Donald Trump's election victory will bring immediate costs for US allies, says Bronwen Maddox, and will remake the map of American partnership.
As a second Trump presidency became a certainty, countries around the world were racing to forge relationships with him and calculate the likely impacts - which could come within weeks of his inauguration.
One Japanese official spoke for the mood in many capitals in saying 'we have learned to respond to new American presidents as we would to a Christmas present - you open it, and whatever is inside, you say "That is exactly what I wanted!"'
In the case of Trump, that sentiment is most straightforward in Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin's supporters were exultant. In Europe, especially the UK, and among the US's Indo-Pacific allies, the calculation is more complicated. They are trying to work out their response based on remarks Trump has made, knowing that unpredictability and inconsistency were the hallmarks of his first presidency and may be of his second.
Tariffs
The most immediate global impact is likely to come through the tariffs which Trump has vowed to impose on goods from China - and other countries too. Tariffs will not decouple the US and Chinese economies but could sharply check trade in electric vehicles and other imports.
They could also undermine global economic growth: economists have warned - with no apparent effect on the Trump campaign - of the inflationary effect tariffs will have and the consequent upwards pressure on interest rates and the dollar.
The World Today Related content What a second Trump presidency would mean for the world
A similar effect would apply to European countries. This will depend on the tariffs chosen and whether a Trump administration seeks actively to discourage Europe's still relatively open economy from trade with China.
Given that many European governments are struggling to get economic growth at all, this would be a significant new blow.
Ukraine
In his victory speech Trump repeated a point of which he is immensely proud: that in his terms, there were 'no new wars' during his first administration.
He also said that while he wanted strong US armed forces, he preferred not to use them. He has publicly made much of his desire to end conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East and has boasted of his ability to strike 'deals' to that end.
If Trump seeks to freeze the conflict along the current frontline, there will be little to protect Ukraine - or Europe - from further Russian aggression.
The key question is if and how Trump will push for a cessation of fighting in Ukraine. If he seeks to freeze the conflict along the current frontline, there will be little to protect Ukraine - or Europe - from further Russian aggression in the future unless the US pledges to block that. The US could offer Kyiv explicit security guarantees, although NATO membership remains a distant prospect.
A direct security pledge from Washington is more realistic, but it remains to be seen whether that would be sufficient to convince Ukraine to stop fighting. Ukrainian leadership and people regard the war as existential and any surrender of territory to Russian control, even if it were not formalized, may yet prove an impossible barrier in negotiations.
Nor is it obvious how Trump could secure an agreement with Putin worth the name. He has prided himself on his relationship with the Russian leader, and Russian disinformation campaigns appeared to weigh in on his side. But Russia has broken agreements before.
It would be a more plausible deal if backed by China - but that would require Trump to deal with a regime he appears to regard as the US's primary threat.
Middle East
Trump could make the conflict in the region much worse - or just possibly, open a route to stability. He has consistently sided with Israel, but his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been mixed.
There is no doubt that Netanyahu hoped for a Trump victory. Were Trump to clearly side with the prime minister and those in his cabinet who have no intention of granting a state to the Palestinians, it would represent an inflammatory step.
Elements of Israeli society would see this as the opportunity to annex the West Bank and seek control or partial reoccupation of Gaza, hoping to give Palestinians every incentive to leave those areas for neighbouring countries. Netanyahu may also be encouraged to strike further at Iran.
Related content Will the next US president invest in Middle East stability or walk away?
On the other hand, Trump appears to mean what he says about shutting down conflicts, even if only out of concern for US interests. Netanyahu may come under pressure to stop bombing southern Lebanon and to reach some deal in Gaza with Hamas, including the release of the hostages.
A more hopeful route lies in Trump's pride in the Abraham Accords, a signature achievement of his first term that normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.
The great prize still dangling in front of Israel is the possibility of normalization with Saudi Arabia. That would allow Trump to claim he had brought peace to the Middle East. But that will remain impossible for Riyadh without Israeli commitment to a Palestinian state.
The UK
There are no grounds to believe this will be an easy relationship for the UK to manage.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has put in the air miles getting to know the Republicans around Trump.
Sir Keir Starmer was quick to congratulate Trump, pointedly including the phrase 'special relationship' and referring to cooperation on technology and security. But his new UK government, which has prioritized growth, will be acutely aware of the tariff threat.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has put in the air miles getting to know the Republicans around Trump, but his comments denouncing the president elect before Labour's own election victory may well sour the mood. So too will reports of Labour supporters organizing to support Democrat campaigning.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to visit China early in the new year. She will have to decide by then the UK's position on whether to import cheap Chinese solar panels and electric vehicles. Trump's victory will not make this decision easier.
Climate
Trump and Harris offered starkly different environmental visions. Trump's commitment to pursue cheap US oil and gas is fashioned with voters at home in mind, and will remove the US further from global climate talks.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
If Trump pulls out of the Paris Agreement again, it is likely that the global target to avoid above 1.5°C warming will be dead. So too will be any prospect of improving Western cooperation with China and India on decarbonization.
That may in turn allow China to portray itself as having the moral high ground, taking more steps to invest in solar power and electric vehicles.
The US's place in the world
Trump offers a very different vision of the US's role. His emphasis on protecting Europe only if Europe pays more for its defence makes the US position within NATO transactional. US commitment to its article 5 obligations may begin to look in doubt - both to those it protects as well as those it is intended to deter.
In turn, South Korea and Japan have reason to doubt the integrity of the US defence umbrella protecting them and may look to shore up their own defences further.
Related content Independent Thinking: Will MAGA redefine America's foreign policy?
US foreign policy is set to become significantly more unpredictable. The application of Trump's plans in his first term was often disorganized and inefficient.
His approach may however have the oblique advantage of muddying a picture which seemed to be resolving into two clearly opposed global blocs.
Trump is eager to talk to leaders currently ranged against 'Western' interest, including Russia. The US's traditional allies worry, however, that in doing so he might sacrifice Western values, and accelerate a new world order based on transactions rather than principles.
