It feels as if history rewound to 2016 as November 6 unfolded with a familiar tension: the U.S. presidential race again unsettled observers, pollsters, and voters. In this imagined present, Donald Trump returns to the White House, ready to shake up the status quo once more. Across North America and Europe, public mood ranges from curiosity to anxiety as markets, media, and foreign capitals watch closely to see what a second term might bring.
Election returns suggested that many Americans are tired of the old order and skeptical of sweeping progressive ideas, a sentiment some attribute to the campaign style associated with Kamala Harris. The public image crafted by the Democratic messaging machine faced criticism, while Trump projected a different, hands-on persona in daily life appearances and informal conversations with ordinary people and media figures.
The central question now is how a second Trump term would unfold. Would it offer something distinctly new, or resemble the first term with the same mix of policy battles, investigations, and spectacle? And crucially for Russia and Ukraine, what would the new administration’s policy look like under this leadership?
Forecasts hinge on political arithmetic in Congress, particularly whether Republicans can maintain control of the House. With elections to the House aligned with the presidential vote, the balance remains uncertain, and the identities of top White House aides would further shape policy.
There are early signs that the four-year plan could carry more resonance than before, depending on the leadership team and their ability to translate rhetoric into action.
One certainty is that questions about the legitimacy of the elected president are far less likely to dominate the public discourse, as the electoral outcomes are accepted by a large portion of voters who believe the process produced a clear result. The political environment may shift from legitimacy debates toward policy implementation.
If Trump moves aggressively on crime or corruption cases, political tensions could spike, yet a ceasefire remains the more plausible outcome as parties seek predictable ground and diplomatic channels.
Trump in 2025 is not the same as in 2016. The eight years have produced a more seasoned and calculating leader who has learned how to operate within party structures and endure internal disagreements.
That experience could yield a clearer plan and a more cohesive team, reducing the administrative chaos of the past while leaving room for strategic adjustments and compromises.
The foreign-policy core of a second term could hinge on who holds top roles, especially the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor, and how they steer policy toward Kyiv and Moscow.
One name often discussed is Rick Grennel, associated with European right-wing circles and calls for approaches favoring Moscow’s influence. If placed in a senior diplomatic post, the trajectory of policy would tilt in that direction.
There is also Trump’s former national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, who seeks another high position and is viewed as hawkish. His leadership could influence whether Washington leans toward military aid for Ukraine or renewed negotiations.
Whatever the cabinet, a dramatic ceasefire within hours is unlikely. Real settlement talks could begin in 2025, but the methods, concessions, and pace remain uncertain.
At this stage it is premature to map out exact steps. The initial moves of a new president in 2025 will reveal the administration’s approach to Ukraine, Russia, and the broader balance of power.
This perspective is a personal take and may not reflect official policy.