Author: Pauline Le Grand

 

On September 10th, 67 million viewers tuned in to watch the presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris. The debate was a key moment in the 2024 presidential race, as this was Vice President Harris’s first real test since her last minute nomination. It was also a chance for her to demonstrate to the Democrats that she was the right choice. The debate showed Vice President Harris off successfully as Donald Trump’s first real opponent on the debate stage. Indeed, Donald Trump has refused to face her a second time.

The debate gave both candidates the opportunity to reaffirm and clarify their positions, not only on key domestic issues, including economic policy and abortion, but also on matters of foreign policy. Both candidates were asked to discuss their thoughts on Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The result of the US elections will have an impact on the future US foreign policy strategy, which of course will have direct consequences for Ukraine, as the US remains its biggest sponsor. What can we anticipate for the future of support for Ukraine following the US presidential debate?

US Foreign Policy in Ukraine under Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s comments regarding Ukraine were somewhat shocking, yet unsurprising. When the moderator directly asked him twice whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war, Trump’s response was dismissive at best. He simply explained that he wanted the war to stop. He suggested that the war would not have happened in the first place had he been the sitting president. He alluded to his knowing Putin well, and promised he would end the war as President-Elect. At a rally on September 23rd, he reiterated that he would go about things differently from the current administration and force presidents Zelenskyy and Putin to make a deal. His running-mate, JD Vance, suggested a possible plan for resolution in early September, speaking on the ‘Shawn Ryan Show,’ which would include a “demilitarized zone” of currently Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine.

However, in contrast, during the summer, Trump had held a call with President Zelenskyy, that saw both parties leaving thinking it had been a successful conversation, and during which former President Trump stated he would “achieve a just peace in Ukraine”. Further, in the presidential debate between former President Trump and President Biden, Trump deemed Putin’s terms for negotiation “not acceptable,” as they would force Ukraine to give up its territories seized by Russia and abandon its bid to join NATO.

Perhaps a few months ago, Trump’s plan for Ukraine could have been described as more ambivalent and possibly even supportive of Ukraine. However, since the debate, his agenda for Ukraine has been about ending the war, irrespective of the consequences for Ukrainian territory. He is framing the debate as a matter of “war vs peace,” instead of a “Ukrainian vs Russian victory”. Of course, Trump’s position on Ukraine is also a domestic strategy: the end of the war would mean a limit to further government spending, which the Republican party favors strongly. This was made evident during the debate, as Trump used his response on Ukraine to play to his Republican base by commenting on Europe’s insufficient involvement in the war. Both he and JD Vance have alluded to the possibility of ending further aid to Ukraine if they were elected to office. As such, the future for Ukraine under a Trump administration appears rather grim.

US Foreign Policy in Ukraine under Kamala Harris

During and following the debate, Vice President Harris seems to have adopted a significantly stronger pro-Ukraine stance. She accused Trump of admiring Putin, stating that he would have allowed Putin to act as he wished regarding Ukraine: “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland. And why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor, and for what you think is friendship with someone who is known to be a dictator; someone who would eat you for lunch.” Vice President Harris also mentioned her support for Ukraine and her role in galvanizing support for Ukraine by bringing 50 countries together.

While Vice President Harris did try to distinguish herself from the current administration in certain regards during the debate, her stance on Ukraine does not appear to diverge from that of the Biden administration. The moderators did not specifically ask her about the possibility of a bolder foreign policy approach in the future; instead, they focused on her take on Moscow’s aggression. In this way, Vice President Harris was able to avoid alienating Republican voters by mentioning her advocacy for Ukraine instead of the possibility for further action. It seems a Democrat victory would mean a more predictable US foreign policy, but not necessarily a more active one.

New Developments for Ukraine

Since the US debate new developments have emerged with respect to Ukraine which will also play a key role in Ukraine’s future. President Zelenskyy visited the US last month to meet with President Biden, who was preparing a military aid package of up to $375 million. President Zelenskyy met not only with President Biden to discuss his “victory” but also with Vice President Harris and former President Trump, showing his desire to collaborate with and shore up support from the future US president, whomever that may be. With the status of the war evolving, especially as winter approaches, the US is already facing pressure from EU countries and NATO, that the next administration will need to confront, address, and potentially either build upon or halt.

One pressing issue that may require attention arose last week when the EU decided to proceed without the US on a $39 billion loan for Ukraine. The original loan was to include the US and amount to $50 billion, which Ukraine could pay back with the help of interest earned from the seizure of Russian assets. This was likely a strategy for the US to secure EU backing for Ukraine during this time, as well as to ensure continued support in case the upcoming US elections result in a change of administration. Another urgent issue is the ongoing discussions about permitting Ukraine to use longer-range weapons provided by NATO allies to target deeper into Russia. Finland along with other Nordic countries and NATO’s departing attorney general, have been calling on President Biden to support Ukraine in utilizing NATO-supplied weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory.

Conclusion: 

The outcomes of these critical situations will be crucial for future military strategy in Ukraine and will necessitate a coordinated response from NATO members with a potentially game-changing approach. With both candidates neck-and-neck in the polls, the election could result in a severe shift in the US foreign policy toward Ukraine. Who the US electorate vote for as president will ultimately impact whether the US continues on its coordinated path with NATO in supporting Ukraine. If former President Donald Trump returns, such strategic decisions might be stalled or even retracted, especially considering Trump has a history of skepticism towards US involvement in NATO (back in 2019, he threatened to withdraw from NATO). Despite a full US withdrawal from NATO being unlikely, Trump, if reelected, could certainly make it difficult for NATO to reach effective decisions concerning Ukraine. The future of Ukraine is, therefore, greatly determined by the US presidential debate and the upcoming US election, less than two months away.