Ukraine, Iran, and others: How the midterm elections could influence US foreign policy

Democratic victories in the US midterm elections will not fundamentally alter the trajectory of American foreign policy, according to analysts who argue that President Donald Trump retains decisive control over international affairs despite losing congressional majorities. The results, announced on Tuesday, see the Democrats reclaiming the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate, ending the Republican dominance that facilitated Trump's governance in the first half of his second term. However, experts caution that the President remains the primary architect of US external strategy, particularly regarding conflicts in Ukraine and Iran. The shift in power dynamics offers Democrats new legislative tools, primarily through their control of the budget and trade mechanisms. Yet, these instruments are viewed as limited in their ability to constrain the executive branch. Celia Belin, a researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris, noted that Trump has previously disregarded the preferences of his own party's majority in Congress. She expects him to continue exercising presidential authority extensively, including ordering military operations, withdrawing troops, and negotiating bilateral deals, often at the expense of long-standing alliances with Europe. In Moscow, the reaction to the electoral defeat of the Republicans was characterized by notable silence from official channels. On November 4, National Unity Day, neither the Kremlin nor the Russian Foreign Ministry issued statements regarding the US vote. High-profile figures typically critical of American politics, including Dmitry Medvedev, Maria Zakharova, and Margarita Simonyan, remained quiet until late morning. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had earlier stated that the election was an internal US matter, though one observed closely by the global community. He emphasized that Trump would remain President until the end of his term and continue to pursue his independent foreign policy. Russian state media largely echoed the narrative that little would change. Outlets such as Lenta.ru highlighted Trump's expressed willingness to cooperate with the new Democratic leadership, while citing US analysis suggesting a Democratic Congress does not automatically translate into increased aid for Ukraine. The tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda asserted that the Kremlin faces no pressure, whereas the regime of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stands on the brink of collapse. Other state-aligned channels, including REN TV, predicted a power struggle between Congress and the White House that would complicate Trump's plans for resolving the Ukraine conflict. State media also attributed the Republican loss to inflation caused by the ongoing war with Iran. However, unofficial commentary in Russia presented a more pessimistic outlook for Moscow. Influential military bloggers on Telegram, including the channel Rybar, described Trump as a lame duck for the remaining two years. These commentators argued that the hope for rapid rapprochement between Washington and Moscow had evaporated. They warned that Democrats in Congress could block sanction relief measures, a capability demonstrated in October during disputes over Russian diesel exports, and might reintroduce aid packages for Ukraine. European observers share skepticism regarding any return to traditional transatlantic partnerships. Analysts point out that the geopolitical landscape has shifted fundamentally due to the rise of China and the exposure of American vulnerabilities under Trump's aggressive posture. Liis Mure, from the International Center for Defense and Security in Tallinn, assessed that Trump, facing domestic political constraints, would likely direct more energy toward foreign policy to secure his historical legacy. She suggested he aims to position himself as a peacemaker, potentially through high-profile summits, such as the anticipated meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the upcoming APEC summit in China. Specific policy areas illustrate the tension between the branches. Regarding Ukraine, the US suspended sanctions on Russia and reduced financial and military assistance under Trump, a reversal of the robust support provided during the Biden administration. While Democrats criticized the administration for insufficient aid, a two-thirds majority in Congress could theoretically override a presidential veto to increase support, though this requires cooperation from some Republicans. On the issue of Iran, Trump initiated military action alongside Israel on February 28 without prior consultation with Congress, bypassing the constitutional requirement for a formal declaration of war. Although Democrats and some Republicans passed a resolution demanding an end to hostilities, the administration ignored it. Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, noted that while Congress lacks broad power to stop the current conflict, it could prevent further escalation by withholding funding. Experts advise European nations to prepare for continued volatility. Nevada Joan Lee, a US specialist, urged Europeans to leverage the current momentum to set long-term priorities ahead of the 2028 presidential election. She warned that future administrations, regardless of party, might prioritize different interests, requiring Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own security. The consensus among analysts is that the old model of American-led security guarantees for Europe is unlikely to return, forcing European capitals to adapt to a persistent era of unpredictability in Washington.