Donald Trump’s win in the 2024 elections brings new perspectives for future foreign policy decisions for the whole world. Many newspapers like “The Economist”, “FP”, and others predict that the new president will head an approach “America First” in U.S. politics towards the world, as it was previously done in his last term from 2017 to 2021. During that period, the United States prioritized domestic interests, often in exchange for longstanding international alliances and commitments. Trump’s administration questioned the role of NATO and the EU, mainly by pushing the status quo in trade and military spending, and directly negotiating with authoritarian leaders like Putin and Kim Jong-un.
From 2017 to 2021, Trump’s attitudes regarding Ukraine were changing from one side to another. For instance, in 2018, his administration endorsed the sale of various defensive arms, such as “Javelin”, which Barack Obama had withheld before. But, in contrast, Trump blocked $400 million of military aid in 2019 to put pressure on Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.
During the Republicans’ campaign, their rhetoric opposed the Democrats’ views on Ukraine. Many times, Trump stated he will bring resolution and peace, hence ending the war in 24 hours. He criticized U.S. aid to Ukraine as a significant strain on American resources, when in fact the help for Ukraine accounts for only 7.3% of U.S. military spending over the last 3 years combined. He called many times for peace while undermining Ukrainian interests, asking Ukraine to leave the ambitions to regain control over occupied territories and stop pursuing to join NATO. Such narratives symbolize negative attitudes in future policymaking for Ukraine and the possible withdrawal of American involvement and support against Russian invasion.
Moreover, if the new administration will implement Trump’s statements, perhaps, it will worsen outcomes for Ukraine. For instance, the dedication of Donald Trump to end the Russia-Ukraine war rapidly. Trump might expedite negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, relying on quick settlement, which may be too optimistic. In this case, the results of negotiations might not be on the side of Ukraine. Quick resolution is good, but at what cost for Ukrainians? Most definitely, Ukraine will have to agree to unfair terms, leaving Ukraine in the same position as before the war, but with lost territories and no safety guarantees. As Trump mentioned before, he will make Zelensky and Putin talk, no matter what. Many times he emphasized that Ukraine has to abandon joining NATO and the EU in the coming decades. My assumptions are that Trump will aim to find a fast solution to increase his ratings and prove that he complies with what he promises. But on what terms and how the war will end remains a big question until Donald Trump takes over the presidency.
As for how Trump’s presidency would affect U.S.-Ukraine relations, there is still hope for optimism. Trump might keep offering military support, but in stricter line with American interests. Such aid would probably come with more stringent criteria and harsher reporting mechanisms to guarantee responsibility and openness on the use of resources. Though this approach can comfort American citizens and increase efficiency, it may also provide bureaucratic difficulties for Ukraine during the ongoing war.
Another favorable result could be Trump’s advocacy for more European involvement. His long-standing criticism of NATO countries for unequal military and financial commitments may increase European support of Ukraine. Redistributing the “weight” of aid more fairly among Western countries would help strengthen Ukraine’s multilateral support and decrease dependency on the U.S.
On the other hand, Trump’s position on NATO cooperation creates much more difficulties. A transactional approach to alliances and collective defense might disrupt NATO’s unity and lead to Eastern European instability. Mixed signals from the United States on its geopolitical intentions could empower Russia, hence worsening Ukraine’s position. Reduced NATO deployment or split Western support would leave Ukraine in a state of progressively unstable geopolitical scene.
Additionally, Trump’s criticism of the financial costs associated with the aid might lead to future cuts or a change of direction of support. If Trump attaches aid to his political concessions and stops assistance completely, trust between Ukraine and the USA might disappear. A cut in U.S. funding would leave Ukraine more vulnerable and may force it to deal with Russian aggression without enough external aid.
Overall, the presidency of Trump may define American-Ukrainian relations in a way never seen before and, as a result, potentially entirely changing the outcomes of the war. Whether Trump prioritizes Ukraine’s and Eastern Europe’s stability or concentrates just on realization of his statements from the election campaign will probably determine the course not only of the Russian invasion but also of Europe-US relations. The most stressful thing for Ukrainians at the moment is that Ukraine’s stakes are high, as Trump’s leadership might undermine the immense sufferings and sacrifices made during the war.
Featured image by Shannon Stapleton, Reuters.
