By admin 
(Photos by Ludovic Marin and Ryan M. Kelly/AFP via Getty Images)
WHAT NEXT FOR UKRAINE? The question loomed during the 2024 campaign, but the answers remain elusive even after Donald Trump’s victory. It’s not that the Biden administration has been such a great partner; From the beginning, Ukraine policy has been that way frustratingly hobbled through timidity and half-measures. But what will take its place is an ominous unknown.
During the campaign, Trump repeatedly mocked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a ‘salesman’ who cleverly takes money from the United States suggested that Ukraine’s self-defense was pointless, because Russia was unbeatable anyway. He too repeatedly promised end the war on the first day of his presidency by getting both sides to talk – while he was his aides floated “peace proposals” that would let Russia keep the land it conquered and cut off Ukraine’s path to NATO membership. Occasionally, however, Trump also emphasized his good relationship with Zelensky (as well as with Vladimir Putin) and made noises about the importance of Ukraine’s survival. Some pro-Ukrainian and pro-Trump Republicans even emphasized that his victory would actually be good for Ukraine.
What do Trump’s first 12 days as president-elect tell us about the prospects for Ukraine during his second presidency?
The day after the election, Trump had one call Zelensky via Elon Musk’s Starlink service, with Musk participate briefly in the conversation; the next day, Trump reportedly called Putin and warned him of escalation. Then came another peace proposal from Trump floated– still calling for the freezing of current front lines and the suspension of NATO membership for the foreseeable future, but also offering Ukraine protection of a demilitarized zone patrolled by soldiers of European armies, as well as an ample supply of weapons . Such a plan would at least provide Ukraine with some real security guarantees, meaning Putin is very unlikely to accept it without further concessions. Could that mean that Putin will reject Trump’s deal and that Trump will be so angry that he will give Zelensky everything he wants? Could this mean that Trump will change the proposal in a way that throws Ukraine under the bus and lets Zelensky go if he says no? The second scenario seems much more likely than the first; but either way, it’s all pure speculation for now, especially since no peace proposal has been formally unveiled.
Last week, many Ukrainian supporters felt cautious optimism when Trump selected Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida as his national security adviser and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as secretary of state. Both men are internationalists and relative Russia hawks; after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, both strong supported military aid to Kiev and sanctions against Moscow. It is true that when Trump strong-armed Republicans into rejecting the Ukraine aid package in late 2023 and early 2024, both Rubio and Waltz went bywho offer elaborate apologies for their votes; but both went out of their way to emphasize that they still view Ukraine’s defense as essential to U.S. interests and to international security. Hardly a profile in courage, but not nothing. Shortly before the election, Waltz co-wrote one article advocating a peace-through-strength deal that would leave Ukraine “independent and more firmly entrenched in the West” while inflicting “a strategic defeat” on Putin; he also called for tougher sanctions and “more weapons for Ukraine with fewer restrictions on their use” if Putin does not cooperate.
Needless to say, any optimism Ukraine’s friends might have felt about those two Cabinet selections was dashed when Trump’s other nominees were announced. Future Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, an Army veteran and Fox News host, hasn’t talked much about Ukraine, but he tends to to trivialize the danger of Putin’s aggression; in his opinionawakening in America is a much bigger threat. Attorney General Matt Gaetz, aside from his sexual misconduct issues and the vengeance he will bring to his post, has consistently been one of the most militant Ukraine haters in Congress. opposite pro-Ukrainian legislation even when most Republicans still supported it bashing Ukraine on Twitter as a hotbed of corruption. (By the way, guess who imposes the economic sanctions on Russia — or chooses not to enforce them? That’s right: the Justice Department, which Gaetz would lead.)
And then there’s Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for director of national intelligence — a post the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii could only get in the bizarre world we’re cursed with. “Russian asset” or not, Gabbard seems never to have met a Kremlin propaganda trope she didn’t like, be it Putin’s “legitimate security concerns” about Ukraine in NATO, the United States to use the war to destroy Russia or Ukraine harbor sinister US-funded ‘biolabs’. The Kremlin’s propaganda loves her in turn: one of the top hacks of the official Russian media, TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov, calls her “our friend Tulsi.”
A national security team that includes Waltz and Gabbard seems fundamentally schizophrenic. But maybe the crazy is the point. We might say to ourselves that in a second Trump administration, Waltz and Rubio qualify as “adults in the room”; But how willing would they be to oppose Trump if he was determined to force Ukraine into de facto capitulation? (Not bad, if their record last year is any indication.) How long would they last if they backed down? And do we have any reason to believe that Trump’s Ukraine policy will be shaped more by Rubio or Waltz than by JD Vance, whose anti-Ukrainian animus seems real and not opportunistic? Or by Tucker Carlson? Or through Catturd Or another far-right troll? What conclusions can we draw when Don Jr., a key member of his father’s inner circle, posts an Instagram meme shortly after reports of Trump’s “positive” phone call with Zelensky taunt Zelensky on “losing (his) benefits”?
The Biden administration’s struggle to strengthen Ukraine – by sending more weapons with funds already authorized but not yet spent. allow using long-range missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russia – could be at least somewhat useful if Ukraine can make enough gains on the battlefield to gain more leverage heading into the talks likely to take place next year. Europe may try to step up to the plate. But as January 20 — Inauguration Day — approaches, conjecture about what comes next for U.S. Ukraine policy is about as reliable as ancient Roman-style fortune telling using chicken entrails.
Send this article to a friend: