The trajectory of Ukraine’s fight against Russia depends on the outcome of the US elections

Kyiv, Ukraine (AP) – There is no doubt about it US elections will determine the trajectory war in Ukraine.

The status of military aid from Kiev’s main international backer depends on who becomes president, as do the prospects for a ceasefire that could benefit Ukraine.

Some in Kiev say the country’s existence depends on who wins the White House.

While Americans vote, exhausted and outnumbered Ukrainian soldiers hold defense lines under constant Russian fire, knowing the results will determine their future.

The war in Ukraine is one of the most divisive issues in the November 5 election: Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, support very different views on how much support the US should continue to provide to Ukraine.

After a tumultuous tour of the West, Kiev’s leaders have tried to promote their version of what President Volodymyr Zelensky calls his “victory plan.” They hope that key decisions – including regarding Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO membership – will be made by the new administration.

For now, they have no choice but to wait.

“We believe that regardless of the name of the future US president, the country of the United States will not give up global domination, global leadership as such. And this is only possible thanks to Ukraine’s support and the failure of the Russian Federation,” said Mykhailo Podolak, Zelensky’s adviser.

Harris will likely continue Biden’s policies

Harris, who has condemned President Vladimir Putin’s “brutality,” would likely continue his policy of supporting President Joe Biden, albeit under tight limits on Ukraine’s ability to strike deep into Russian territory that have frustrated Kiev’s leaders.

“President Biden has made clear from the beginning of the conflict that his top priority is to avoid all-out war with Russia. I think this remains America’s top priority,” said Malcom Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

Since Russia invaded in February 2022, the United States has provided more than $59.5 billion in military weapons and aid to Ukraine. But all the while, Kiev was in thrall to tense American politics that often undermined its potential on the battlefield.

Ukraine lost territory and manpower as its weapons stockpile dwindled in the six months it took the U.S. Congress to pass an aid package. Even the promised military aid did not arrive on time or in sufficient quantities.

Ukraine still counts on the West’s consent to attacks on Russian territory using long-range weapons provided by its allies. It also holds hundreds of square kilometers (square miles) in Russia’s Kursk Oblast after an August attack.

Still, Biden’s commitment to supporting Ukraine has never wavered. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced a $400 million package during his recent visit. Zelensky said he expects another tranche of $800 million, the first tranche for Ukrainian production of long-range capabilities. Another $8 billion is expected by the end of the year.

But for some, it’s all too late.

“If the amount of promised but unrealized aid were realized, we could enter negotiations with Russia in a stronger position,” said Lt. Gen. Ihor Romanenko, former deputy chief of the General Staff.

What is worth knowing about the 2024 elections

Trump’s unclear vows and praise for Putin

Trump has repeatedly questioned U.S. aid to Ukraine, made vague promises to end the war and praised Putin.

He is also considered highly unpredictable.

Some Ukrainian officials even privately welcome this quality, saying it could produce results faster. However, little is known about the decisions Trump will make.

“He emphasized that he has a completely different approach to Ukraine than Kamala Harris. And if what he says now translates into action, it will be a very difficult period for Ukraine,” Chalmers said.

“Donald Trump raises the very clear possibility that the United States will cut off most, if not all, of its military aid to Ukraine, which, given that the situation on the ground, while stalemated, is a situation in which Russia currently has the upper hand, could tip the scales to Russia’s advantage,” he added.

Podolak said Trump “understands the logic” of Zelensky’s plans after meeting with him. “Mr. Trump realized that there is no possibility of reaching an agreement on anything in this war, because it is necessary to ensure that Russia is forced to understand what the war is and what consequences Russia will have in this war. This means that Russia can achieve something force, but you can’t ask her to do it.”

In the face of Trump’s harsh rhetoric, some Ukrainian officials say that despite his expressed views, his actions as president have sometimes benefited Ukraine. During his rule, some of the harshest sanctions fell on Russia’s elites. Trump also approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, which President Barack Obama did not do.

Most Ukrainians fear that Trump will withhold all military aid to Kiev, and no other country can match U.S. support. Ukrainian soldiers remain defiant, saying they will continue to hold the front line no matter what.

However, the practical implications would be dire and Kiev could be forced to accept devastating ceasefire conditions while one-fifth of its territory remained under Russian control.

“If aid is withheld, the situation will become more complicated,” Romanenko said. “In this case, the occupation of Ukrainian land will continue, but we do not know how quickly, because their offensive potential is not unlimited.”

Zelensky’s plans are in doubt

Zelensky presented his vision for ending the war to both Trump and Harris, arguing for its necessity. He said that Ukraine hopes for a post-election reaction from Washington, especially regarding NATO membership, emphasizing that such an invitation is irreversible.

Both Ukraine and Russia face significant economic and social strain to maintain the war effort. Zelensky openly discussed the possibility of a partial ceasefire for the first time. However, important questions remain about the fate of the territories occupied by Russia.

Russia has devoted a large portion of its government budget to defense spending and continues to lose thousands of lives. The potential introduction of what Zelensky described as 10,000 North Korean troops signals that Moscow is having problems mobilizing new conscripts.

But Ukraine’s damaged energy infrastructure and collapsing mobilization drive are under much greater pressure than Russia. Kiev must find a way to de-escalate the intensity of the war and attacks on shipping and energy resources.

“Ultimately, this will only happen if both sides calculate that there will be a net benefit from it,” Chalmers said.

“My concern would be the uncertainty of the coming months, when the Russians may believe in the latest attack and may actually obtain much greater concessions from the Ukrainians,” he added.

Zelensky’s plans were built with this reality in mind. That’s why his team insists that Russia should be forced to talk rather than persuaded 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, we’re not in NATO and we won’t be in NATO in a war. That’s why I need this package. And you can’t be against it,” Zelensky said, describing his argument to reporters.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Ukraine at: