Nearly all American eyes are on the showdown between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, but what if I were to tell you that the citizens of another country are eying this election even closer?
It is very likely that the fate of the Russia-Ukrainian War will be decided on November 5th, yet its outcome may depend on who becomes the 47th president of the United States.
While former President Trump has recently made it clear that the 40 million in aid the Biden administration has delivered to Ukraine has been far too much, it is unlikely that he would halt aid altogether. Amidst controversy, the Trump administration donated $1.5 billion in humanitarian and lethal aid even before the onset of the war.
Given that Trump is perfectly familiar with aiding Ukraine, does this mean that he will continue the United States’ funding if elected president? This was a topic of interest leading up the presidential debate that has now become a topic of confusion. After being asked point blank, “Do you want Ukraine to win this war?” Trump responded that he wanted the war to stop, and would do this through direct diplomacy with the two eastern European leaders in order to obtain a treaty.
If the former president were to fulfill these promises, the U.S. economy would have a reprieve from Russian sanctions and foreign aid to Ukraine would no longer burden the bottom line, and tensions with Russia would likely improve. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. I believe that Russian president Vladimir Putin would use the sunk cost fallacy to demand extremely favorable conditions, as he has already lost over 315,000 troops and $211 billion (per an anonymous U.S. defense official). It is unlikely that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy would ever willingly accept such conditions, unless U.S. aid was completely cut. Ultimately, it would be up to Trump’s diplomatic abilities and Putin and Zelenskyy’s willingness to reach a treaty.
My prediction if Trump becomes president: A treaty will be reached before the summer of 2025, however it will come at the expense of Ukrainian soil and positive relations with NATO. If Zelensky is put in an unwinnable situation with the absence of US funding and no increase from NATO, he will need to accept harsh conditions in order to prevent a brutal defeat.
If Kamala Harris were to become president, it raises the question if her foreign policy would prove stronger than Biden’s, a criticized approach that Donald Trump called “weak?” As clearly shown in the debate, Harris intends for Ukraine to win the war, even if it will cost the United States billions in additional funding. It is important to note however, that she is a different person and thus will have a different approach than Biden. This was explicitly shown when she told Trump, “You’re not running against Biden, you’re running against me.”
It is clear that Kamala Harris intends for the sovereignty of Ukraine to hold, yet whether or not she has the diplomatic abilities to do so is uncertain. During the 2024 debate, Trump claimed that Harris had been sent to negotiate peace with Putin 3 days before the start of the war. It was immediately fact checked that Harris had never come face to face with Putin (which makes sense since she is the VP), but what many are wondering is if she will meet with the war’s perpetrator in order to bring it to a close. Will she go face to face with Putin and reach terms with the two presidents on the conclusion to this brutal war, or carry out the same distanced approach as Biden and continue to donate billions in aid from 5,000 miles away?
My prediction if Harris becomes president: The latter — “The Russia-Ukraine war will go on for at least another year, as the resources of the USA and Russia continue depleting until Russia can no longer finance the invasion, leading to a hard-fought Ukrainian victory.” This will enhance NATO’s perception of the United States, as member countries will not need to increase their own funding, relying instead on continued U.S. financial support.
The one thing all Americans can agree on is that this is a very sticky situation for American foreign policy, yet as we prepare for one of the most important U.S. elections of all time, it is a question of values. Is the upholding of Ukrainian sovereignty worth hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars, or would a Russian “victory” be worth the prevention of additional casualties and your tax dollars? I personally believe that manifesting a Ukrainian victory will be fundamental to ensuring that Russia is not put in a geopolitical position to expand further.
Noah Taylor ‘28 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at n.h.taylor@wustl.edu.