By Marc Santora
The Ukrainian armed forces are losing ground in the eastern part of the country at an alarming rate not seen in years. The arrival of several thousand North Korean troops in Russia has introduced an unpredictable factor into this brutal conflict, the worst Europe has faced in decades.
Moreover, Russian airstrikes — including 20 consecutive nights of drone attacks on Kyiv in just October — continue to escalate civilian casualties daily.
In light of these challenging circumstances, Ukraine is preparing for today’s U.S. elections, which will likely have a significant impact on the nation’s future, contingent on who takes the presidency.
The Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, and the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, have articulated profoundly different perspectives regarding the U.S.’s involvement in the conflict and the NATO military alliance that has historically served as a defense against Russian aggression.
Ukrainian officials — anxious to avoid getting entangled in the divisive partisan conflicts that could jeopardize support from their primary military ally — are striving to craft arguments that might resonate with both sides.
Trump’s assertion that he could negotiate a peace deal to end the conflict even before entering office, coupled with his frequently expressed critical views of Ukraine — including holding President Volodymyr Zelenskyy partially responsible for the war’s initiation — have raised apprehensions that he might pressure Ukrainians into an unfavorable agreement by withholding military aid.
Zelenskyy, who faces queries about a potential Trump victory in nearly every press conference and media engagement, remarked to journalists in Iceland last week that he “recognizes all the risks.”
“Trump tends to speak a lot, but I haven’t heard him suggest that he would decrease support for Ukraine,” he stated.
Simultaneously, Zelenskyy harbors no misconceptions regarding the severe implications of a decline in U.S. military backing.
“Should that support diminish, Russia would occupy more land, which would hinder our efforts to win this war,” he conveyed to South Korean broadcaster KBS. “That is the truth.”
Ukraine appears eager to appeal to Trump’s known pragmatic approach to international relations, with Zelenskyy underscoring that aiding Ukraine’s defense aligns with America’s economic interests, given that Ukraine “is abundant in natural resources, including vital metals valued at trillions of U.S. dollars.”
In 2022, the Canadian consultancy firm SecDev estimated the total worth of Ukraine’s mineral resources at $26 trillion, encompassing coal, gas, and oil. Critical materials — including around 7% of the global titanium reserves, 20% of the graphite reserves, and 500,000 tons of lithium necessary for electric vehicle batteries — are found on Ukrainian soil.
Russian forces are already exploiting some of these resources in the territories they occupy, according to assessments from Ukrainian authorities, British intelligence, and independent investigations.
Zelenskyy noted that these valuable assets “will either reinforce Russia and its allies or bolster Ukraine and the democratic world.”
Zelenskyy has further floated the idea of deploying Ukrainian forces to substitute for specific U.S. troops stationed in Europe post-war, indicating that battle-seasoned Ukrainian soldiers could be beneficial in ensuring the security of the European region.
This might simultaneously appeal to Trump’s long-held ambition to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. In 2020, he authorized the withdrawal of nearly 10,000 troops from Germany — about a quarter of the stationed force there.
“Donald Trump is completely unpredictable — in both potentially harmful and beneficial ways,” commented Oleksandr Kovalenko, a distinguished Ukrainian military and political analyst. “Trump could randomly adopt a position that entirely halts aid to Ukraine, or conversely, he could just as spontaneously decide to extend support to Ukraine that neither Joseph Biden nor Kamala Harris would ever contemplate.”
Harris is perceived as more predictable and likely to continue policies akin to those of the Biden administration, which presents Ukraine with a different set of hurdles.
Numerous Ukrainians believe that the Biden administration has been hindered by apprehension regarding direct confrontation with Russia, resulting in a response that is overly cautious and languid, ultimately dooming them to a protracted defeat.
“A future President Harris would face a fundamental question regarding America’s support for Ukraine: Is it prepared to assist Ukraine in defeating Russia and provide the necessary military, diplomatic, and financial resources to achieve that goal?” Mick Ryan, a retired Australian army major general and a fellow at the Lowy Institute, a research organization, articulated recently.
“If the answer is affirmative, it will necessitate a strategic shift from the United States and NATO, requiring a closer alignment of NATO and Ukrainian strategies to secure a victory in the war,” he wrote.
Biden’s lackluster response to a proposal for victory that Zelenskyy presented during a recent visit to Washington has contributed to a growing frustration now evident in public discourse, as Ukraine asserts it limits its ability to negotiate a contextually acceptable conclusion to the war.
There are no indications that the United States plans to furnish Ukraine with the level of military support it believes is necessary to compel Russia into negotiations, nor any sign that the U.S. is prepared to commit to the types of security guarantees Ukraine deems vital for sustainable peace.
Zelenskyy informed reporters last week that the U.S. had provided only a minimal portion of the military support outlined in a $61 billion aid package approved in April, complicating Ukraine’s capacity to strategize for the period following the U.S. presidential election.
“One must rely on very specific outcomes within concrete timelines. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to manage the situation, maintain defensive lines, ensure people’s safety, or prepare for the winter,” he remarked last week.
“It’s not simply a financial issue,” he added. “It always pertains to bureaucracy, logistics, conceptualization, or doubt.”
As Ukraine continues to cede territory on the eastern front, Kovalenko indicated that regardless of who emerges victorious on Tuesday, the ensuing partisan political disputes that may follow the election pose their own dangers, creating turmoil that Russia is poised to exploit.
“What genuinely concerns me more is not January 2025, when the inauguration will occur, but the time immediately post-election,” he expressed in an interview. “Russia will exploit the U.S. elections fully, following which internal political developments will overshadow, diverting American attention from Ukraine and other foreign policy matters.”
