As the US congressional elections enter the final stretch, the election campaign has turned into a personal duel between Trump and Obama. Trump initially tried, following Putin's example, to turn the congressional elections into something resembling a referendum on confidence in him personally and support for the war in the Gulf. In response, the Democratic Party brought Obama back into the spotlight. Pushing Mamdani and company into the background, Obama launched a systematic offensive against Trump, lending his public image to the Democrats' campaign.
If we imagine that Trump somehow managed to repeal the constitutional amendment prohibiting a third presidential term, these two would most likely be the ones to take advantage of that opportunity under the current circumstances. That may be precisely why Trump will not even attempt it, leaving their future confrontation to be fought through political proxies.
Meanwhile, Obama's campaign rhetoric follows a logic reminiscent of Brodsky's famous remark: "If Yevtushenko is against collective farms, then I'm for them." In other words, if Trump opposes supporting Zelenskyy, Obama supports him:
"While we push away key allies like Canada, the White House is bending the knee to Vladimir Putin and betraying Ukrainians who are fighting for their freedom and democracy" (Georgia, 28 October 2026).
At first glance, this opens up the prospect of America returning to a "normal" foreign policy towards Ukraine if the Democrats win. But there are complications.
First, if the Democrats fail to secure a decisive victory and Trump retains significant influence over foreign policy, he will adopt a correspondingly oppositional stance. In that case, the chances of him swinging back like a pendulum, once again embracing Zelenskyy and turning against Putin, will become considerably smaller.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, even a brief analysis of Obama's speeches shows that Ukraine is far from a top priority for him or the Democratic Party. If the Democrats achieve a convincing victory and no longer need to oppose Trump, they may simply lose interest in the issue. In that scenario, they could continue Trump's policies by default, without drawing particular attention to them or turning every decision into a spectacle.
Either way, this political duel has given us an opportunity to witness a rehearsal for the decisive confrontation ahead — one that could shape the trajectory of America's political system for decades to come.
A direct clash between Trump and Obama creates precisely the level of drama needed to convey the intrigue and tension of the coming battle.
