The world is watching the US presidential election as voters go to the polls on Tuesday, but for some countries the vote is more consequential.

For some nations, voting could mean the difference between war and peace, stability and volatility, or prosperity or economic weakness. This situation is even more pronounced for Ukraine, whose territorial integrity may even be at stake.

Here we take a look at some of the countries with the most election winners or losers, whether it's Republican former President Donald Trump or Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

China is undoubtedly the United States' greatest economic rival, and hostility is unlikely to abate no matter who becomes the next U.S. president.

Trump has already threatened to revive a trade war that began during his first term in office, in which he imposed $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump defended the measure as a way to reduce a huge trade deficit with China and boost American jobs and competitiveness.

Given the ongoing war with Russia and the fact that Kiev relies largely on foreign military aid to keep fighting, Ukraine will be watching the election closely, as will Moscow.

There is widespread agreement that a Trump administration and hard-line Republicans would be far more hostile to providing more military aid to Ukraine, which would significantly limit their ability to continue to push back against Russia.

Trump also boasted that he could end the war within 24 hours if elected, signaling that he would cut off funding to Ukraine to force a negotiated settlement with Russia. That would likely mean giving up nearly 20% of its territory in the south and east, currently occupied by Russian forces.

However, the decision to continue fighting without US support could mean Ukraine losing even more land. The US election for Ukraine is therefore existential.

“The US elections could well force the Ukrainians to act, as a Trump victory would immediately lead to a change in American policy direction and much greater direct negotiating pressure on Kiev. That means the Ukrainians may soon have to decide whether they want that.” “I will part with their main military supporter or not,” Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group, said in comments via email on Monday. Email.

It's likely that even a Kiev-friendly Harris administration, committed to continuing to support the war-torn country, could have difficulty pushing through more financial support for Ukraine, depending on which party dominates Congress.

Harris said a future administration would support Ukraine “for as long as necessary,” but neither she nor Washington have clearly defined what that statement means, what a Ukrainian victory looks like or whether there is a limit to U.S. aid.

However, the Middle East is an area where Trump and Harris' foreign policy positions may be more aligned – both candidates pledged continued U.S. support for Israel in its pursuit of Iranian proxies, the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively. At the same time, he is pushing for an early end to the conflict.

Iran last month threatened retaliation against Israel's large-scale rocket attacks on the country's military facilities, meaning a cycle of clashes between the adversaries could continue into the fall.

Trump recently presented himself as a “protector” of Israel, reaffirming his past support for the country at the Israeli-American Council summit in September and suggesting that Israel would face “utter annihilation” if he wasn't elected, without making that claim to substantiate. He also caused a stir when he told the audience that “anyone who is Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat.”

Trump gained popularity in Israel in his first term after he broke with decades of U.S. tradition by officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. He also officially recognized that the country's disputed Golan Heights region was under Israel's sovereignty, drawing further praise.

A poll conducted last week by the Israel Democracy Institute found that nearly 65% ​​of respondents thought Trump would serve Israeli interests better, well above the 13% who thought Harris would be better. Just over 15% said there was no difference between the two candidates, while 7% said they didn't know.

Harris was accused of taking an ambivalent stance toward Israel after criticizing the country's military strategy and said the loss of life in Gaza last year was “devastating” and “heartbreaking.”

Harris has sought to rebut Republicans' characterization as anti-Israel, saying in August that she will “always support Israel's right to self-defense and I will always ensure that Israel has the ability to defend itself.” He regrets the Hamas attacks on October 7 last year.

As for Iran, regional and Western officials told Reuters they believe a Trump presidency would be bad news for Tehran, with the possibility of Trump giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to attack Iranian nuclear facilities – a The move, which Biden vetoed, targets targeted assassinations and continues his “maximum pressure policy” through further sanctions against the oil industry.

Meanwhile, Harris is expected to be far more willing to continue Biden's foreign policy course if she wins office to defuse tensions. She herself said at the end of October that her message to Iran after Israel's recent attacks would be: “Don't react” and that “there must be a de-escalation in the region.”

Ambassador Mitchell B. Reiss, a distinguished scholar at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said Monday that a Harris government would not deviate too much from its current course.

“We don’t know their worldview, their political preferences, or even their choices for senior cabinet positions. “I expect that President Harris would largely continue Joe Biden’s foreign policy by prioritizing good relationships with allies and friends and placing a high value on diplomacy,” Reiss said.

“What would a second Trump term look like? Here we have a better idea. We already know that Trump views the world for personal and transactional rather than strategic reasons.”

He is skeptical of U.S. commitments to allies and the deployment of U.S. troops abroad – he is not committed in the same way as previous presidents to the traditional role the U.S. has played in building and leading the liberal international order, which has brought us so much peace and prosperity since World War II,” noted Reiss.