“I will end wars within 24 hours” was promised by president Trump on the campaign trail. If he achieves success in it, it will challenge traditional notions of realism. How can a leader, elected because of change of leadership due to elections be able to achieve this in short time what countries have failed in over two years?

“Challenging realism” is a perspective that expands traditional realism by recognizing the increasing influence of non-state actors in global politics. It mentions how non-state actors like social movements, political groups, and influential individuals play crucial roles in conflict resolution and political processes unlike classical realism, which focuses on state actors and power. In the context of Donald trump’s re-election, non-state actors had significant but complex, impacts on his policies and political decisions, especially concerning domestic issues like economy and international issues like wars.

Trump’s promise to end wars within 24 hours presents a radical challenge to established norms of realism in international relations.

The reelection of Trump and resurgence of “America first” sends shockwaves across the political spectrum. His track of first term has also sent the world into a state of utter panicking. His first term saw no new war being begun in decades, threatening to withdraw from NATO reshaped global politics. With it how can we expect something different this time? His proposal is somehow interesting for a cease-fire. It will be a significant diplomatic move if it gets through.

Let Russia keep whatever it has and meaning Ukraine change its international border. It’s interesting to see how it goes ahead. Do both Russia and Ukraine accept it? For Russia it means the abandoning war objectives of annihilating and finishing Ukraine as Russia doesn’t accept Ukraine as legitimate state and for Ukraine it means loosing nearly a fifth of its territory.

Trump is a businessman, and he knows the art of doing business. He governed America as businessman during first term. Now, he ran campaign on the promises of ending wars, but his incoming administration shows that he will not end Israeli conflict as all appointees have pro-Israeli sentiment in common. Trump’s domestic policy during has been marked by poor personnel decisions, favouring loyalty over qualifications as seen in the case of appointments like Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of defence.

His preference for authoritarian control as approach to governance, marked by a clashed with efforts to introduce discipline, as seen in his strained relationship with former Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. On the international stage, Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal erased global trust in U.S. commitments. This strategy of backtracking on deals mirrored his business practices and undermined future diplomatic negotiations.

The influence of non-state actors, such as Elon Musk, is reshaping political dynamics and impacting election outcomes significantly.

Another thing that Trump appointees that has in common is anti-China sentiment. The rise of China and diverting of USA’s attention to prolonged wars has given China the space and American space for influence is shrinking. Last tenure of trump saw withdrawal from several locations. But the question is why America is withdrawing now. In physics, Hooke’s Law states that the force required to extend or compress an elastic material is directly proportional to its displacement, within its elastic limit. It is true for international politics too where empires tend to return to original place from where it started if it overstretches.

British empire, ottoman empire, roman empire all returned to place of origin due to prolonged wars. But in the case of the USA, it would be different. As it can’t endure another war it will return due to economic means. Currently, USA needs breathing economic space and trump intends to do it. Under America first policy he may involve the strategy of reducing military commitments as strategy and potentially withdraw aid to Ukraine and if repetition of first term happens, he might demand money for stationing troops. North Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) has increased spending due to fear of trump’s plan for withdrawal from NATO and threat of USA allowing Russia to invade for not fulfilling financial commitments.

This brings us back to the role of non-state actors (NSAs). Another act that we saw was the alliance of Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the election. It was crucial in delivering Trump victory. Both are owners of social media platforms. Elon Musk’s influential support of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, including significant financial backing and his role in amplifying Trump’s message on X formerly twitter as he is owner of the platform to influence public, has helped propel Trump back to the White House.

The alliance driven by their common populist appeal and opposition to government regulation, has significantly strengthened Trump’s appeal among young male voters and right-wing populists. Elon Musk contributed over $132 million and his financial backing of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, combined with his vast business interests in Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, has raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for favorable government treatment, while his close relationships with both U.S. and Chinese officials could make him a key figure in the next administration, possibly overseeing a committee on government efficiency.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign, boosted by celebrity endorsements from figures like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Oprah, faced backlash on social media for being seen as inauthentic, elitist, and disconnected from real issues, with many voters arguing it alienated the middle class and failed to bring their support. This shows how non state actors have increased its role in delivering political goals and achievements.

Trump’s first term saw a withdrawal from international commitments, raising concerns about the future of NATO and U.S. alliances.

The approach of Donald Trump regarding conflict that he would end wars within 24 hours, presents a challenge to traditional realist perspectives in international relations, particularly in the context of long-standing geopolitical conflicts. Trump’s idea defined by “America First” discourse, has introduced a new tier to realism by focusing on the influence of NSAs on political outcomes. These actors have become important in shaping public opinion and election victories, shifting the dynamics of political power beyond traditional state-centric analyses.

While Trump’s strategy may see U.S. foreign policy shift, particularly through reduced international military engagements and potential withdrawals, it raises questions about the practicality of such drastic measures in the face of existing international conflicts. The situation further complexes due to suggestion that politics may increasingly be driven through the role of NSAs, both in the form of financial backing and social influence and by a combination of state and non-state forces. If Trump succeeds in utilizing these influences to achieve his policy goals, the global order would be shaken to its knees. The increasing power of NSAs could disrupt traditional state-led decision-making processes, changing the balance of global power dynamics.

While Trump’s foreign policy may challenge the established norms of realism, the efficiency of such an approach remains uncertain, as it requires extensive and battle-hardened diplomacy, balancing the interests of both state and non-state actors on the global stage. The innovative arena of international relations, shaped by both traditional and emerging forces, will determine whether his ambitious promises can be realized in practice or not.

The potential for a power vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal could strengthen the alliance between Russia and China, altering global governance.

If it fails, the existing order shall remain intact and his approach of focusing on domestic recovery will risks weakening the global order, creating a power vacuum that could strengthened the alliance of Russia and China. Both nations, unified in opposition to U.S. dominance, may increase cooperation to counter American influence. This reshaping, accelerated by both state and non-state actors, could realign global alliances, international security, and economic relations, marking a shift in global governance.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.