Fellowship Dinners Australia

This article by Dr. David Bennett argues that enforceability of a future treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is essential and that the conclusion of such a treaty would help prevent Russia becoming a satellite of communist China.  

The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022- ) has become a trap for Russia because Moscow is progressively being reduced to becoming a satellite of China (the PRC) because of this war.   President Vladimir Putin’s ambition to resurrect the Soviet empire by invading Ukraine in early 2022 might have been realized had Kiev been quickly overrun.   However, the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance has been such that the nations of central and eastern Europe have had time to organise and to rally to an expanded North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) so that any future Russian intimidation may now be successfully countered. 

Even though North Korean troops were despatched to assist Russia against Ukraine have apparently fought poorly, Beijing has still been the ultimate beneficiary, because the involvement of North Korean troops brought more time for communist China to ensure that internationally Russia is increasingly becoming more dependent upon its Chinese ally. 

A potential circuit-breaker for Russia has been the return of Donald J Trump to the White House in 2025.  The second Trump presidency offers Putin’s Russia the opportunity to re-establish economic and military ties with the United States so that Russia can take action to curtail its current trajectory towards becoming a Chinse satellite over the next five to ten years.  It is therefore essential that Russia quickly end its war of aggression against Ukraine so that there can be an American-Russian rapprochement. 

The potential for such a rapprochement is promising because the American and Russian presidents clearly have mutual respect for each other.  This mutual trust has been reflected by the bi-lateral approach that the United States has adopted in seeking to directly negotiate with Russia an end to the current war.  This direct bilateral approach of the Americans has inevitably led to tensions between Washington and the European Union (EU) as well as the Ukrainians. 

Ukrainian unease concerning the Trump administration’s bilateral approach was manifested by the recent public verbal jousting at the White House between President Volodymyr Zelenski with President Trump and Vice-President J. D. Vance in late February 2025.  Despite this public display of mutual personal hostility between the Ukrainian president with the United States’ leaders the underlying potential dynamics still exist there for an international agreement to be quickly enacted in order to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The above cited scenario is still viable because the key Russian demands that Moscow be allowed to keep the territory that it has acquired as a result of this war, that foreign troops not be subsequently deployed to Ukraine and that Kiev not be allowed to join NATO have been agreed to by the Trump administration.   The major concern that the Ukrainians understandably have concerning these American concessions is the prohibition against any future deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine to deter Russia from re-invading their country following the signing of an international treaty. 

It is therefore essential that enforceable guarantees be put in place to ensure that Russia does not violate an international treaty ending the Russo-Ukrainian War by subsequently re-invading Ukraine.  This can be achieved by convening an international conference to terminate this war.  Nations which partake in such an international conference can undertake to resist any possible future Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Signatories to such an international conference to end the Russo-Ukraine War such as Britain, France, Poland as well as Scandinavian nations can publicly commit to defending Ukraine in the wake of any Russian treaty violation. Such an international conference could also stipulate the creation of a Demilitarized zone between the Russian Federation and Ukraine as well as the deployment of non-military international inspectors / monitors to that zone. 

Avoiding a Repeat of the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement

Cynics may argue that an international conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War will be sellout of Ukraine similar to the disgraceful 1938 Munich Conference.  However, signatory nations which ratify any future treaty to end the current Russian-Ukrainian War have a vested interest in ensuring treaty compliance so that President Putin and his successors will know that military consequences would result should Moscow ever re-invade Ukraine. 

Another international conference which saw a nation sold out was the January 1973 Paris Peace Agreement to end the Vietnam War.  The fundamentals of this 1973 international agreement had already been previously negotiated between the United Staes and communist North Vietnam so that South Vietnam was reluctant to sign the treaty.  The fact that Saigon did eventually sign this treaty was due to the secret assurances that President Thieu had received from President Nixon that the Americans would subsequently intervene via aerial bombing to counter possible communist violations of this 1973 treaty. 

The fundamental South Vietnamese mistake which was made at the 1973 Paris Peace Conference was that President Thieu did not ensure that a clause of that treaty was that the United States commit to militarily enforcing the Agreement terms.  Instead, the South Vietnamese leader placed his trust in President Nixon’s personal secret assurances to ensure North Vietnamese treaty compliance. 

While President Nixon had every intention of honouring his secret assurances to President Thieu the onset of the Watergate scandal as well as subsequent congressional sabotage to the Viet-Nam conflict rendered the American president incapable of ensuring treaty compliance by Hanoi.  Had there been a public and legally enforceable clause within this 1973 international agreement then the American Congress might not have been able to subsequently sabotage President’s Nixon’s intention to safeguard an important American ally.

Ultimately, the American failure to protect South Vietnam was due to reluctance on the part of Saigon’s allies to come to its defence following the 1973 international conference to end the Vietnam War.  By contrast, EU/NATO states will have a vested interest in ensuring Russian compliance should an international conference be convened to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Ironically, the nation which stands to gain the most from a treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is Russia itself. This is because a termination of this war will endow Russia with the capacity to reset its foreign policy direction vis a vis a reproachment with the United States so that Russia can avoid consolidating its status as a satellite of the PRC.

This article by Dr. David Bennett argues that the United States and Israel can avoid the Gaza trap which Iran has set for them by enlisting Jordan’s help.

An important aspect of being successfully cunning is to divert your protagonist from undertaking a particular course of action.

Iran, via its proxy, Hamas on the Gaza Strip, launched its killings and hostage taking against Israeli citizens on October 7^th, 2023, in order to divert Israel from signing the Abraham Accords which would have led to diplomatic relations being established and /or extended between Israel and the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.

This Iranian instigated outrage will unfortunately consolidate if the Palestinians living in Gaza are subsequently expelled (‘ethnically cleansed’) by Israel following a successful military campaign to retake this territory. Israel will be further alienated from the Arab World if the Gaza Strip is subsequently ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population.

A policy of ethnic cleansing is also beneath Israel which is the only established democracy in the Middle East. Should the administration of Donald Trump give its support to the reprehensible policy of ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip then American influence in the Middle East will be fatally undermined. The peace process which has occurred since the 1979 signing of the Camp David Accords between Isreal and Egypt would be destroyed.

The major beneficiary of this destruction of the Middle East peace process will be Iran which is covertly developing nuclear weapons as a part of its ultimate agenda to completely dominate the Middle East. If the United States is to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then Arab-Israeli co-operation in this endeavour will be crucial. Indeed, the future success or otherwise of the Trump administration in foreign affairs may well ultimately depend upon on whether the United States and her allies in the Middle East successfully thwart Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.

How and Why, Jordan can Help Save the Situation

Therefore, Iran’s policy of engineering a fatal rapture between the United States and the Arab world must be seen for what it is- a cunning diversionary strategy. That is not to say that the United States should not support an Israeli military campaign to eject Hamas itself from the Gaza Strip. However, let Israel publicly forecast during the conduct of such a military campaign, that following its retaking Gaza, that it will allow the subsequent deployment of Jordian troops in this territory to assist in the recovery and redevelopment of the area and its infrastructure.

Indeed, Isreal should, following its re-occupation, enlist Jordanian assistance to help provisionally administer the Gaza Strip until an international conference can be convened to facilitate the formulation of a two-state solution to the Isreal-Palestine impasse. Isreal in the interim, would still militarily predominate in the Gaza Strip as the main garrison force in that territory and Jordan could provide a supplementary Arab military presence.

The deployment of Jordanian troops would re-assure the local Palestinian population (the overwhelming majority of whom now despise Hamas) that they will not be ethnically cleansed and will be protected from further exploitation from future Hamas insurgency tactics. It is true that in the process of Isreal re-taking the Gaza Strip this territory has been destroyed. However, the recovery process should not be used as a pretext to subsequently ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.

The provision of humanitarian aid by the United States and its Arab allies to the Gaza Strip following a successful Israeli military campaign would not only allow the Palestinians living there to re-adapt but would also be conducive to supporting the Middle East peace process. The key to achieving these positive outcomes and in the process thwarting Iran’s wedge strategy is for the United States and Isreal to obtain Jordanian support for it to help provisionally administer the Gaza Strip.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which arguably has the Arab world’s most enlightened government, should turn this potential disaster around by being prepared to help provisionally administer a post-Hamas Gaza Strip. A Jordanian involvement in the administration of a post-Hamas Gaza Strip would also allow this kingdom to serve as a bridge between Israel and the Arab world so that a much-needed international coalition can be assembled to thwart Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

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.