The upcoming presidential election is growing hotter than ever, and one issue that is slowly gaining importance is the candidates’ positions on the role the United States should play in international conflicts.

It is no secret the U.S. is one of the most influential countries in the world, both politically and economically. In turn, it is well known that some of the greatest competitions for this global dominance are represented by Russia and China. 

The Russian federation in particular has risen to become an aggressive rival, especially considering its recent invasion of Ukraine and various interventions in other countries.

The upcoming presidential elections will be paramount, not only because of the extreme polarization in the U.S., but because of how these elections may affect the rest of the world. 

Polls and media have found the war in Ukraine is a topic that is not generally important to the American electorate, according to the Pew Research Center and Gallup.

But it is for the rest of the world.

During the 21st century, both Russia and China have taken action to expand their influence or territory. Examples include the Taiwan crisis, the Hong Kong crisis, the Russo-Georgian war and the two Chechen wars. 

Now Europe’s climate may begin showing a Russian expansion, not only taking Ukraine, but also all former territories of the Soviet Union.

The Battle of Kiev and the stabilization of the front in March-April 2022 marked the first major stop by a military power in a military intervention with such unbalanced forces. The best estimates of that time did not give Ukraine even a week of resistance, and today it has managed to invade Russian territory for the first time since 1945.

Much of this success is due to the massive economic and military aid the U.S. provides to Ukraine. However, this assistance, despite having great under-the-table advantages such as weakening one of the U.S’s greatest enemies without conflict and testing new weapons on a modern battlefield, is not unlimited. It is subject, in part, to the desires of the American people. 

These people, the American voters, will decide on Nov. 5 which policy they will follow. 

America will either choose to support the defense of Europe or an isolationist policy of no intervention and less military aid.

Aarie Glas, an associate professor of political science at NIU, thinks there will be no surprise in what will happen with the policies of either candidate.

“I think we have a pretty clear idea of what their foreign policy agendas would look like,” Glas said. “(For Donald) Trump, because we already have an administration to look at with his America First domestic and international policy. And (Kamala) Harris, because I think we would expect a lot of continuity with what we’ve seen in the Biden administration.”

Trump seeks local growth instead of looking at external conflicts that do not affect the U.S.

“Trump has gone down in history – at least among popular culture –as the most peaceful president in history, having not declared any war during his term,” Glas said.

However, this does not necessarily mean the Trump administration’s international management and policies were good, such as his friendly relationship with Putin, despite the barbarity we have seen in the Russo-Ukrainian war. 

 The fact that Iran has not slowed down its nuclear program and is now more involved in supporting its proxies in conflicts with Israel is not a good sign of Trump’s management in the Middle East.

“He emboldened aggressors in conflicts that involve or could and would involve the U.S. and its allies,” Glas said.

Regardless of what has happened, today there are two conflicts in which the U.S. has much to gain or lose. Located to the east, the Ukrainian steppes and the Palestinian desert are the test grounds for American weapons and a playing field for the world’s powers.

“Trump, on the one hand, has questioned not only the aid to Ukraine, but also the existence of NATO’s Article 5 treaty,” Glas said. “It has been mentioned at various points in the campaign that countries could be expelled if they do not meet a minimum contribution to NATO budget of 2%of each country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product). And while most countries have begun a rearmament project unprecedented since the second World War, many are far from the goal.”

Harris would theoretically follow in Biden’s footsteps and strengthen NATO to prepare either a direct or indirect confrontation against Russia, even if it means sacrificing more of the U.S. economy by allowing more GDP to NATO’s budget and military aid to Ukraine.

However, beyond the threats and rhetoric of Trump, a global scenario without NATO acting as a firewall against Russia’s expansion is unrealistic and impractical.

“I think that’s another clear division, at least in sort of policy preference, between a would be Trump’s second term and a Harris administration,” Glas said. “Harris has signaled, as Biden has, a steadfast and ironclad commitment to NATO and a upholding Article Five, collective defense arrangement through NATO, and Trump has questioned the existence of the question, the existence of the organization, the Alliance itself, and undermined American credibility in upholding collective defense through the organization.”

The upcoming elections may very well define the future of Ukraine.

If Trump wins, we will probably see the U.S. withdraw much of the planned military and economic aid for Ukraine. This would not be favorable for Ukraine, which may be forced to surrender some of its land or, in a more extreme case, its sovereignty and independence. 

If Harris wins, the U.S. would probably increase its aid to Ukraine. But as fighting persists, more equipment would not translate into higher chances of a military victory – it would give Ukraine more chances to continue this war with Russia.

Ignoring all other topics and focusing just on international policy, Harris offers a better plan for external security. In continuing to support Ukraine, Harris’ plan will wear out the Russian power with a greater military power, without entering into a direct conflict, and will ensure that NATO remains the most powerful alliance in the world.