Reproductive rights, the conflict in the Middle East, student debt relief and inflation dominated the US presidential election. However, these issues represented only a fraction of the concerns weighing on minds across the world as election day neared.
Even as the details had started emerging about Donald Trump’s campaign and policies, apprehension grew in places acutely impacted by the US foreign policy.
The central question in Europe was whether the US might leave Ukraine and its EU allies to face Russia alone.
Trump’s team claimed to be actively developing various strategies for a potential resolution to Russia’s war against Ukraine. However, so far, no promising developments emerged for Kyiv.
After Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy in September, he claimed he would achieve a peace deal “that’s good for both sides”.
However, it is essential to recognise that Trump has harboured grievances against Ukraine from the outset, and his attitude reflected caution, if not outright bias.
On the other hand, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin skillfully continued to maintain his non-public connections with Trump since at least 2013. And, therefore, you could hear Trump repeatedly blame Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for the start of the war.
Predictable Trump:
The ruthlessly transactional Trump is entirely predictable to Americans in this regard. What he might possibly do after becoming the president is clear.
He had claimed, when accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, that he would end the war in Ukraine within a single day.
John Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor, had said that if Trump were to win, US aid to Ukraine would cease.
Ukraine’s economy is currently heavily dependent on financial support from Western partners. More than 70 percent of Ukraine’s state budget is subsidised by the West, with 87 percent of that aid coming from the US.
One must consider the consequences if this financial support suddenly stopped — an immediate cessation of funds would significantly destabilise Ukraine’s already fragile economy.
For instance, in August 2024, Ukraine received $US8.5 billion in foreign financial assistance for its budget: $US4.5 billion from the European Union (including a $US1.6 billion grant, with the rest provided as a concessional loan) and a $US3.9 billion grant from the United States.
However, by September, foreign funding had nearly vanished for the second time since the start of the full-scale invasion. Ukraine could secure only $US11 million in loans from the Council of Europe Development Bank.
In such a scenario, what would happen to a country whose economy is in a “critical condition,” sustained by Western financial support? If US policy were to shift under Trump’s leadership, and shift drastically, it would mean one of the worst-case scenarios.
As of now, Ukraine has already faced an onslaught of missile and drone attacks, with a total of nearly 23,600 launched by Russia up until August 2024 and 1,300 in September 2024 alone.
Missile attacks:
These missile attacks have had devastating consequences.
More than half of the targets were civilian, including homes, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure. This destruction is exacerbated by restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied weapons against Russian launch sites, which continue to operate from positions deemed untouchable under current international limitations.
The Trump victory could lead to worsening conditions for Ukrainians.
The scale of the destruction and the relentless nature of the attacks underscore Ukraine’s urgent calls for enhanced air defence systems and a revision of restrictions on its military operations (so-called “deep strike”).
These limitations have allowed Russian forces to continue launching devastating attacks from positions that could otherwise be neutralised.
Zelenskyy’s concerns:
Zelenskyy has already acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the future of the US support and expressed his concerns: “I do not know what will be offered to us after the US elections.”
He outlined potential scenarios for Ukraine’s future, one of which includes continued support from allies who remain cautious due to perceived risks.
Zelenskyy had emphasised the significance of the presidential election, noting that the outcome could determine the direction of the US policy toward Ukraine.
“We see two other potential paths, depending on who wins the race for the White House. Will it be more positive or less so? Frankly, I do not know. And this uncertainty is highly sensitive for our people,” he had said.
Wrong signal:
When historians eventually reflect on Russia-Ukraine war, one of the key takeaways will likely be that the West’s cautious approach, while seemingly prudent, sent the wrong signal to Russia. What appeared to be de-escalation measures from the West inadvertently emboldened Moscow.
About author:
Professor Victoria Vdovychenko is Joint Programme Leader at the Centre of Geopolitics at the University of Cambridge and Program Director for Security Studies at the Center for Defence Strategies.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
