it was prepared to forgo its clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons.

The fact that the United States effectively supported Israel following the October 7^th, 2023, terrorist attacks which were launched by Hamas from Gaza which led to deaths of Israeli citizens and the taking of hostages was also probably due to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi again surreptitiously stepping into the breach in the context of President Biden’s mental decline. 

Trump Cards for Syria? 

Ironically, Iranian instigated terrorism against Isreal compelled Iran to divert its resources from the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria so that it thankfully fell in November 2024.  The fall of the Baathist regime in Syria ends a sorry state of affairs where western nations, such as the United States and Great Britain, effectively turned a blind eye to the hideous abuses committed by the Assad regime since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011.  By refusing to provide air support to the various Syrian rebel groups to force the Baathists to the negotiating table the scenario of new Syrian provisional government consequently being formed was thwarted.

Ironically, now that an Al-Qaeda off-shoot such as the HTS has taken power in Damascus the prospect is there for an international conference on Syria to be convened so that a multi-party provisional Syrian government can be formed.  This scenario is not as fanciful as it sounds because the HTS is supported by the Turkish administration of President Recep Erdogan so that Ankara can exert its influence to ensure that such a peace conference on Syria occurs. 

It might seem naïve to believe, or even hope, that Syria’s neighbours such as Türkiye will not militarily move into the void in that nation to attempt to dominate the Middle East.  However, as Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine illustrated, attempts in the twenty-first century to re-create empires are fraught with inherent difficulty.  

Possible Turkish attempts to dominate Syria could lead to direct military conflict with Ankara’s Arab neighbours while also possibly precipitating unrest amongst Türkiye’s own Kurdish minority.  Therefore, if Türkiye is to exercise influence with Syria, then let this be facilitated by supporting a Muslim Brotherhood-backed political party which would win representation in future elections to both a constituent assembly and to a subsequent national legislature. 

Other regional powers such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will also have a vested interest in politically influencing a future Syria, but this should be done not under the auspices of supporting rival military forces by backing political parties which participate in multi-party elections.  

Therefore, hopefully, a peace conference on Syria will be convened so that a new and brilliant Syrian provisional government will consequently be formed under the auspices   of the Arab League. An Arab League led military force will hopefully also be constituted to help enforce the authority of a new provisional Syrian government. 

There is precedent for such an international force to be constituted to enforce the authority of a provisional government in a troubled nation if one recollects the Dominican Republic in the period between 1965 and 1966.  An American led invasion force occupied the Dominican Republic in 1965 to thwart an attempt by communist Cuba to take power in that Caribbean nation.  

A Hector Garcia Card for Syria? 

The ensuing occupation of the Dominican Republic was a sterling success because the Organization of American States (OAS) ensured that democratic and fair elections were held in 1966.  The OAS might not have secured the success of these 1966 elections had this international organisation not selected Hector Garcia-Godoy (1921 - 1970) as provisional president of the Dominican Republic.  This distinguished Dominican Republic diplomat overcome a myriad of challenges to ensure that democratic elections were subsequently held. 

Admittedly and arguably, democracy was not consolidated in the Dominican Republic until 1978 but in the ensuing twelve-year period political differences and conflict occurred under the agency of competitive electoral politics so that the groundwork for democratic consolidation was created.  

Similarly, in Syria an American backed Arab League mandate will hopefully be established so that this strategically vital Middle East nation will hold internationally supervised elections to a constituent assembly that will then draw up a new constitution.   A new Syrian democratic constitution will hopefully provide for the establishment of a federated national structure which will enable the safeguarding of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.  

An important ethnic minority whose rights require safeguarding is that of the Kurds of Syria.  It has been said of the Kurds that their only friend has been the mountains which have provided them with a degree of physical protection against the shifting vicissitudes of Middle East politics in which their interests have been sold out by various powers over the centuries. 

However, the Kurds should now be allowed to have an additional friend in the form of international borders to offer them a form of additional protection.  An important reason why Social Action Australia (SAA) supported the international military effort to topple the Baathist Iraqi regime in 2003 was because post-Saddam Iraq granted its Kurdish minority full citizenship rights for the first time since Iraq’s creation in 1921. 

Indeed, Iraq’s Shite majority since 2003 has been in control of the nation which has since become a nascent democracy due to American support.  The United States must now contend with Iran which is attempting to assert is dominance over Baghdad.  Consequently, the future emergence of a democratic federal Syria would tremulously help to effectively counter Iranian attempts to dominate Iraq. 

Nation building for Syria will still be a project fraught with danger for the United States and her allies due to the unpredictability of Middle East politics. Nevertheless, the dividends for the Trump administration in helping to bring democracy to Syria while safeguarding the integrity of that nation’s borders will assist in securing a long-lasting peace in that volatile region of the world.

The Nexus Between Territorial Integrity and Democracy

Isreal also has a vested interest in helping to ensure that a future   Syrian federal state becomes a democracy by respecting that nation’s borders. Hopefully, Jerusalem will support the territorial integrity of Syria to help foster good will in the region similar to Luxembourg in the 1940s. This Grand Duchy laid the groundwork for its future excellent relations with the new Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) by declining the offer from the victorious Allies to acquire German territory as compensation for the brutal Nazi occupation of the Luxembourg nation.

 Similarly, a long-term dividend for Israel not acquiring Syrian territory in the wake of the Assad family’s fall, could be that a future democratic federal Syria will reciprocate the favour by recognising, or at least, tacitly accepting, the Golan Heights irrevocable incorporation into the Jewish state. 

Respect by Israel for future international borders can also apply to the current Palestinian territories.  It would be tempting for Israel to jettison a commitment to a two-state solution given Hamas’s hideous October 7^th, 2023, attacks against Israeli citizens. However, the post- Arafat Al-Fatah Party which controls the West Bank has grudgingly conceded Israel’s right to exist.  Consequently, Israel in conjunction with Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt could morally and logistically support Al-Fatah eventually resuming control of the Gaza Strip militarily as part of a process of a two-state solution finally being agreed.  

While the formulation of a two-state solution might be a while away, the convening of an international conference on Syria could be a conduit to a similar conference formally establishing a Palestinian state which recognises Israel. 

Trump Cards for Russia and Ukraine? 

Another area of the world which urgently requires the attention and diplomatic involvement of the second Trump administration is Ukraine.  The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022- 20??) is a bloody tragedy, which for the sake of humanitarian decency, needs to be brought to an expeditious end by also convening an international conference under American auspices.   Due to the protracted intensity of this war, this desire to quickly end hostilities may seem to be an exercise in wish fulfilment. 

However, there are respective positive dividends for both Russia and Ukraine to reach an international agreement to bring this terrible war to an end.  From the Russian perspective, the longer that this war endures, the greater is the facilitation of the trend by which the Russian Fereation travels down the path of becoming a satellite of Leninist mainland China. 

The truth is that the failure of the Russian Federation to quickly conquer Ukraine has effectively dashed the prospect of President Putin successfully re-establishing the old Soviet empire.  The imposition of western trade sanctions on Russia, combined with the ‘man drain’ on Russian economic resources as a result of this war, has meant that the Russian Federation is now already progressively becoming a satellite of mainland China because a pattern of dependence is setting in and being consolidated on Moscow’s part vis a vis its relationship with Beijing. 

It is therefore imperative that President Vladimir Putin agrees to attend and abide by an international peace conference which ends the Russo-Ukrainian War. At such an international peace conference, Ukraine could agree to cede on either a de jure or a de facto basis some of the territory that Russia has acquired from Ukraine as a result of this war so that President Putin can save face, and his regime can consequently endure.  If Ukraine does not swallow this bitter pill, then President Putin will continue this war indefinitely because he cannot politically or physically survive the humiliation of an international peace treaty in which there is not some Russian territorial gain.  

For good measure there might also be provision under an international treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War establishing a buffer zone between these two nations, garrisoned by forces drawn from non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations.  

For the Ukrainians the positive ramifications of an international peace treaty being negotiated, by which Kiev makes some territorial concession to Putin’s Russia, would be that Moscow acquiesces to Ukraine joining both NATO and the European Union (EU).  Commensurate with Ukrainian membership of these two international organisations would be the stationing of NATO troops in a post-war Ukraine to ensure Russian compliance with the international treaty which will hopefully soon be negotiated.  

Ironically, Ukrainian membership of the EU and NATO might ultimately benefit the Russian Federation, because should a post-Putin Russia eventually reconcile with Ukraine, then the Russian Federation could itself, as part of this reconciliation process, join both NATO and the EU.   Future Russian membership of both these international organisations   will offer the Russian Federation not only the prospect of economic and social progress via integration with Europe but also the possibility of needed protection from Leninist ruled China.  

There is, alas, little prospect of an EU-Russian reconciliation while President Putin is in power.   However. President Doanld J Trump still has a high regard for the peoples of the Russian Federation.  Consequently, while President Putin remains in power, the United States could negotiate a bi-lateral trade agreement with Russia for the long-term benefit the peoples of the Russian Federation thereby ending Moscow’s disastrous economic over-dependence on oil and gas.   

How President Trump can Help Russia Avoid Becoming a Chinese Dependency

The Trump presidency therefore offers the Putin administration the golden opportunity by which there could be a possible strategic re-adjustment on Russia’s part to avoid the ultimate outcome of becoming a future dependency of Leninist China.  Ironically, leaders as different as Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev and Boris Yeltsin all realized the potential threat that a strong and united mainland China possibly posed to Russia.

When President Yeltsin ceded the Russian presidency to Valdimir Putin in early 2000 this great Russian statesman not only bequeathed a fragile democracy but also the prospect of the Russian Federation eventually joining the EU and NATO so as to deter Leninist China.  Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin not only methodically proceeded to establish a dictatorship but also tried to recreate the old Soviet empire in direct violation of the Yeltsin vison. 

These policy directions were undertaken by President Putin on the erroneous basis that the Yeltsin era (1990 to 2000) had been one of steep decline for Russia.  This was not the case because President Yeltsin correctly conceptualized Russia’s jettisoning of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and the subsequent transition to a market economy (which unfortunately in the interim saw the emergence of the Russian oligarchs) as necessary fundamental steps toward his nation eventually and peacefully integrating with Europe. 

President Yeltsin was a great admirer of the French statesman, Charles De Gaulle, who as early as the 1960s, envisaged a united Europe which included Russia.  This vision of a united Europe by statesmen such as presidents Yeltsin and De Gaulle as well as by the great German post-war Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, was not one where there would be a supra-European nation state.  Rather, the vision of these statesmen was that of a Europe in which there would be socio-economic and cultural integration on the basis of mutual benefit and respect between continental nations derived from the removal of trade and legal barriers. 

It is not too late for Russia to eventually embrace this long-term pan-European direction under President Putin by his quickly seeking American mediation to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.  A successful negotiation of an end to this war would provide the Trump administration with the subsequent capacity to proactively assist Russia by establishing win-win bi-lateral trading relations. 

Trump Cards for the United States? 

Therefore, the next four years (2025 to 2029) will be crucial not only to the United States but to the world.  Donald J Trump has shown incredible tenacity to win back the US presidency that he could fall into the fatal trap of believing in his own invincibility.   Already, President Trump is showing signs of possibly emulating President Willm Mc Kinley (who served as president from 1897 to 1901) by expressing an interest in the United States undertaking territorial acquisitions with reference to annexing Greenland due to a desire to acquire that Danish territory’s natural resources, re-occupying the Panama Canal and dominating Canada. 

These stated intentions may be examples of rhetorical flourish, but they should be best avoided because they serve to undermine an international rules-based order which could seriously undermine international trade and with it the American economy. 

For should Donald J Trump’s presidency be a failed one- which would most likely result from the pursuit of an outmoded Mc Kinley model of imperial expansion in the twenty-first century, - then the ramifications for the Republican Party and the Trump ideology could be politically fatal. 

Should the second Trump presidency fail then the Democrats will undoubtedly subsequently persecute the Trump clan while also inflicting a woke agenda on the American people.  These scenarios can be avoided by President Trump declining to pursue a McKinley agenda and to instead implement the socio-political tradition of Mc Kinley’s successor, Theodore ‘Teddy ‘Roosevelt, who served as president between 1901 and 1909. 

Teddy Roosevelt’s political tradition of Progressive Republicanism was one where his administration supported both small business and organised labour.  Indeed, it will be imperative that the second Trump administration adhere to a neo- Progressive Republican Tradition because the onset of digital disruption via technological advancement could have very negative socio-economic ramifications by potentially causing mass unemployment/underemployment. 

Mastering Creative Destruction

Having assembled a brilliant federal cabinet, President Trump has the scope to help ensure that digital technology is mastered so that the United State’s small business sector expands due to, and not in spite of, digital technological evolution.  This is particularly so with regard to the retail sector which has traditionally been the economic area which has provided employment to people who initially do not posses labour skills upon entry into the workforce. 

The retail sector is also the one where entrepreneurialism can directly drive employment growth.   Consequently, the second Trump administration can potentially help ensure that Joseph Schumpeter’s (1883 to 1950) concept of ‘creative destruction’ is applied in which the technological advancement that destroys existing jobs paves the way for new replacement jobs to consequently emerge. 

Henceforth, there is the potential for the US economy – and with it the world economy- to go into either a positive or a negative direction with regard to creative destruction.  The application of neo-Progressive Republican policies by the second Trump administration by working in unison with organised labour and Community Colleges to undertake skills training will help ensure that technological advancement is mastered as a part of the overall economy where small business and its related generation of employment can be achieved in a socially positive fashion.     

Furthermore, the application of a neo-Progressive Republican Tradition by this new administration can also be facilitated by both mainstream and Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republican operatives electorally targeting ‘blue’ local government bailiwicks which are currently in the Democrat column.  Wining Democrat states and cities over to the Republican Party ledger can be achieved because the quality of infrastructure and services in ‘blue’ states and cities is generally going to ‘rack and ruin’ due government incompetence. 

To compensate for their incompetence at a state and local government level, the Democrats strategically utilized the Biden presidency to allow the United States to be flooded with migrants so that in the future they would become Democrat voters.  This cynical approach to public policy will not succeed in the long-term if the Republican Party highlights Democrat inadequacy in terms of service delivery. 

Conclusion

Overall, the second Trump administration has much to potentially offer the United States and the world by pursuing neo-Progressive Republican policies in both the domestic and international contexts. The convening by the Trump administration of respective international conferences on Syria and Ukraine could advance world peace and as such would be inherently worthwhile initiatives. 

Domestically, the United States can lead the world by promoting the training and education of the American workforce in relation to new digital technological developments to ensure that the outcomes of the creative destruction technological process are positively mastered. 

Because the domestic and international stakes are so high the second Trump administration will hopefully avoid the McKinley Tradition to instead pursue a twenty-first century version of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Republicanism.

The decision by the United States House of Representatives in April 2024 to approve emergency military aid to the Ukraine is welcome, if overdue.  Why the Republicans had previously capitulated to former US president Donald Trump in denying military aid to Ukraine is a mystery.  However, had the United States and/or the European Union (EU) sent aid to Ukraine in the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine which was launched in February 2022 then the Ukrainians might by now have militarily defeated Putin’s Russia. 

The Putin regime is essentially sultanistic which means that it is primarily concerned with enriching those in power and as such Putin is encountering difficulty when it comes to sustaining military action because his government is based upon self-interest.  However, Vladimir Putin is a meticulous planner and a brilliant strategist.  Before Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, he first ensured that he had mastery of the domestic Russian political scene so that he could endure a possibly protracted war. 

Much to Putin’s surprise Ukraine was not quickly overrun because of the courage and combat ability of the Ukrainian armed forces and people.  Consequently, Russian troops became bogged down and their supply lines became dangerously over-extended.  Alas, Putin has had the tenacity and the forbearance to make changes in the Russian armed forces command structure and in the organisation of the general war effort so that Russian can now fight a long-term war against Ukraine.  The Russian dictator knows that time is on his side and that by marshalling Russian numerical superiority he can eventually prevail. 

If Ukraine falls to Russia, then Moscow will inevitably make re-assuring peace overtures to EU nations, particularly to nations which previously been a part of the Soviet Union or the Soviet bloc to re-assure them that Russia has no future expansionary designs on them.  Only a fool would believe this!  For once Putin has subdued Ukraine, he will exploit this subjugated nation as a springboard to eventually invade and occupy other nations to the west, such as the three Baltic States.  The question therefore emerges as to what can be done to prevent this horrifying scenario? 

The answer is for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries to deploy military forces to western Ukraine to assume defensive positions.  The western part of Ukraine is currently not occupied by Russia because the Ukrainians are valiantly keeping the Russians at bay in the east of their nation.  As a result, NATO and/or EU troops can be deployed in western Ukraine without initially or necessarily engaging in military conflict with the Russians.  If the Russians advance onto western Ukraine, then NATO forces should engage in armed conflict in a purely defensive context to prevent Moscow from proceeding further westward.    If there is to be offensive military action toward the east, then only the Ukrainians should undertake that in their own right.

Putin knows that he currently has the military capacity to prevail because he has a larger population.  The Russian dictator also knows that this crucial advantage can be turned on its head if external combat troops are sent to Ukraine.  This awareness on Putin’s part has been reflected by his threat to use nuclear weapons should external troops be committed to help defend Ukraine.

However, as the great Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz (1780 – 1831) observed, war is politics by other means, so that for Putin to resort to nuclear war -which could produce a fatal nuclear winter resulting in the extinction of the human race – would serve no political purpose whatsoever.  Even someone as ruthless as Putin would realize that resort to the use of nuclear weapons would be self-defeating and would expose him to the scenario of being overthrown by his own military. 

Furthermore, Putin should understand that if he subsequently exploits a conquered Ukraine to invade neighbouring NATO nations, then he will once again be faced with the prospect of nuclear war.  This is because under the NATO charter member nations are obliged to come to the aid of one of their members should they come under attack.  Is Putin to threaten the use of nuclear weapons should NATO conventional troops be utilized to repel a Russian invasion of a NATO nation? 

Putin’s bluff concerning the resort to nuclear weapons being used if external troops are sent to Ukraine should be called because such a scenario will inevitably arise if NATO is to defend its members against possible future Russian aggression.  It is therefore vital that the western part of Ukraine be occupied by some NATO states in a defensive context even though Ukraine does not yet belong to NATO. 

 Endgame?

Unfortunately, there is no way known that NATO will agree collectively to occupy and defend western Ukraine due to recalcitrance of some member states such as Hungary.  It is also highly improbable that the United States under President Joseph (‘Joe’) Biden will support the deployment of external troops to western Ukraine due to the US president’s abysmal leadership. 

For it was President Biden’s sinister decision to abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban in August 2021 that demonstrated the profound American policy weakness which consequently emboldened Putin’s Russia to subsequently invade Ukraine the following year.  Indeed, President Biden’s initial response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was to offer to fly that nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky to the Polish capital so as to ensure that Ukraine surrendered. 

As a result of former US president Borack Obama most probably moving into the void given President Biden’s declining mental capacity, the United States has not completely abandoned Ukraine.  However, it cannot be anticipated that the United States will support the deployment of external troops to defend western Ukraine. 

Nevertheless, NATO specific nations such as Poland, the Czech Republic and the three Baltic States can still expeditiously despatch troops to western Ukraine to save that nation and themselves from future Russian conquest.  These aforementioned nations have all experienced the trauma of previous Russian invasion and occupation and are all now confronted with the prospect of re-experiencing this phenomenon in the future if they are not now bold and decisive in the current situation. Such action would probably swing the balance of the Ukraine conflict, thereby thwarting Putin’s dream of re-establishing the Russian / Soviet empire.