War in Ukraine is a challenge for Kamla. What commander will be Harris

In the case of US President Kamalis Harris will have to deal with foreign policy issues created by Biden. The main one of the political observer Gel Brands in a column for Bloomberg calls a war in Ukraine, for which the current administration has not been able to formulate a clear vision of victory foreign policy is rarely a dominant issue in the US presidential election. But this is invariably important in limiting situations, and in close presidential races can be of great importance.

Moreover, the electorate is not the only significant audience: what Candida does, running, greatly forms the global expectations of what he or she will do after his election. As the Kamala Harris campaign against former President Donald Trump is gaining momentum, it has to pass three foreign policy trials. The first and most important election is the test of the commander -in -chief. Americans do not expect their president to become a diplomatic or military inspiration.

They expect serious candidates to have basic skills, temperament and prudence to manage the country and its armed forces in a complex world. In her current position, Kamala Harris has accumulated extensive experience in public affairs. In addition to participating in the internal political discussions of the administration, she replaced Biden at key events, such as the Munich Security Conference on the beginning of this year.

However, for the most part, Harris's participation in solving key geopolitical issues was not too noticeable - except for her role in the migration policy of the administration, which is not much successful in polls. So she still has to prove her foreign policy talents. These efforts began with the publication of an open letter signed by more than 300 foreign policy figures, mostly democrats, which testifies to Harris's ability.

It is expected to play a more prominent role in meetings with foreign leaders in the period, at least as they will allow the task of the election campaign. To pass this first test, you will also need to demonstrate in speeches and interviews that it has a number of strategic issues that the president faces.

Then - the second test: can Harris formulate a consistent and convincing look at the role of America in the world? The media will undoubtedly focus on those areas where it and Biden differ in thoughts - for example, on her willingness to put more public pressure on Israel to stop the war against Hamas. (Pay attention to its absence at the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyag before Congress on Wednesday).

It will gain an advantage among allies because it is simply not Trump, as well as because it advertises its support for Ukraine and Taiwan, its rejection of aggressive autocractions and other aspects of the continuity of Biden's politics. However, the task for Harris - and this is the third test - it will be to show that it understands not only what the president's policy has succeeded, but also where it failed. Crisis management and coalition construction are obvious strong sides of Biden.

He managed to push the creation of groups, large and small, which helped Ukraine resist Russian aggression, repelled China's desire for technological and geopolitical domination and created an increasingly united democratic world. It is a contrast with Trump's presidency when a call for competition with China was undermined by fratricidal discussions with the Allies, which did not overlook Moscow and Beijing. The current administration also showed stability and responsibility in crisis.

Ukraine would fall apart without the support of the United States after the Russian invasion. Then the administration performed a job that deserves trust to eliminate the risks of nuclear escalation. In the Middle East, a managed chaos prevails after Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, but he could have become unmanaged if the current administration did not work on support, reassurance and periodic restraint of Israel.

In April, Israel's multilateral protection against unprecedented drones and missiles of Iran became a significant achievement. However, Baiden's team also hesitated about a number of issues that Harris would have to be addressed if she was chosen. Biden helped Ukraine avoid defeat, but it seems that it has no strategy (except for the hope that the country will be able to survive its more and more neighbor) in order to bring a terrible war to an acceptable end.

Washington used the air and naval forces to mitigate the damage caused by the Yemeni Huts, attacking the vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, but he did not strike them with a strong enough blow to stop these attacks. And the administration does not seem to perceive Iran as a state that can try to create an atomic bomb at any moment. Baiden's senseless approach to trade in the Indo-Pacific region has weakened him in general a reasonable policy on Beijing.

The most dangerous thing is that its administration has not been able to explain how the US will cope with a strategic landscape, characterized by cruel threats in many intensifying regions, or resistant to flashy deficiency of US military power, mainly caused by insufficient funding of the Pentagon. Despite all the achievements of Joe Biden, as his presidency has ended, a sense of disorder is increasing. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.