Name: How Trump's 2nd Term Will Change Europe Forever
Uploaded: 2026-02-07T17:08:18.000Z
Duration: 36 min 3 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

As you already know by now, the United States reelected Donald Trump to the White House again for a second term that will begin in a couple months after he gets sworn back in office on 20 January 2025.

Trump's second term in office will then last for the next four years, through January of 2029, close to the end of this decade, by which point he will be 82 years old.

And during those four years, Trump's powers and influence as America's president will shift the course of world history and American foreign policy in ways that were similar to his first term as president.

Right now, before he's even retaken office, there is an absolutely enormous amount of speculation about what his return to the White House could ultimately end up meaning.

And anybody who tries to tell you exactly what will happen has no idea what they're talking about, including myself.

Trump's foreign policy theory's first term was defined by impulsiveness and shifts in unexpected directions, and

his second term will likely be more of the same.

Therefore, this is all extremely speculative.

So please take everything that I'm going to say in this video with a huge grain of salt.

But with that, I'm going to attempt and explain what I think Trump's return to the White House could end up meaning for American foreign policy, with a particular focus on what that could end up meaning for Europe.

First off, let's dive in at what is probably going to be the biggest foreign policy implication for Trump's return to the white Ukraine, the ongoing conflict with Russia and NATO.

For the past several years, as the war between Ukraine and Russia has dragged on, Trump has often been highly critical of the large amount of financial assistance that the United States has provided to Ukraine in order to survive.

At a campaign rally in Georgia back in September, Trump labeled Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as the greatest salesman on the earth for his ability to convince the United States to send his country so much money and assistance in the wake of the Russian invasion.

According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the United States has so far to date provided nearly $91 billion worth of combined military, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.

So since the Russian invasion began in early 2022, with US military aid representing nearly two thirds of that total amount, at roughly $60 billion.

Now, that number for the military aid to Ukraine is what particularly seems to anger Trump the most, because it's about half of the total foreign military aid that Ukraine has so far received from everywhere abroad.

The European Union, by contrast, has only provided the Ukrainians worth about $45 billion worth of military aid since the invasion began for a war that's taking place directly at their own doorstep.

Though in terms of overall aid, when factoring in economic and humanitarian assistance, the EU has provided much more to the Ukrainians overall than the Americans have, at a total of about $133 billion in total.

Nonetheless, Trump has long argued in public during his speeches that the US Is shouldering too much of the financial burden in continuing to support Ukraine during its war, and

that Europe should take on an even greater share of the financial support than it has already.

And with the idea of continuing to sen more American aid getting less and less popular within the Republican Party all the time that will now largely control the whole US Government for the next two years, there is plenty of room to believe that a second Trump administration will likely significantly reduce American aid to Ukraine, if not even cut it down to zero altogether.

But that's not necessarily what might end up happening, though Trump has famously promised that he will somehow end the war in Ukraine within the first 24 hours of him assuming the presidency in January by getting together Ukraine and Russia's leadership and making a deal between them.

Trump's history of speaking very highly about Russia's president Vladimir Putin is very well known, and

the two men are believed to have spoken directly with one another as many as seven times just since Trump left office after his first term.

But less well known have been Trump's generally positive comments about Volodymyr Zelenskyy as well, despite the two leaders having a bit of a troubled history with one another.

Trump was impeached in 2019 because of a scandal that involved him holding up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure Zelenskyy to uncover dirt on his chief political rival, Joe Biden, that he wanted to use to influence the 2020 election.

In more recent times, however, Trump has deridedly referred to Zelenskyy as the world's greatest salesman.

But he has also personally met with Zelenskyy as recently as this September.

That was described by Zelenskyy himself as being positive, and

within only a few hours of Trump's most recent election victory, Zelenskyy telephoned Trump to congratulate him, and

Zelenskyy described the following conversation as having been constructive.

More than a year ago, during an interview with Fox News back In July of 2023, Trump made the case that he would force a deal to end the war by threatening to sever all American aid to Ukraine, while also simultaneously telling the Russians that he would dramatically increase American aid to Ukraine unless they'd both agree to whatever his deal is.

What exactly Trump's deal to end the war will ultimately look like is unclear right now, but

vance outlined a fairly detailed peace plan during an interview a few months ago back in September on the Sean Ryan show, where he was specifically asked about what Trump's plan to end the war might look like.

Vance then suggested that Trump's deal would involve freezing the front line in Ukraine wherever it stands at the time of the negotiations, and

that the frontline would then transform into a demilitarized zone in the new de facto border between Ukraine and Russia, similar to other demilitarized zones in the world that froze other conflicts, like between north and South Korea on the Korean Peninsula or between the Greek and Turkish communities across the island of Cyprus.

This kind of deal would essentially solidify Russia's military gains in the war, but

it would also deny Russia their full objectives.

Vance also suggested that while what remains of Ukraine beyond the demilitarized zone would still be an independent and sovereign nation, his idea of a deal would also give Russia a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality from what remains of Ukraine as well, blocking Ukraine from joining NATO for either an agreed upon time limit or indefinitely.

Vance's suggested plan would still leave room for the remainder of Ukraine to establish deeper economic and social ties with Europe, such as through the European Union.

And it would still be allowed to purchase European and American weapons systems.

But there wouldn't be any NATO membership and no treaty obligations towards defending Ukraine from another attack in the future.

Instead, in order to deter Russia from launching another invasion of the rest of Ukraine in the future, Vance's plan suggested building out a series of fortifications along the new demilitarized zone on the Ukrainian side and staffing the area with international peacekeepers, potentially from either the UN or European states who would volunteer their own troops.

But no American troops would participate in this interpretation of a deal.

Ukraine would effectively be divided between a Western and an Eastern Ukraine, with one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world separating them in a situation situation that would look very similar to the end of the Korean War that left the Korean Peninsula divided.

The critics of this plan from Vance have since blasted it as essentially being surrender terms to the Russians, while proponents of it have argued that it's the only realistic peace option still remaining on the table.

But for one thing, it's unclear if Vance's plan and suggestions are going to end up being the same as Trump's.

And for another, it's also far from clear that even if it was the same, if either the Russians or the Ukrainians would even accept it.

The spokesperson for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, recently stated during a press briefing in Moscow that Russia's war aims in Ukraine remained unchanged from the most recent peace terms that Putin offered in June of 2024, and

that Vance's suggested deal was consequently going to be unacceptable to the Kremlin.

Contrary to what Vance suggested for a deal, Putin's current demand for peace is that Ukraine fully withdraw all of its troops away from the current frontline entirely out of the provinces of Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

Ukraine would then have to formally recognize the territorial losses of all four of these provinces in their administrative entireties to Russia, in addition to Crimea, and

also commit to a constitutional status of permanent neutrality, barring what remains of Ukraine from ever being allowed to join NATO.

In this scenario, Ukraine would surrender huge amounts of land at the Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces that they currently still hold and that Russia hasn't yet even managed to occupy.

In addition to their entire heavily fortified frontline that they've spent years constructing, major urban areas around the cities of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, collectively home to more than a million people, would all have to be surrendered, and

the fates of those 1 million plus people would be uncertain and likely grim.

Moreover, surrendering the whole of the Kherson and Zaporizhia provinces would place Russian territorial control and troops onto the west bank of the Dnipro river in large sections of the south, undermining one of Ukraine's biggest geographical barriers against another Russian assault in the future, who would no longer have to focus as much on crossing the river in the south.

And meanwhile, Ukraine also still hasn't abandoned their own terms for peace either that go directly against Vance's suggested deal as well.

Ukraine's peace demands continue to be that all Russian forces must fully withdraw back to the 2014 recognized borders of Ukraine, including Crimea and the port of Sevastopol, and

then on top of that, that the fully restored Ukraine will then be fully admitted into NATO afterwards.

So when Trump assumes power as the president in January, and

if he then attempts to make a deal that looks like some kind of variation of what J.D.

vance suggested in September, it's unclear if either Russia or Ukraine would actually be willing to compromise on their stated objectives, even with the variation of carrots and sticks that Trump will offer, and

Like Trump himself suggested back during his Fox News interview in 2023, he may threaten to completely withdraw all American funding to Ukraine if the Ukrainian side rejects his deal, while he may also simultaneously threaten Russia with dramatically increasing American aid to Ukraine if the Russian side rejects his deal too.

But on the face of it, Russia would stand to gain significantly more from this kind of deal than Ukraine would.

it would still be pressed to effectively surrender roughly 20% of its 2014 recognized territor, while Russia would be granted a reprieve to consolidate the gained territory and to further incorporate all of the conquered land and resources into Russia.

This is also why at the moment the Russian side of the war is greatly increasing the pace of their attacks all along the front line in an attempt to seize as much territory as physically possible before any potential Trump led negotiations to freeze the front lines where they stand, while they're also undertaking a truly huge effort to try and push the Ukrainians out of all of their occupied areas in Kursk as much as possible possible too, in order to reduce the leverage on the Ukrainian side, Russia would be significantly more hard pressed to agree on freezing the front lines where they stood at if it also included the frontlines in Kursk within Russia proper too, sealing some of Russia's own territory behind the Ukrainian side of the demilitarized zone.

And this is why Russia has currently thrown around 12,000 North Korean soldiers and around 38,000 of their own troops against the Ukrainian lines in Kursk to try and push the Ukrainians out from here as much as possible by the time Trump assumes office again in January.

If they manage to fully push the Ukrainians out of Kursk by the time Trump takes office, the Ukrainians will have significantly less leverage entering into the Trump led negotiations, and

they will be in a much more vulnerable position either way.

What is the most clear is that Trump will be hasty and eager to get America out of the Ukraine war and to end Washington's financial commitments to it as quickly as possible.

And whatever he ultimately believes will be the quickest way to end America's involvement in the war will likely be the method he will choose.

And if there's any precedent from Trump's first term in office regarding negotiating an end to a war that can give us some clues as to how this all might go, it would be how Trump handled the negotiations with the Taliban on ending America's war in Afghanistan Frustrated and eager to secure a quick deal ending America's decades of war and huge financial commitments in Afghanistan, Trump in early 2020 simply decided to go over the heads of the US supported government in Afghan and entered directly into negotiations with the Taliban themselves without the presence or input of the Afghan government.

Trump then agreed in February of 2020 to fully pull out all American troops from Afghanistan By May of 2021, strategically selected to be after the next presidential election.

And he then immediately began reducing airstrikes on the Taliban and lifted certain sanctions on them all in exchange for just some vague, unenforceable promises from the Taliban to commit to counterterrorism and agree to certain fighting restrictions.

But by almost eliminating American airstrikes on the Taliban, Trump's decision undermined the capabilities of the Afghan government security forces, who were then left to fight against the Taliban without critical air support.

And the Taliban almost immediately reneged on their agreed upon fighting restrictions and ramped up their attacks on the government instead.

Then, after Trump lost the 2020 election in November, he deliberately pulled out thousands more troops from Afghanistan than he'd even originally agreed to do, which essentially left behind a skeleton crew of US Forces in Afghanistan.

That made the situation even more unstable in the face of the increased Taliban offensive, which left the incoming Biden administration with a difficult decision to either reinforce the country with a troop surge to make the situation more stable leading up to the agreed upon handover date, but

face accusations of escalating the conflict and breaking the deal with the Taliban, or not doing that and just hoping for the best.

Biden then largely stuck to Trump's previous agreements with the Taliban on the withdrawal timeline and on the dangerous, unstable true productions, and

The Afghan government completely collapsed, the Taliban returned back into power, and

Trump managed to somehow win the PR battle by getting the credit as the president who negotiated the peace without receiving any of the blame for the surrender and the collapse that it ultimately resulted in during Biden's administration.

Trump's hasty peace agreement with the Taliban in 2020 that completely sidelined the Afghan government in its interests, therefore set the stage for the Afghan government's complete collapse the following year.

And the question is, if Trump has learned anything from that experience or not.

If he hasn't learned anything from it, and

if Trump's hasty deal making legacy with the Taliban is any kind of a guide for how he might handle making a similar deal with Russia and Ukraine, a similar outcome could well be plausible as well as the only possible deal that Trump and his team could offer Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours of him assuming office will be the ceasefire deal that'll freeze the front lines where they stand.

And there's the very real possibility that if both Ukraine and Russia refuse those terms, or if Ukraine refuses them and Russia kind of accepts them, or if Russia tries to push harder for Putin's proposed peace offering, Trump may decide to simply go over the heads of the Ukrainians and negotiate with the Kremlin directly on a hasty deal to get America out of the conflict as quickly as possible, just like he did when he went over the Afghan government's heads when he negotiated what for all intents and purposes was a surrender directly with the Taliban in 2020.

Were that outcome to happen and the US just completely removed itself from the war altogether, it would be a devastating blow to the Ukrainian war effort.

And the gap left behind in weapons and supplies worth tens of billions of dollars, could only be realistically filled in by the European Union.

The eu, for all of the tremendously huge amount of support that it has already given to Ukraine, would then be left with a very difficult choice on how to proceed.

The EU could decide to either dramatically increase its own aid to Ukraine to the tune of tens of billions of additional euros at a minimum, or not do that and save the money and see what ends up happening.

The ultimate question for Europe, if Europe decides to not step in and fill the gap left behind by the United States, is what exactly are Putin's ultimate intentions regarding Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet Union?

Will Putin's ambitions be limited to his June 2024 peace proposal that demands Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea, with a cut down to size and neutral Ukraine remaining?