I see in the Italian newspapers an at least inexplicable attitude towards Biden's victory. Honestly, I have already explained that Biden will follow the same policies as Trump, he will simply do it with a different narrative. And I remain convinced that it will be so, for several reasons.

First point: the strategy is not chosen. Strategy is recognized in material conditions, it is deduced, but not chosen. If you are alone, you cannot surround ten opponents. If you are a country with 9000km of coastline, you can only defend the coasts and ports. If you have a weakness like the Fulda Gap, you can only defend it.

The strategy is not chosen, it is seen. What you can choose is the tactics, which is how to do things. But if we talk about the to-do list, which is the strategy, it is dictated by material facts. So, whether it's Biden or Trump, the strategy will be the same.

If the USA has an industry that is not very competitive compared to many European countries (including Italy), China and several other countries from which they import manufactured articles of all kinds, that is a fact. It doesn't change whether Biden or Trump is in power. Making the green turn is useless if China and Europe produce the cheapest solar panels and the best wind systems in the other. It does not revive the American industry, dried up by a decade of investments, which instead ended up feeding the "unicorns" of Silicon Valley. Having Tesla is useless if in Europe at the top of the electric sales charts there are again the same groups as always. It's useless against Toyota, which has been making hybrids and electric cars since before Tesla and has enormous production capacities. And all the billions that went to Tesla, instead of financing the American car manufacturers, present the bill like this. The supposed top of the most innovative automotive industry in the US produces, at best, ~ 100,000 electric cars per quarter. Toyota makes 15,000,000 vehicles / year. Similar to the VW group.

Now they say "the trade war will end". Do you think Biden will then give up, condemning the US industry to shut down? Because this means "ending the war" when others dominate: it means losing.

You are dreaming: Biden must protect his industry, while at least trying to divert investment from the "unicorns" and bring them back into the research and development of US companies. No trade war will end.

Same with China. The Chinese are launching warships at a rate the US hasn't seen since World War II. In the US itself, 70% of mobile phones are Asian-made, only ~ 39% from Apple . And Apple couldn't live without China.

So no, not even the strategy in the Pacific can change. You are deluding yourselves: maybe some tactics will change, but the US NEEDS to stop the import of foreign industrial products. Period, they NEED to stop the Chinese. Trump does it one way, maybe Biden another, but it will only change the narrative at best.

But the point is different: multilateralism. Because Trump has caused damage that, at least in Biden's 4-year presidency, is irreversible.

The point is simple: pacta sunt servanda?

In the Italian constitution, as well as in the constitution of all continental European countries, as well as in the Treaty of Lisbon, we are bound to keep the pacts. It means that if you are in a treaty you respect the treaty, including the terms for exiting the treaty.

But Trump has torn (especially in the military) many treaties. And it did so in the most humiliating and demeaning way possible for the counterparts. See under "Iran". He has threatened to "leave NATO" several times.

And however long Biden may last, or however long the Democrats may last, sooner or later another Trump will come, because Trump is the US, and the US is made of Trump stuff. For the most optimistic, at least partly consistent.

Does it make sense to waste 5 years negotiating a complex trade treaty with the US when we know the next trumpoid will tear it up on live TV?

There are no rules in the American constitution that prevent the president from shredding treaties like toilet paper. There are no constraints. It has been the practice so far, as it was in the UK before they decided to break the first EU exit treaty.

But now the practice is broken. So the question is: does it make sense to negotiate? Does it make sense (if not to waste time: in that case it makes sense) to engage in a commercial treaty, made up of very long negotiations, knowing that the next trumpoid will make toilet paper? How many years will it be before another trumpoid takes power in the US?

It is now a geometric progression: if you remember the first Bush, he won by shaking "the deep womb of forgotten America". But we forgot when the second Bush won by pulling out the "theocons," and people like Sarah Palin took the spotlight. It was always said "the deep womb of forgotten America". Aha. Now Trump's here, and he did … the same thing. He evoked "the deep womb of forgotten America". There is a growing progression of stupidity, which is hastily dismissed by journalists as the "deep womb of America", and you don't see what should stop it. Do we really think that writing “Trumpism is over”, as if 71 million people disappeared into thin air, will help forgotten America feel less abandoned? It has already been done, and the "deep belly of America" ​​progression has continued to grow in virulence.

Not seeing this progression is stupid. You know very well that the "deep womb of forgotten America", in four years, will be deeper and more forgotten than today. And you know the next Trump is going to be even worse than this. It has been a progression for over 20 years now.

And then I repeat the question:

Does it make sense to negotiate treaties with a government that will make toilet paper in four, at most eight years? And even if there were twelve, would anything change for treaties of this kind, which (as in the case of TTIP) can cost 7 years of negotiations?

The answer is that it can make sense to tie the opponent's hands. If Europeans want to buy another 7 years of time, in order to consolidate dominance in some further industrial sectors, it certainly makes sense for us to negotiate. But does it make sense for the US?

So no binding treaty will be initiated. Unless Biden wants to reassure the American masses and communicate that "he has recovered the allies." Or it will have to bring home treaties quickly, so they won't be big and complex treaties, or they'll give Europeans ease to get out of them easily.

The problem is this: pacta sund servanda.

The Americans (and even the London trumpoid) have gone to great lengths to question whether their countries feel bound by existing treaties. They "come out", they say.

So what's the point of making them?

This is Biden's stumbling block: he cannot guarantee that a treaty will be respected for more than 4 years. He can not anymore'. Even if it guarantees that the next president will be democratic AND will last 8 years, it can guarantee 12 years of compliance with the treaties. A complicated treaty like TTIP also requires 7 years of negotiations. Seven years of negotiation for five years of application?

Another purpose of the treaties is to serve as a basis for further treaties. But if a treaty is intermittent (one president leaves, one re-enters, another re-exits), what the hell is it for? The Paris treaty evolved from the Kyoto treaty on which it was based. Now Biden says he'll be covered by the Paris treaty. Amen. But what will be the next treaty, if we already know that the US is part-time in the existing one?

Getting out of this skepticism will be hard: Biden leads a defaulting nation. It is like asking for credit from a bank, or from suppliers, after going bankrupt without paying debts.

Biden will have to pay cash, and upfront. If he wants to bring home treaties, he will have to pay everything right away, because no one believes the next trumpoid will keep the treaty standing.

If you see the US and the EU starting to negotiate, or the same for China and the US, it is simply the US counterpart stalling as it achieves its internal goals.

But apart from the narrative, with Biden almost nothing will change.

Strategy is dictated by needs, and US needs have not changed.