These countries are most at risk as the US heads to the polls

The world is focused on the US presidential election as voters go to the polls on Tuesday, but the vote holds more significance for some countries.

For some countries, this vote could mean the difference between war and peace, stability and instability, prosperity and economic weakness. This situation is even more pronounced in Ukraine, where even territorial integrity may be at risk.

Here’s a look at some of the countries where elections are most likely to be won or lost, no matter who wins the White House, whether it’s former Republican President Donald Trump or Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

China is undoubtedly the United States’ biggest economic rival, and its hostility shows no signs of diminishing no matter who becomes the next U.S. president.

President Trump has already threatened to impose tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports and revive the trade war that began during his first term in office. President Trump defended the measure as a way to reduce the country’s deep trade deficit with China and boost U.S. jobs and competitiveness.

Ukraine, like Russia, will be watching the election closely because it is at war with Russia and Kiev relies heavily on foreign military aid to continue fighting.

It is widely agreed that the Trump administration and hardline Republicans are far more hostile to giving Ukraine further military aid, which would severely hamper Ukraine’s ability to continue fighting back against Russia.

President Trump also boasted that if elected, he could end the war within 24 hours and suggested he would cut funding to Ukraine to force a negotiated settlement with Russia. That would likely mean giving up almost 20% of the southern and eastern territory currently occupied by Russian forces.

But Ukraine could lose even more land if it chooses to continue fighting without U.S. support. The U.S. election in Ukraine is therefore an existential election.

“There is a good chance that the US elections will force the Ukrainians’ hand, as a Trump victory would immediately lead to a change in US policy direction and more direct pressure on Kiev to negotiate. , Ukrainians may soon have to decide whether they want to part ways with their most important military backer, said Ian Bremer, founder and president of Eurasia Group. he said in an emailed comment Monday.

Even a Kiev-friendly government under Mr. Harris, who has promised to continue supporting the war-torn country, may not be able to pass further financial aid to Ukraine, depending on which party controls Congress. may have difficulty.

Harris said a future administration would support Ukraine “for as long as necessary,” but neither she nor the U.S. government is clear on what that statement means and what a victory for Ukraine looks like for the U.S. It does not clearly define whether there are limits to aid or not.

But the Middle East is an area where Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris’ foreign policy positions may be more aligned. Both candidates pledged continued U.S. support for Israel in its pursuit of Iran’s proxies in Gaza and Lebanon’s militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. At the same time, we are calling for an early end to the conflict.

Iran threatened to retaliate against Israel’s massive missile attack on its military facilities last month, meaning the cycle of retaliation between the adversaries could continue into the fall.

President Trump has recently cast himself as Israel’s “protector,” touting his previous support for Israel at the Israel-American Council summit in September, and saying, without backing up his claims, that if he is not elected, He suggested that Israel would face “total annihilation.” He also caused a stir when he told the audience, “Anyone who is Jewish, loves being Jewish, and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for the Democratic Party.”

Trump gained popularity in Israel during his first term in office by officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, breaking with decades of American tradition. He also drew further praise for officially recognizing the disputed Golan Heights region as being under Israeli sovereignty.

In a poll conducted last week, Israel Democracy Institute About 65% feel that Trump is better for Israel’s interests, far more than the 13% who think Harris is better. Just over 15% said there was no difference between the two candidates, and 7% said they were unsure.

Harris is accused of taking an ambiguous position on Israel It comes after he criticized the country’s military strategy last year, saying the loss of life in Gaza was “catastrophic” and “heartbreaking”.

Harris has sought to dispel the anti-Israel characterization of her by Republicans. stated in august “I will always defend Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself,” he said, deploring the Hamas attack on October 7 last year.

Regarding Iran, Regional and Western officials told Reuters they believe a Trump presidency would be bad news for Iran.President Trump could give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that Biden could veto and carry out targeted assassinations and threaten the oil industry. may reimpose his “maximum pressure policy” through additional sanctions.

Harris, on the other hand, is seen as far more likely to continue Biden’s diplomatic stance to ease tensions if she becomes president. She said herself in late October that the message to Iran in the wake of Israel’s latest attacks was “don’t respond” and that “there has to be de-escalation in the region.”

Ambassador Mitchell B. Rees, a distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, commented on Monday that the Harris administration would not deviate significantly from its current course.

“We don’t know her worldview, policy preferences, or even her choices for senior Cabinet positions. My best guess is that President Harris will largely inherit Joe Biden’s foreign policy; It’s about diplomacy, prioritizing good relations with our allies and friends,” Reese said.

“What will Trump’s second term look like? Here we have a better idea: Trump sees the world in personal, transactional terms rather than strategic terms. We already know that.

He is skeptical about U.S. commitments to allies and about sending U.S. troops overseas. He is not as committed as his predecessors to the United States’ traditional role in building and guiding the liberal international order that has brought so much peace to the United States. And it’s as prosperous as it has been since World War II,” Reese said.