The world is currently grappling with the profound impacts of two high-intensity, high-stakes international conflicts: the Palestine-Israel conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war. These wars have inflicted deep financial, economic, emotional, and psychological wounds, affecting those who still hold human dignity and the value of life in high regard. The resolution of these tragic and inhumane conflicts largely depends on the leadership of the next President of the USA, who holds significant influence over the international diplomatic landscape.
Both candidates have aligned closely with Israel, leaving little hope for change in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. However, their views diverge significantly on the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Kamala Harris has taken a firm stance in support of Ukraine, emphasizing that the conflict not only threatens Ukraine’s sovereignty but also undermines international norms and global stability. She has reiterated repeatedly that US military and financial support for Ukraine is not only a moral obligation but also in the strategic interest of the USA and its allies. Should she become President, it is likely that this support will continue for the foreseeable future, suggesting that the war may persist under her leadership. Her approach aligns with the belligerent stance of the European Union (EU), which, in line with President Biden’s policy, has imposed multiple sanctions on Russia, targeting its financial, energy, and military sectors. The EU has also provided extensive military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine to prevent Russia from redrawing borders by force. Most EU countries advocate for Ukraine’s complete victory and caution against any concessions to Russia.
Unlike the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is unlikely to be significantly affected by who becomes the next President, the Russia-Ukraine war could see a dramatically different approach if Donald Trump wins the Presidency. The first action he is likely to take would be to halt military aid to Ukraine and stop funding the defence of the European Union, which heavily depends on the formidable support of the US military. Trump would likely demand that the EU shoulder the full financial burden of the USA’s intervention in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In 2024 alone, the cost of military intervention to the USA amounted to $175 billion in aid to Ukraine, with $107 billion directly allocated to the Ukrainian government for military and economic support. Meanwhile, the EU has provided over $126 billion in financial, military, and humanitarian aid since the war began, with an additional $54 billion committed for Ukraine’s recovery, bringing the total EU contribution to $167 billion.
Under Donald Trump, Russia is likely to have a much easier time navigating the conflict. Unlike Biden, Trump would likely pursue serious negotiations with Russia and use the threat of Russia’s potential use of nuclear arms to pressure the European Union into aligning with his stance. Ukraine could face significant setbacks as US aid may dry up, and EU support could dwindle due to the shift in US policy toward the war under a Trump administration.
In terms of public diplomacy, they should employ strategic media campaigns to shape public opinion and influence key stakeholders, highlighting the humanitarian and geopolitical benefits of the proposal. Additionally, cultural diplomacy, such as leveraging cultural exchanges and showcasing shared values, could foster a favorable environment for dialogue. Brazil and China can also use multilateral platforms, such as the United Nations, BRICS, and G20, to rally broader international support for the initiative. They should also engage civil society organizations and academic think tanks to promote dialogue and develop policy recommendations to further enhance the formula’s acceptability.
Given this scenario, stakeholders are likely developing strategies based on the potential outcomes of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. If Kamala Harris becomes President, the USA. is expected to maintain its current approach, continuing military and financial support for Ukraine. However, a Trump Presidency introduces unpredictability. His maverick behaviour, aggressive rhetoric, and belief that he can swiftly end the Russia-Ukraine conflict create a highly uncertain and challenging situation for all involved.
Stakeholders are likely scrambling to find a viable solution to navigate the potential challenges they may face if Donald Trump becomes the next President. One practical and effective way to avoid a highly volatile and unpredictable situation is to adopt the China-Brazil formula to end the conflict and prevent further loss of life and destruction of civilian and military assets.
The China-Brazil joint peace plan focuses on de-escalation, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The plan urges all parties to refrain from expanding the battlefield or escalating tensions, emphasizing that dialogue and negotiations are the only sustainable solutions. It proposes an international peace conference with equal participation from all sides. Additionally, the initiative stresses the importance of expanding humanitarian aid, protecting civilians and prisoners of war, and preventing the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. The proposal also highlights the need for international cooperation on critical issues like energy, food security, and safeguarding key infrastructure to ensure global stability.
The EU, Russia, and Ukraine should proactively pursue this peace formula to achieve key objectives: reducing military confrontations, protecting civilian infrastructure and lives, and entering into serious, objective negotiations as the primary method of resolving the conflict. History shows that even the most devastating wars ultimately end at the negotiation table.
Brazil and China, as the main proponents of this peace formula, should employ all tools of traditional and public diplomacy to foster acceptance of the plan among primary and auxiliary stakeholders. These tools should include high-level diplomatic engagement, such as bilateral and multilateral meetings with the key countries involved or affected by the conflict. Additionally, track-two diplomacy—non-governmental, informal, and unofficial dialogues between influential parties—should be used to build broader consensus and momentum for peace.
In terms of public diplomacy, they should employ strategic media campaigns to shape public opinion and influence key stakeholders, highlighting the humanitarian and geopolitical benefits of the proposal. Additionally, cultural diplomacy, such as leveraging cultural exchanges and showcasing shared values, could foster a favorable environment for dialogue. Brazil and China can also use multilateral platforms, such as the United Nations, BRICS, and G20, to rally broader international support for the initiative. They should also engage civil society organizations and academic think tanks to promote dialogue and develop policy recommendations to further enhance the formula’s acceptability.
This approach would save the stakeholders from the warmongering policies of Kamala Harris and from the unpredictable, illogical and impractical approach of Donald Trump.
