Donald Trump’s bid to reclaim the presidency on promises of averting a potential World War III is gaining traction. Trump recently campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, attacking President Joe Biden for bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. He vowed to prevent such a catastrophe, instead bringing “glorious peace” if re-elected. Contrary to his opponent Nikki Haley, Trump fostered relationships with authoritarian leaders like China’s Xi Jinping, believing these ties will help prevent large-scale conflict.

Talks of World War III have gained momentum. Both Trump and Biden have highlighted their ability to prevent such a disaster. Biden points to his leadership in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression as crucial in preventing a wider war, while Trump claims that world leaders, including Putin and Kim Jong Un, respect his strength, leading them to avoid confrontations. Historians, however, argue that the analogy to past world wars is an exaggeration and that the current situation is not similar to the lead-up to earlier global conflicts.

The notion that Trump’s presidency might lead to a less war-prone world is multifaceted. Support for his claims of preventing conflicts arises from the fact that he did not initiate any major wars during his first term. His approach, which some term “isolationist,” focuses on strong personal relationships with authoritarian figures, a strategy he believes will avert conflict through strength. However, critics argue that such alignments can be seen as endorsement of these regimes, leading to concerns about governance and ethics.

In the backdrop, NATO is grappling with potential challenges to its stability and unity under a hypothetical new Trump administration. The alliance is seeking ways to “Trump-proof” itself, engaging with individuals in Trump’s circle to maintain relationships and mitigate potential threats. This highlights the ongoing debates within NATO on how to manage the complexities introduced by Trump’s stance on collective security.

While the prospect of a second Trump term raises mixed opinions about its impact on global stability, his anti-war stance is undeniable. Supporting him might indicate a desire to avoid major conflicts. However, it is crucial to weigh this against Trump’s controversies, abrasiveness, and associating with authoritarian leaders.

Whether Trump’s re-rise to power can prevent World War III depends on various factors, including geopolitical incidents, alliances, and shifts in global power structures. While his emphasis on strong relationships and caution in engaging in wars is noted, it must be viewed within the context of the broader political and ethical trade-offs associated with a potential second Trump term.

In light of current global events such as Russia’s actions in Ukraine, there are ongoing efforts to “Trump-proof” NATO by fortifying the alliance against external pressures. This includes engaging with individuals in Trump’s political circle to manage relationships and mitigate any perceived threats. It is undeniable that Trump’s avoidance of war during his first term offers a glimmer of hope, yet it must be weighed against the ethical and legal issues that dogged his presidency.

Ultimately, the prospect of a second Trump term raises mixed opinions about its impact on global stability. His antiwar stance and ability to maintain relationships with authoritarian leaders shield the world from potential large scale conflicts. However, it is crucial to consider the broader social and political tradeoffs associated with such a presidency. The American electorate will be faced with the difficult task of balancing the president’s strong antiwar stance against the darker aspects of his personality and the ongoing ethical and legal controversies that come with his presidency.