Insights from the Trump-Biden U.S. Presidential Debate and Eurasia’s Geopolitics
Geopolitical Report ISSN 2785-2598 Volume 43 Issue 10
SpecialEurasia OSINT Unit
Executive Summary
The recent Trump-Biden U.S. presidential holds considerable significance given the current global geopolitical landscape.
In Eurasia, the forthcoming president will encounter crucial challenges, such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the resurgence of terrorism, the growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region over Taiwan, and the multifaceted confrontations involving China, Russia, and Iran in an increasingly multipolar global landscape.
The debate offered crucial insights into the candidates’ political agendas and starkly highlighted the differences in age and vitality between the 81-year-old incumbent, Biden, and his 78-year-old challenger, Trump. His hoarse voice and occasional incoherence marred Biden’s performance, while Trump reiterated his contentious stance on the 2020 election results, further intensifying their personal and political clashes.
This report aims at summarising the major topics discussed during the debate and raise questions related to U.S. domestic politics and the international geopolitical landscape.
Trump-Biden’s Debate: Main Points
Economy. The debate showcased a clear divergence in economic policies between the two candidates. Biden emphasised his administration’s efforts in stabilising the economy post-pandemic, highlighting policies aimed at reducing inflation and supporting middle-class families. He cited the importance of tax reforms targeting the wealthy to ease national debt. Trump, in contrast, blamed Biden for the current inflation and economic woes, asserting that his policies had created an economic boom before the pandemic. Trump criticised Biden’s handling of economic recovery and accused him of exacerbating the financial burden on American families.
Domestic Politics. Domestically, the debate was fraught with discussions on immigration, healthcare, and social justice. Biden defended his administration’s record on border security and immigration reform, despite struggling to articulate his points clearly. Trump capitalised on Biden’s faltering explanations, portraying a grim picture of rising crime and economic instability because of alleged mismanagement of immigration policies. On social justice issues, Biden touted his efforts to address racial disparities and police reform, while Trump claimed his policies had significantly benefited minority communities, particularly through economic opportunities.
Foreign Politics. Biden stressed the importance of NATO and continued support for Ukraine, arguing that a robust alliance with Western Europe enhances U.S. global standing. He accused Trump of undermining these alliances and emboldening adversaries like Putin. Trump, meanwhile, painted a bleak picture of global politics under Biden, criticising his handling of the Afghanistan’s withdrawal and alleging that Biden’s policies had weakened the U.S. military and emboldened enemies. Trump advocated for a more isolationist approach, emphasising national sovereignty and reduced involvement in international conflicts.
Why Does It Matter?
The debate and the upcoming U.S. presidential elections are pivotal for international geopolitics, especially within the Eurasian context. The next president will influence the trajectory of significant global conflicts and alliances. In Ukraine, U.S. support is critical in countering Russian aggression. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires deft handling to balance American interests and regional stability. Tensions in the Asia-Pacific, particularly over Taiwan, necessitate a clear U.S. stance to deter Chinese expansionism. The growing dynamics with China, Russia, and Iran in a multipolar world will require strategic foresight and robust foreign policy.
The debate has the potential to influence U.S. domestic politics greatly in the short term, while the presidential elections and the future leader of the United States will impact the world of international relations. We should investigate and assess some issues that have arisen from yesterday’s debate”
- Given the emphasis on Joe Biden’s age during the presidential debate, should the Democratic Party continue to support him as their candidate, or should they consider nominating a younger candidate to avoid losing support and credibility among voters? As the Democratic Party evaluates their candidate for the upcoming election, they face a crucial decision. Continuing to support Biden might secure the loyalty of his current supporters, but could also alienate younger voters and independents concerned about his stamina and mental acuity. Selecting a younger candidate might inject fresh energy into the campaign but risks fracturing the party and losing the backing of Biden’s established base. This decision is critical as it could affect the Democrats’ credibility and overall voter support in a highly polarised political climate.
- Considering the advanced ages of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, is there a potential risk of a leadership vacuum in the U.S. political system? How might this impact the United States’ reputation and influence on its international allies? With both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, being in their late seventies and early eighties, there is a growing concern about the long-term sustainability of leadership in the U.S. political system. There is a potential danger of creating a leadership vacuum in this situation, as the upcoming generation of influential politicians may not be adequately prepared to assume these positions. If the political landscape appears stagnant, it could harm the United States’ reputation as a strong and dynamic leader, potentially diminishing its influence with international allies. Allies might question the U.S.’s ability to maintain a consistent and forward-looking foreign policy, which could lead to a realignment of global partnerships and a re-evaluation of the U.S.’s role on the world stage.
- If Donald Trump wins the election and implements his foreign policy views, particularly his firm support for Israel, how might this affect the geopolitical situation in the Middle East? What are the potential risks to U.S. relations with Arab-Muslim nations? Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric and policies might exacerbate tensions with several Arab-Muslim nations, possibly leading to a deterioration of diplomatic relations. Countries that oppose Israel’s policies might view increased U.S. support for Tel Aviv as a direct affront, leading to strained bilateral ties and a decrease in cooperation on critical issues such as counterterrorism and trade. This could also embolden anti-U.S. sentiment in the region, further complicating Washington’s strategic interests and efforts to foster peace and stability in the Middle East.
- Should Donald Trump win the election and subsequently reduce U.S. financial and military aid to Ukraine, how might the Ukrainian government sustain its defence against Russian aggression? Would Europe maintain its full support for Ukraine in the absence of substantial U.S. involvement? Ukraine’s military capabilities heavily depend on external support, and a reduction in aid could weaken its resistance efforts. This situation would force Europe to reassess its level of involvement and support for Ukraine. European countries may face pressure to boost their contributions, but internal conflicts and limited resources could impede a cohesive and efficient reaction. Without substantial U.S. involvement, the cohesion and effectiveness of international support for Ukraine might diminish, hypothetically altering the balance of power in the region and emboldening Russia’s strategic ambitions.
- Considering the debate’s focus on illegal immigration, border control, economic policies, and security, how might Trump’s proposed protectionist and nationalist policies affect U.S. society if he will win the elections? Could his staunch support for Israel and opposition to migrants exacerbate the threat of terrorist organisations like the Islamic State, leading to increased targeting of the United States in jihadist propaganda and recruitment efforts? Stricter immigration controls and aggressive border security measures might lead to heightened tensions and division within the country. Economically, protectionist policies could disrupt trade relations and affect domestic industries reliant on international cooperation. Trump’s unwavering support for Israel, coupled with his opposition to migrants, could also serve as potent propaganda tools for terrorist organisations like the Islamic State. These groups might exploit such policies to portray the U.S. as antagonistic towards Muslims, fuelling anti-U.S. sentiment and potentially increasing recruitment and radicalisation efforts. This could pose a heightened security threat, causing vigilant counterterrorism strategies to safeguard the nation.
For further information, reports or consulting about U.S. presidential elections’s impact in Eurasia, contact us at info@specialeurasia.com.