“A devastating result” and “an existential disaster for the Democrats,” were the headlines in Europe’s main newspapers on Wednesday analyzing the victory of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump over his Democratic rival Kamala Harris in the race for the White House.

“Trump has a mandate to reform the United States in a radical way. There will be no turning back after the devastating result of the US election,” the Financial Times wrote, estimating that “Trump’s re-election would be an existential disaster for the Democrats” that would “change the rules of the game for America’s allies.”

The newspaper considered that if outgoing President Joe Biden had withdrawn "six months ago, Democrats would have had more time to choose a better candidate than Harris, who showed a performance that could be described - at best - as modest when the discussion turned to the economy, a topic she did her best to avoid."

For its part, the British newspaper The Times considered that “the Democratic Party misjudged the difference in enthusiasm (between supporters of the two competing parties) and overestimated its position on the ground. It seems that this confidence in women’s enthusiasm in favor of Harris was misplaced,” recalling that “a similar situation occurred with Hillary Clinton in 2016.”

Another British newspaper, The Telegraph, opined that “Kamala Harris has led the worst presidential campaign in modern US history,” saying that “the vice president has only herself to blame.” It noted that “the offer she made to the American people was completely empty and based on anyone but Trump.”

In France, Le Monde described Trump in an editorial as “a return to power driven by his political instincts and desire for revenge,” considering that “the Republican billionaire has achieved a historic return to historical issues at the age of 78, despite his legal setbacks and reckless proposals.”

In Spain, the left-wing newspaper El País wrote that Trump's victory was due to "an aggressive, masculine, uncomplicated way of interacting with others, in which crude insults or hurtful nicknames replace arguments," adding that "the winner is the monster inside us all."

The newspaper believed that Trump "succeeded in identifying these basic instincts, representing them in his person, feeding his thirst for revenge, and generating the most powerful machine of false beliefs, information, and feelings in an unprecedented electoral mobilization."

risky bet

The Swiss newspaper Tribune de Genève wrote in an editorial that “lost in the mix of progressivism open to all trends, including the most deeply rooted in minorities or the most sectarian, the Social Democrats, in the broadest sense of the term, have lost what was the source of their strength: popularity.”

The German-language daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung in Switzerland also considered that "the Americans made a risky bet by electing Donald Trump to the White House, which is something that cannot be predicted."

"The checks and balances of the US Constitution certainly apply to Trump, but the Republican is likely to ignore them and cause chaos in Washington and on the international stage," she added.

In Poland, the newspaper Jezerospolita wrote that “the biggest problem, from our point of view, is that Europe is not fully prepared for Trump. There is no leader in Europe at the moment who is capable of taking the initiative in Western society (…) France and Germany are going through a serious political crisis.”

"Europe must do its duty very quickly in terms of leading the West, before someone like (Hungarian Prime Minister) Viktor Orban or (Russian President) Vladimir Putin himself takes over," she added.

In Germany, Der Spiegel newspaper said that "Trump's victory represents a political turning point, not only for the United States, but for the entire world as well."

She wrote that "massive changes in US foreign and security policy are expected, which are likely to have negative consequences, especially for Europeans. Trump sees the world as a jungle where only the law of the strongest applies."

Ukraine war

In Ukraine, the Kyiv Post wrote an opinion piece by Yulia Mendel, in which she saw that with the announcement of the results of the US presidential election, social media was predictably filled with drama, especially regarding the future of Ukraine. Many experts and journalists were convinced that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for Ukraine. However, the reality is much calmer than this social media drama, as neither candidate has presented a clear gain for Ukraine.

The author says that after closely following both candidates’ campaigns, she noted that Trump’s most explicit position on Ukraine was his call to “end the war.” Many interpreted this as a veiled call for surrender, but the truth is more complicated. This message “resonates with a less vocal segment of Ukrainians—those who live under daily bombardment, whose lives have been transformed into a continuous cycle of destruction since Russia’s full-scale invasion.”

Calls for a temporary halt to the war to preserve the nation are often dismissed as naive, especially by those far from the front lines. Critics argue that “Putin will attack again.” Yet this logic seems to require us to justify the massive human losses and possible annihilation of Ukraine on the basis of a hypothetical future threat. In short, she said, it amounts to “dying now to avoid possible death later.”

The author believes that a purely military solution has never been a viable path to victory for Ukraine, even with unlimited financial and military support from the West, “but we must face the painful truth: the cost of this war is gradually draining the foundation on which the Ukrainian nation is built.”

In contrast, the Russian newspaper Izvestia published an article by Russian writer Dmitry Solonikov, a political scientist and director of the Institute for the Development of the Contemporary State, in which he said that it is difficult to predict Donald Trump's next steps, and he saw him as an eccentric person who sometimes has completely contradictory ideas. Based on his election speech, we can conclude that he will pursue an aggressive policy from a position of strength, from the position of the master who controls the world.

Solomonkov adds that Trump will try to stop the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and will pressure both sides to do so.

For his part, Denis Denisov, director of the Institute of Peacekeeping Initiatives and Conflict Science and an expert at the Russian State Finance University, believes that Trump will focus primarily on employment issues and domestic policy.

“It makes perfect sense that he would be less interested in foreign affairs in the first weeks and months of his term,” he says. “However, he will become more active abroad over time. During the campaign, he made a number of statements, but I don’t think there will be much change in Washington’s policy. Ukraine will continue to receive weapons and funding, and there is no reason to wait for any real negotiating proposals that suit Russia. So I think the conflict will continue.”