Romanian version here
Realistic Expectations
No, Donald Trump is neither a conservative (in the American sense) nor a traditional liberal (political Right). But neither is he Hitler, a fascist, a Nazi, a dictator, an idiot, or any of the other absurd labels that his domestic and international opponents and the enemy media have attributed to him.
Donald Trump is a non‑ideological, transactional, pragmatic character and, obviously, fallible like any human being. As a politician he should neither be loved nor hated, but evaluated, approved or criticized by facts and results.
If I had American citizenship, I would have voted for him three times without hesitation, but without great expectations either.
As an Eastern European, my expectation remain even more reserved, considering his background, lack of political experience, misunderstanding of local ideological, religious and cultural differences, but especially the hostility, adversities, and countless betrayals he encountered so far – including from his own party, appointees, advisors, and even his own family – and I am not referring only to his son‑in‑law, whom he continues to cultivate for reasons yet mysterious.
Nevertheless, the first great expectation I had from the president Trump was that he would expose the lies and degeneration of his country’s elites and stop the grotesque march of the American Left—synonymous with the “fundamental transformation” promised by Obama in October 2008 in line with the Marxist dreams of his father.
The second major expectation, consistent with his own electoral promises, would have been not to start any major external war.
During his first term, at least until March 2020—the moment the Covid “pandemic” was declared—he reasonably fulfilled both expectations.
What followed after March 2020 and continues to this day is history in progress and a Donald Trump harder to understand and approve, more unpredictable than in the first three years of presidency.
As a citizen and resident of Eastern Europe, what interests me most is the international strategy and policy of the Trump2 administration.
Things happen for a reason …
MAGA and Peace Without War
Make America Great Again is not, as many believe, an idea or slogan belonging to Donald Trump, his campaign, or his strategists, but to Ronald Reagan, who actually succeeded in turning the slogan into reality.
When Reagan became President of the United States, he was already an experienced and pragmatic politician, and a succesfull political negotiator.
He had been previously elected twice as governor of California (1967–1975), a difficult state that, when he took office, was dominated by political and social instability and a large budget deficit. Reagan made California great and prosperous again, restoring law and constitutional order eroded by the American Left.
Later, in the 1980s, as U.S. president elected twice by overwhelming majorities, he didn’t achieve everything he had proposed, but he did succeed in making America great indeed for another generation.
As a bonus, the international policy of the two Reagan administrations kept Iran and regional wars at bay. And yes, he sometimes ordered military operations beyond the borders, but of limited duration and under well‑defined restrictive conditions (see the Weinberger Doctrine, 1984).
Perhaps the greatest achievement of both his domestic and international policy was that he won the Cold War with Russia … without war. More precisely, he liberated Europe from Soviet communism and brought down the USSR—for which I personally remain deeply grateful.
How did he succeed? In short: through a domestic and foreign policy based on a complex strategy, designed and implemented with intelligence, coherence, and perseverance. But also through respect for his own citizens.
Reagan understood that Europe, all its flaws considered, is America’s first and most important strategic ally, while Russia—no matter under what leadership—will never be America’s friend but another hegemonic adversary. Reagan also understood (better than most Western politicians) the communist danger in a broader sense—which includes any version of the political Left.
Even so, the great victories came and were recognized only after Reagan completed his final term. Reagan always worked and thought in the long term. It was the only way to offer a new lease on life to Civilization and the Free World—that is the Christian West of the World.
MAGA 2.0 and another century
Donald Trump has been and remains a great admirer of Ronald Reagan, but he is not Ronald Reagan. And the century is different.
From the very beginning (2015, when he launched his presidential campaign), Donald Trump lacked the political and cultural experience and understandings that Reagan possessed at an exceptional level. He lacked the strategic vision and the appropriate team (loyal and professional) to implement it. Last but not least, he lacks the patience and humility that Reagan had in abundance and helped him to better calibrate his words in accordance with his actions.
Observing some of his more recent actions and reactions, I also wonder how Christian Donald Trump really is, because Ronald Reagan was until his death — and everything happens for a reason …
All these differences, together with the fact that the century is different, make me relatively skeptical regarding the possibility for the Trump2 administration to bring America back to the path of its own Constitution—namely a beacon for individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the original (Christian) meaning.
I remain even more skeptical about the likelihood that the Trump2 administration could determine a similar reform in Europe—in other words, to “save” Civilization. Salvation can only be Christian and come from our Lord, just as sovereignty remains the task of each society.
Therefore, my positive expectations from the Trump2 administration remain reserved.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump has now more power than he had in his first term, and more than Ronald Reagan had – possibly more than any other American president.
In other words, at this moment America is the first and main vector of global geopolitical and geoeconomic change and realignment.
That doesn’t mean Trump’s MAGA will make America the land of life, peace and the original Christian liberty, nor that it is a political or social movement to be adopted as such by European societies. Nor does it mean that the post‑Trump world will be a more peaceful or better place for the many.
It simply means that the policies of the Trump2 administration affect and influence us more than during his first term. Therefore we must understand them pragmatically and realistically, beyond emotions, partisanship, and ideologies—and adapt in our own interest.
War or Peace?
Europe 2026
Never in the past hundred years has Europe managed to avoid or win major wars without America. Not because it couldn’t, but because it lacked strategic coherence and the political will to do so. It could hardly have been otherwise: Europe is much older than America, and has many nations more diverse and different culturally and politically.
Thus the two eternally problematic regional big powers—Russia and Germany—with their totalitarian imperialist Left (the old Soviet communism or Nazism, essentially the same) devastated not only Europe but the entire world in the last century.
In some ways, the same thing is happening in the current century: starting 2000, Putin’s Russia resumed the Cold War, but in hybrid form, more complex and surreptitious, while Germany accommodated.
Whether it was the privileged and excessive energy dependence on Russia; the irresponsible “green” policies; the multiculturalism (read de‑Christianization), or the suicidal policy of the wide‑open borders to jihad and African tribalism, Germany led year after year and decade after decade the geopolitical decline of Europe in the 21st‑century—while France and, more recently, Great Britain, followed and sometimes surpassed it.
This course finally destroyed the fragile European peace, cohesion, and security achieved with great sacrifice at the end of the 20th century.
The only difference from the last century is that Germany is no longer a major military power, nor nuclear —thank God! But Russia is, and never gave up its bad ways and hegemonic ambitions. The (quarter of a century) Putin regime has fomented and fully exploited the European weaknesses to advance its post‑Soviet Eurasian imperial agenda and ideology – details here
The agenda of post‑Soviet Russia is new only to the inert and comfortable West, which didn’t seem to have learned much from the lessons of last century’s Cold War.
It’s an agenda long announced, forcefully initiated in 2008 (after the NATO summit in Bucharest) with the total war against Georgia; then continued (inevitably according to the Dugin doctrine embraced by Kremlin) with the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state.
Despite this, Western Europe and Obama’s America fighted mostly verbally the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing (ever since) and growing war on the southeastern Ukraine.
This was the situation inherited by the first Trump administration, which fulfilled honorably the mission of preventing, at least temporarily, the inevitable: the total war against Ukraine launched by Russia in 2022, amid the pandemic political madness and the disastrous Biden administration – also known as the autopen...
I don’t know whether a continuation of Donald Trump in power would have done more than further postpone the inevitable, nor for how long. But I know the Biden administration couldn’t. And here we are, entering the fifth year of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
For clarity: I never took seriously the propagandistic narrative of the “Russian collusion” from Trump’s first term. Nor do I believe now—because I have no plausible argument—that Vladimir Putin ever helped Donald Trump, or Donald Trump considers him a friend and intends to abandon Ukraine and Europe to Russia’s sphere of influence – see the recent analogies with Yalta 1945.
On the contrary: what is publicly visible so far is that Donald Trump would like cooperation with Europe and peace between Russia and Ukraine, but he doesn’t know how to do it. If he knew, after four years of presidential break, he had a ready-to-deploy coherent and realistic strategy for Europe and Russia, and a governmental team to implement it. Obviously, he has no such thing. And I am saying ‘obviously’ for many reason, of which I’ll summarize some:
- Rapid peace in Ukraine.
Both during the 2024 electoral campaign and after taking office, Donald Trump declared repeatedly that he would make peace in Ukraine in impossible timeframes – 24 hours, 48 hours, one week, etc. Reckless statements and damaging to his own credibility.
- The first visit of the President of Ukraine to the White House.
Poorly prepared and presented to the public. Probably president Trump wasn’t correctly informed about Zelenski as a person – what to expect from him, how to dominate him, what to refuse or offer him and at what costs in order to bring him to the desired result: a better chance for a durable ceasefire and the prospect of peace negotiations with Russia.
At the same time, the last member of the presidential team who should have accompanied the President of the US at this official meeting (or in general) was JD Vance – terribly inexperienced (to put it delicately) in everything except propaganda.
In a nutshell, the Trump2 administration “did not do its homework.”
That’s why this first meeting with the President of Ukraine shouldn’t have been made public as it was; not even for propagandistic reasons. Bad move.
Sure many applauded Trump and Vance because they “put Zelenski in his place” – which, by the way, he deserved. However it wasn’t about the person Zelenski, but about his political function. And Zelenski is neither the first and the last nor the worst reprehensible character hosted with honors at the White House.
In any case, the world didn’t need a (pathetic) media show in the Oval Office. Even less was needed the global perception that Trump’s America cared little about Europe or about the Russian danger – because that was the immediate general impression, to the delight of Moscow and of many MAGA “conservatives” who consider that Putin, their “Christian‑conservative” pal, launched a legitimate war against Ukraine and the globalist New Left.
- The special envoy of the President of the United States to Moscow, Steve Witkoff.
Few persons in Donald Trump’s entourage seem more unsuitable for this mission.
From public information, Witkoff is a successful real‑estate magnate, like Trump, but much less to not at all experienced in diplomacy and international political relations, in geopolitics, military strategies and Eastern European or Eurasian regional security. Even less experienced seems in Russian tactics, strategies, mentalities and methodologies. Nothing recommended Witkoff for high‑level peace talks with Russia.
If his appointment as special envoy is a signal that even Donald Trump doesn’t take him seriously – “Steve” is a pawn to be sacrificed at some point, when actual peace negotiation will happen – or it is simply a strategic and diplomatic error, I don’t know.
What I do know is that, according to his visible resume, Witkoff could not understand his adversaries, therefore he could not obtain any valuable intell or positive result from his trips to Kremlin – especially not facing interlocutors such as Vladimir Putin, experienced KGB & FSB career officer, or Sergey Lavrov, with long experience in Russian diplomacy since Soviet era.
- The American peace plan for Ukraine.
According to the public content of the American “peace plans”, I’d say that the Trump2 administration doesn’t actually have a realistic plan – that is a consistent and coherent strategy for a durable ceasefire and a possible peace in Ukraine.
Anyone with reasonable knowledge about the Russian‑Ukrainian conflict in its historical dynamics hasn’t had for a moment the illusion that those American proposals represent peace plans acceptable to either side.
All we’ve seen so far in this regard has been incoherence, transparent tactics, facile probing, quick reactions, in short, temporary crisis management rather than well‑thought‑out strategy.
- Lack of transatlantic cohesion.
If it’s no longer a secret that the major Western European powers have a poor vision on defense and security, neither does the current American presidency show more clarity or maturity – with the possible exception of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is trying (in vain so far) to repair the damaged transatlantic relations.
And peace between Russia and Ukraine can’t happen without common and coordinated transatlantic intervention.
- Lack of sufficient attention and cooperation with the eastern flank of NATO.
To my surprise, even now, more than three decades after the collapse of the USSR, America doesn’t comprehend the experience of Eastern Europe, especially in relation with communism and Russia. If it had understood, it would have continued to firmly reject communism (new or old), it would have avoided two consecutive Obama mandates (continued brilliantly by the Biden administration), and it would have strengthened cooperation rather with NATO’s eastern flank – a cheaper, more loyal and more experienced ally than Western Europe against the Russian threats and beyond.
Yes, the big money and the memory of relatively functional liberal democracy – with emphasis on “memory” – reside in Western Europe. But loyalty to America, to NATO and focus to the critical infrastructure for European security reside rather in the East than in the West of the continent. This is still not properly understood at the White House, as if Russia were farther away than China or Iran.
All these realities and many others make me believe that peace in Ukraine and Europe is yet too far.
Middle East 2026
A proof of religious and cultural ignorance is the illusion that the problem of the Middle East lies in the Arab‑Israeli ethnic conflict, and that once some political agreements of cooperation between Israel and the Arab countries are concluded – the Abraham Accords – the Iranian problem will also be solved and peace will settle.
You are free to disagree, but truth is that the problem of the Middle East remains religious, not only ethnic. And with religions of, and in fundamental conflict you don’t play.
Sunni or Shia, Islam remains Islam, and is not peace – as you have been told by George W. Bush after 9/11, and continue to be systematically misinformed. The fundamental pillar of Muslim scriptures remains the “jihad of the sword” [terminology of the Qur’an] – not a metaphor. Only when and if the dominant religious identity of the local populations becomes something else, preferably Christian, will durable peace have a chance there.
In the meantime, the regional containment of the conflicts and institutional secularization is the only way to temper intra‑Islamic wars and the programmatic fury against Christian‑Western civilization (not only America).
So far the containment of intra‑Islamic conflicts has been temporary and relative, and secularization is still far away. The only important Muslim country that has managed a more efficient secularization and Westernization is Turkey – only it took 100 years and it’s still not done.
Meanwhile, I doubt that the Middle East can be pacified under the Israeli magic wand. Israel doesn’t have a secular political regime (as many believe), nor a majority Christian population – Israeli Christian citizens are under two percent.
I also doubt that the recent American‑Israeli military offensive against Iran can wipe out the regime of the ayatollahs and the effects of the Islamic revolution of 1979, secularizing the regime in Tehran and transforming it into one cooperative and non-belligerent toward Israel, the region or the West.
In general, according to human nature, violent regime changes – revolutions or wars – bring only chaos and institutional failure, including new waves of terror, especially in such a large country as Iran. We have enough famous historical examples in this regard: the French Revolution, the Soviet Revolution 1917, or, more recently, the “Arab Spring”, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… In addition, the killing of Iranian religious leaders has just turned them into martyrs of Shia Islam.
That being said, my skepticism regarding a possible epic regime change in Iran or a durable pacification of the Middle East as a result of the Abraham Accords and the American‑Israeli military offensive 2026 remains. More about the reasons for my skepticism next time.
For now I conclude by saying this: the only certainty regarding the new American foreign policy and security strategy is that is not coherent, and Donald Trump has broken two major electoral promises: rapid peace in Ukraine and that he won’t send American soldiers to die overseas for the protection and causes of others.
(To be continued)
The support of our readers, including financial support, is essential to the maintenance and development of the ACIDmedia page. Any donation is welcome. Thank you! You can donate here