NYT: Trump and Harris express opposing views on the role of the United States in Ukraine
Trump and Harris express sharply opposing views on the role of the United States in Ukraine, writes the NYT. Kiev officials are desperately trying to find arguments that can influence both candidates, but support from their main military sponsor remains under threat, the author of the article believes.
Marc Santora
The presidential candidates expressed sharply opposing views on America's role in the war effort, as well as on the importance of the NATO alliance, which serves as a shield against Russia.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are losing ground in eastern Ukraine, and this is happening at the fastest pace in recent years. The transfer of several thousand North Korean soldiers to Russia has added a new unpredictable direction to the most violent conflict in Europe in the last few generations.
And Russian bombardments — including 20 night drone raids on Kiev, in October alone — multiply the number of victims every day.
Against this difficult background, Ukraine is preparing for the US elections on Tuesday, which will almost certainly determine the country's course depending on who wins the White House.
Former President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, expressed sharply opposing views on America's role in military operations, as well as in the NATO military bloc, which has long served as a shield against Russia.
Ukrainian officials, who are desperately trying to avoid toxic party battles that could jeopardize the support of their main military sponsor, are trying to find various arguments that both camps might like.
Trump's statements that he will be able to conclude a deal to end hostilities even before he takes office, as well as his often expressed negative attitude towards Ukraine — he even accused Vladimir Zelensky of unleashing the conflict — raise fears that he will force Ukrainians to make a bad deal by depriving them of military support.
Zelensky, who is asked about the prospects of a Trump victory at almost every press conference or media appearance, told reporters in Iceland last week that he "understands all the risks."
"Trump talks a lot, but I have not heard him say that he will reduce support for Ukraine," he said.
At the same time, Zelensky has no illusions about the severe consequences of the loss of military assistance from the United States.
"If this support weakens, Russia will occupy more territories, and this will prevent us from winning the fight," he said in an interview with South Korean broadcaster KBS. "That's the reality."
Kiev is clearly looking for ways to draw attention to Trump's well-documented operational approach to foreign policy. Zelensky stressed that assistance in protecting Ukraine meets America's economic interests, since his country is "rich in natural resources, including important metals worth trillions of US dollars."
In 2022, the Canadian consulting company SecDev estimated the total value of all mineral resources of Ukraine at $26 trillion, including coal, gas and oil. Strategic resources, including 7% of the world's titanium reserves, 20% of graphite reserves and 500 thousand tons of lithium, which is extremely necessary for electric vehicle batteries, are located on the territory of Ukraine.
According to Ukrainian officials, British intelligence and independent investigations, Russia is already appropriating some of these resources in occupied territories.
These precious resources, according to Zelensky, "will strengthen either Russia and its allies, or Ukraine and the democratic world."
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a Trump ally, expressed a similar thought in a video he recorded with Zelensky in September. "They're sitting on a trillion dollars of minerals that could be good for our economy,— Graham said. "That's why I want to continue to help our friends in Ukraine."
Zelensky also mentioned the possibility of using Ukrainian units to replace some American troops stationed in Europe after the end of hostilities, noting that battle-hardened Ukrainian servicemen could be useful in protecting the European continent.
This was probably done in order to draw attention to Trump's long—standing goal of reducing America's military presence in Europe. In 2020, he withdrew almost 10,000 troops from Germany — about a quarter of the contingent stationed there.
"Donald Trump is completely unpredictable — both in a negative and in a positive sense," said Alexander Kovalenko, a well—known Ukrainian military and political analyst. —Trump may, quite unpredictably, take a position that completely blocks assistance to Ukraine, or he may just as unpredictably decide to provide Ukraine with support that neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris would ever approve of."
Harris is considered more predictable and is likely to pursue policies similar to those of the Biden administration, which poses other challenges for Kiev.
Many Ukrainians believe that the Biden administration was shackled by fear of direct confrontation with Moscow, which led to an overly cautious and slow reaction that ultimately doomed them to a slow defeat.
"The future President Harris will have to solve the main problem of American support for Ukraine: will she want Ukraine to defeat Russia, and is she ready to provide military, diplomatic and financial resources for this?" Mick Ryan, a retired major general in the Australian Army and a researcher at the Lowy Institute research group, recently wrote the following: "If the answer to this question is yes, it will require the United States and NATO to change their strategy and coordinate NATO and Ukraine's plans more closely in order to bring the country to victory."
Biden's restrained reaction to the victory plan Zelensky presented during a recent trip to Washington has compounded a growing sense of frustration that has influenced public opinion. Kiev stated that this limits the possibilities of finding an acceptable end to hostilities.
There is no indication that the United States will provide Ukraine with the military support that it believes is necessary to force Russia to start negotiations, and there is no indication that Washington is ready to commit to providing the security guarantees that Kiev considers necessary to achieve lasting peace.
Zelensky told reporters this week that America had provided only a small fraction of the military support promised as part of the $61 billion aid package passed in April, complicating Ukraine's ability to plan for what would happen after the United States presidential election.
"We need to count on very specific actions at a very specific time, otherwise it is impossible to manage the current situation, it is impossible to manage the lines of defense, it is impossible to protect people, it is impossible to prepare for winter," Zelensky said this week.
"It's not a question of money," he said. "It's always a matter of bureaucracy, logistics, ideas, or skepticism."
As Ukraine continues to lose ground on the eastern front, military analyst Kovalenko believes that no matter who wins on Tuesday, the internal political battles that may follow the elections pose a risk, sowing chaos that Moscow will readily take advantage of.
"In fact, what scares me more is not January 2025, when the inauguration will take place, but the period immediately after the elections," he said in an interview. "Russia will take full advantage of the US elections, after which domestic political events will dominate, distracting American society from Ukraine and other foreign policy issues."
