The interlocutor of Radar Armania is international expert Shahan Gantaharyan.
– Former President Donald Trump won the US presidential elections. How would you interpret that victory? What factors helped the former US president return to power?
– Several circumstances explain Trump’s victory. If we outline, internally the main thing is the prospect of improving the economic situation, and externally, the tasks of ending wars. Of course, the tactical mistakes of the democrats, manifestations of extreme liberalism, socio-social problems, and the flow of emigrants all accumulated the wave of dissatisfaction. It is not excluded that the assassination attempt against Trump also affected the electorate. The promise of the return of conservative values has attracted the American classes. The Trump campaign team also managed to influence the Israeli lobby and the public of Arab origin.
– After winning the elections, can we expect that Trump will take steps to stop the Russian-Ukrainian war?
According to pre-election promises, there is a position to work towards ending the war in Ukraine. This is also related to the domestic economy recovery policy. Certain initiatives and stylistic changes will occur, but it is still too early to record a cessation of war.
– What to expect after Trump’s election regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as Iran-Israel relations.
There is also talk about ceasing emergency military operations. In the direction of Iran, impulses are being sent to conclude nuclear deals and lead the Middle East processes to peace. Trump’s adviser announced that different delegates will be appointed to start negotiations on the solution of the Lebanon-Israel conflict. There are tendencies to convey positive charges, which are declarative for now. Trump will take office in mid-January; until then, the status quo will continue.
– Naturally, we are also interested in the fate of the South Caucasus. What developments can we expect? What position will the US take on the events taking place here? I mean, the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty, the question of unblocking the roads, etc. Will it waste resources, or is this not interesting to them anyway?
– The geopolitical map in the region has already changed. NATO is knocking on Russia’s borders. In this regard, no retreat or retreat of NATO positions is visible. This implies that we are talking about the geopolitics of the collective West more than the individual USA. But, at the same time, it should be noted that the one who dictates the weather in the collective West is mainly Washington, whose geopolitical decisions are based on US security and defense—the intelligence systems are not determined only by the person of the president. There will be initiatives, maybe the negotiations will become more active, tactical changes will even be noticed, and stoppages will be recorded. Still, I don’t think the general processes will have sharp turning points.
– Considering the geopolitical events, which direction will we go now: a unipolar or multipolar world order? What position will the USA take in this matter?
– Multipolarity has different points of reference. If we consider it on the economic level, then yes, the world order is becoming multipolar. However, China, for example, has not transitioned from monetary to military-political. If we talk about technologies here, multipolarity is observed, especially if we consider the evolving role and place of the IT sector in the new world order. If we are talking about purely military politics, I think that the supremacy of the USA here is indisputable, no matter how much the world observes the sharp competition in the military industry. The concept of unipolarity itself is transformed. On the directions that interest us, Ukraine, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, or even the EU, the USA remains the leading player, guarantor, or referee of war games. In this reality, the motivations of the status quo, cooling, warming, trends towards peace or tension in the regions, and the whole philosophy should be considered.
