U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, left, shakes hands with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as they meet for a bilateral talk during the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, in Stansstad, Switzerland, on June 15.ALESSANDRO DELLA VALLE/Reuters
The question put to Donald Trump during this month’s presidential debate was as simple as his answer was revealing – if not jaw-dropping.
“Do you want Ukraine to win this war?” moderator David Muir asked the Republican nominee of the conflict that is now in its third year, with no end in sight, as President Joe Biden weighs allowing Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles to strike deep inside Russia.
“I want the war to stop,” Mr. Trump said, insisting he would bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to the bargaining table if he wins the November election. “That is a war that’s dying to be settled.”
“Just to clarify the question,” Mr. Muir continued, “do you believe it’s in the U.S.’s best interests to win this war? Yes or no?”
“I think it is the U.S. best interests to get this war finished and just get it done. Negotiate a deal. Because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.”
For Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump’s answer was a sign of his willingness to curry favour with Mr. Putin and turn his back on the “righteous defence” of Ukraine that she claimed to have co-ordinated as Mr. Biden’s Vice-President.
“And because of our support, because of the air defence, the ammunition, the artillery, the Javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided, Ukraine stands as an independent and free country. If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now.”
Ms. Harris warned that, left unchecked, Mr. Putin would move on to other countries in Eastern 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,” she asked Mr. Trump during the debate held in Philadelphia.
Yet, despite Ms. Harris’s callout to Polish-American voters, whose support could make all the difference in a few critical swing states, her handling of the Ukraine conflict might not differ that much from Mr. Trump’s if she wins the White House.
While the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine’s defence has been unequivocal, it has from the outset taken a go-slow approach to responding to Mr. Zelensky’s requests for weaponry and financial assistance. And while Mr. Trump has questioned providing U.S. military support to Ukraine altogether, he ultimately cleared the way for Republican Speaker Mike Johnson to win House of Representatives approval for a US$61-billion aid package to Ukraine in April.
Most recently, Mr. Biden has hesitated to acquiesce to the Ukrainian President’s request to use ATACMS missiles to strike critical transportation and energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory, worrying that such a move would lead to an escalation of the conflict. Mr. Putin has warned that the use of U.S., British or French missiles would put Russia directly at war with NATO.
Meanwhile, some Western military analysts have suggested that Ukraine’s recent offensive into Russia’s Kursk region has been less about forcing Mr. Putin to fight a war on two fronts than about strengthening Mr. Zelensky’s hand at the negotiating table. They believe the Biden administration would favour a negotiated settlement that would enable the United States to shift its foreign-policy focus – and defence budget – to more strategically important priorities.
Mr. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, voted against the Ukraine aid package when it reached the Senate in April. In a podcast last week, he laid out the contours of a potential peace deal that would see Russia retain the Ukrainian territory it has already taken in exchange for the creation of a demilitarized zone and a strengthening of Ukraine’s military capacity to deter a future attack. Russia would also get a “guarantee of neutrality” from Ukraine, prohibiting it from joining NATO.
Critics blasted Mr. Vance’s musings – and they were only musings, not official Trump campaign policy – as a gift to Mr. Putin. Even former Trump administration secretary of state Mike Pompeo described Mr. Vance’s plan as contrary to U.S. interests.
In July, Mr. Pompeo proposed a strategy for ending the war that could serve as a template for peace by a future Trump administration. “Ukraine builds up substantial defence forces so Russia never attacks again. No one recognizes Russia’s occupation and claimed annexation of any Ukrainian territories,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, suggesting Russia would continue to control the Donbas region.
Under the Pompeo plan, Ukraine could join NATO and Ukraine’s rebuilding would be financed “not with U.S. taxpayer dollars,” but with the US$300-billion in Russian central-bank reserves now frozen in the West.
It would not be hard to imagine a Harris administration proposing a near-identical compromise to end a conflict that has reached a stalemate. Just like Mr. Trump, Ms. Harris might seek to begin her presidency with a clean(er) foreign-policy slate.