Peace and the future of humanity depend mainly on three countries that dominate the world chessboard: the United States, China, and Russia. None of the challenges of the present and the future can be solved without the agreement of these actors, as has been demonstrated in the current crises in Ukraine or Gaza, where the war in the first country has been going on for a year and a half while in Palestine it is about to last more than 300 days. The discrepant positions maintained by these powers means that every day the number of deaths increases to thousands of thousands and that no solution to these conflicts is in sight for the time being.

The United Nations, an organisation created to prevent wars and to promote peace and cooperation among nations, has shown its total incapacity to resolve these crises due to the limitations imposed by the main body—the Security Council—which concentrates the real power and where, once again, the same three powers control it. Let us remember that both the United Kingdom and France, also members of the Security Council, are partners in the NATO military alliance, which has always been directed from Washington.

Likewise, it is effective that countries such as India, or those that make up the European Union, play a relevant role in the world scenario. India, with its nuclear and population power, has shown itself unwilling to align itself with any of these three countries and has increased its economic and military power year by year while maintaining its independence. In contrast, the EU, with all its tremendous capabilities to be an independent power, has in recent years aligned itself firmly with U.S. interests.

The People's Republic of China and Russia maintain centralised one-party political systems, where foreign policy is somewhat predictable. In the case of the United States, with a democratic system to which it adds its role as a global power, substantial changes have recently taken shape between the Democratic and Republican parties with respect to the vision of the international scene. Since 1900 to date, both parties are the only ones to have governed that country, with 12 Republican and 9 Democratic heads of state. But the upcoming presidential election on November 5 between current Vice President Kamala Harris and tycoon Donald Trump may offer markedly different alternatives to the current challenges facing the United States and humanity.

An eventual Democratic triumph will probably mean the endorsement of the policy promoted by President Biden in relation to Russia, i.e., maintaining the material and political support to the war in Ukraine and the demand for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory including Crimea. In relation to China, the policy of containment of the growing global economic expansion of this country, especially in areas of high technology, and the strengthening of political and military relations in the Asia Pacific with countries that rival China for territorial issues, will continue.

The question is: what would happen if the Republican Party wins? If we recall the words of former President Donald Trump, a day after the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2024, he noted that it had been the "act of a genius". He later stated in an interview on The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show, quoted by CNN, that declaring part of Ukrainian territory independent had been "wonderful," adding that it was "the strongest peacekeeping force he had ever seen. Here's a guy who's very smart. I know him very well. Very, very well." The note recalls that the former president observed that "the people of Crimea, from what I have heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," thus legitimising, in effect, what Moscow did in 2014.

Hence the fear that exists among the countries of the European Union, for an eventual triumph of the Republican candidate, who has been clear in the messages he has delivered regarding his vision of the role of the United States in the world and guarantor of the security of Europe. Everything has a price, Trump has pointed out, which is why European defense budgets will not only have to be increased, but a large part will have to be allocated to the purchase of U.S. weapons. The former president also boasted that during the four years of his presidency, the United States was not involved in any war. Apparently, for Trump, the threat to U.S. interests does not come from Russia but from China. Therefore, if he becomes president, he will accentuate the pressure to close trade and investment spaces to Beijing, especially in high-tech areas, as he did during his years as president.

In the case of Latin America, he will seek that countries limit their presence in areas considered strategic, such as communications and high-demand mineral resources. For Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, there seems to be no doubt that a Republican victory would be the most favourable scenario for their interests. Preventing NATO expansion towards its borders, legitimising the annexations of Crimea and the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporiyia, and Kherson, as well as the progressive lifting of economic sanctions, is what Putin is surely hoping for. It is a mystery as to which of the candidates, the Democrat or the Republican, is preferred by the Chinese. Their vision of national interest, as well as their notion of time, goes far beyond what we can perceive, and they have demonstrated it many times.

They are fully aware of the development and strength they have achieved at all levels and which they are sure will increase. They know that deadlines are met and that what has been agreed upon must be respected. This is how they recovered Macao from the Portuguese in 1999, after nearly 400 years of colonialism. The same happened with Hong Kong, returned by the British to China after 156 years of occupation. What will happen with Taiwan or with the claims to dozens of small islands in the South China Sea, in the Spratly or Paracel archipelago, which China disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei? Will territorial disputes be settled by negotiation or by force?

Foreign policy issues are not what will decide the vote of U.S. voters, but rather the state of the economy, the price of a gallon of gasoline, inflation, employment, and tax payments, mainly. It is difficult to know what the electoral participation will be in a country of more than 300 million people and where an average of 60% vote. The election will be decided by the population of the deep areas of the United States, where it is estimated that only 30% have obtained passports, as opposed to the inhabitants of the big cities. The rest of the world will be watching to know the foreign policy guidelines of the candidates: how they will face the ongoing wars or the challenges for the survival of the planet.

Let us not forget that Trump has been a climate change denier and that he rejected in 2018, the report delivered by 300 scientists from the U.S. specialised agencies themselves, on the devastating effects it will have on the economy, health, and environment. Therefore, the public debates that should take place in the coming months will shed light on the most important issues of the global agenda and the challenges that will face whoever heads the next government of the first power in the world.