The trajectory of Ukraine's fight against Russia hangs on the outcome of the US election
World
The trajectory of Ukraine’s fight against Russia hangs on the outcome of the US election
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — There is no doubt that the U.S. election will determine the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.
The status of military aid from Kyiv’s chief international backer is dependent on who becomes president, as is any prospect for a cease-fire that could benefit Ukraine.
Some in Kyiv say the country’s very existence hinges on who wins the White House.
As Americans vote, exhausted and outmanned Ukrainian soldiers are holding defensive lines under constant Russian fire, knowing the results will dictate their future.
The war in Ukraine is one of the most divisive issues of the Nov. 5 election: Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, advocate very different views on how much support the U.S. should continue to give Ukraine.
After a whirlwind Western tour, Kyiv’s leaders have tried to promote their version of what President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calls his “victory plan.” They hope key decisions will be made — including Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership — by the new administration.
“We believe that regardless of the last name of the future president of the U.S., the country of the United States will not give up global dominance, global leadership as such. And this is possible only through the support of Ukraine and through the defeat of the Russian Federation,” said Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelenskyy.
Harris would likely continue Biden’s policies
Harris, who has decried President Vladimir Putin’s “brutality,” would likely carry on President Joe Biden’s policy of support, albeit within the strict limits on Ukraine’s ability to strike deep inside Russian territory that have frustrated Kyiv’s leaders.
“President Biden has made it clear from the beginning of this conflict that his top priority has been to avoid an all-out war with Russia. I think that remains the top American priority,” said Malcom Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
The U.S. has provided Ukraine more than $59.5 billion in military weapons and assistance since Russia invaded in February 2022. But throughout, Kyiv has been captive to fraught American politics that often undermined its battlefield potential.
Ukraine lost territory and manpower as weapons stocks dwindled during the six months it took the U.S. Congress to pass an aid package. Even promised military assistance has failed to arrive on time or in sufficient quantities.
Ukraine is still hoping for Western approval of strikes inside Russian territory with longer-range weapons supplied by its allies. It also holds hundreds of square kilometers (square miles) in Russia’s Kursk region after an incursion in August.
Still, Biden’s commitment to support Ukraine has never wavered. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a $400 million package during his recent visit. Zelenskyy said he expects another worth $800 million, the first tranche for Ukraine’s production of long-range capabilities. Still another $8 billion is expected by the end of the year.
But for some, all that is too late.
“If the amount of aid that was promised but not delivered had been fulfilled, we could have entered negotiations in a stronger position with Russia,” said Gen. Lt. Ihor Romanenko, former deputy chief of the General Staff.
Some Ukrainian officials even privately welcome this quality, saying it could bring about results quicker. But so much is unknown about what decisions Trump would make.
“He has emphasized that he has a very different approach to Ukraine than Kamala Harris. And if what he’s saying now is translated into action, then it’s going to be a very rocky period for Ukraine,” Chalmers said.
“Donald Trump is raising the very distinct probability that the United States will cut off most if not all military aid to Ukraine, which given that the situation on the ground, although deadlocked, is one which Russia currently has the advantage, could tip the balance in Russia’s favor,” he added.
Podolyak said Trump “understands the logic” of Zelenskyy’s plans after meeting with him. “Mr. Trump realized that there is no way to agree on something in this war, because it is necessary to ensure Russia’s compulsion to understand what a war is, what consequences Russia will have in this war. That is, Russia can be forced to do something, but not asked.”
Faced with Trump’s harsh rhetoric, some Ukrainian officials say that despite his stated views, his actions as president at times benefited Ukraine. Some of the toughest sanctions fell on Russia’s elite during his administration. Trump also approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, something President Barack Obama fell short of doing.
Most Ukrainians fear Trump will halt all military aid to Kyiv, and no other country can match the U.S. support. Ukrainian soldiers remain defiant, saying they’ll continue to hold the line, no matter what.
But the practical implications would be dire, and Kyiv may be forced to accept devastating cease-fire terms, with a fifth of its territory under Russian control.
“If the aid is stopped, the situation will become more complicated,” Romanenko said. “In this case, the seizure of Ukrainian land will continue, but we do not know how fast, because their offensive potential is not unlimited.”
Zelenskyy’s plans hang in the balance
Zelenskyy has presented his vision for ending the war to both Trump and Harris, arguing for its necessity. He said Ukraine hopes for a post-election response from Washington, particularly on the question of NATO membership, insisting that such an invitation be irreversible.
Both Ukraine and Russia are feeling considerable economic and societal strain to maintain the war effort. For the first time, Zelenskyy has openly discussed the potential for a partial cease-fire. But important questions remain about the fate of Russian-occupied territories.
Russia has allocated a large part of its government budget to defense spending and continues to lose thousands of men. The potential introduction of what Zelenskyy has put at 10,000 North Korean troops signals that Moscow is having issues with mobilizing new conscripts.
Ukraine’s battered energy infrastructure and struggling mobilization drive is under far more pressure than Russia, however. Kyiv must find a way to de-escalate the intensity of the war and attacks on shipping and energy assets.
“In the end, it’s only going to happen if both sides calculate that they will get a net benefit from doing so,” Chalmers said.
“My concern would be in the uncertainty of the coming months when the Russians may believe that one last push and they can really get much larger concessions from the Ukrainians,” he added.
Zelenskyy’s plans were developed with this reality in mind. It’s why his team insists Russia must be forced to talk rather than convinced to do so. Without nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent, NATO is the only logical alternative.
“I said, ‘We don’t have nuclear weapons, and we are not in NATO, and we will not be in NATO during the war. That’s why I need this package. And you cannot be against it,’” Zelenskyy said, describing his argument to reporters.
