If Trump ‘s victory means surprises for Ukraine, and most likely not in our favour, then it would be short-sighted to hope that Kamala Harris’ victory will mean a continuation of Washington’s current policy would be short-sighted.
There are many reasonable expectations that a more decisive Trump, as the owner of the White House, would stand firmly behind Ukraine and abandon previous populist promises to cut off aid to Kyiv, which would force Ukraine into a de facto surrender. But at the last debate, Trump twice dodged the question of whether he wanted Ukraine to win, stressing that he wanted peace. The hope that Trump would pursue a positive policy towards Ukraine is more of a belief, a hope, an interpretation of half-hearted hints and wishful thinking. There has been no direct statement from Trump confirming his support.
While the US presidential race has no clear favourite, Kamala Harris ‘ chances of winning remain high. Until now , Harris has been mainly involved in Latin American issues, But her visit as vice president to Switzerland for a peace summit showed her personal commitment to supporting Ukraine.
There are several good reasons to believe that Harris will be more decisive than Biden on the Ukrainian issue. If Trump avoids a direct answer about Ukraine’s victory, Harris’s direct questions on this topic show that she is committed to our victory. In addition, the press reports that Harris’ campaign headquarters is ordering advertising campaigns in several states in support of Ukraine. The campaign is aimed at getting votes for Kamala from Americans of Eastern European descent , primarily Ukrainians and Poles.
The Biden administration has been busy with elections over the past year and has been in no hurry to speculate with voters on the thorny issue of US taxpayer money, which has been hyped up by the Trumpists. If she wins, Harris will be free of dependence on populist statements and will be able to act according to geopolitical expediency. In the end, voters will not forgive if the president who has been in favour of supporting Ukraine, changes her position on supporting Ukraine.
Moreover, American historian Timothy Snyder believes that Ukraine is likely to will be as central to the Harris presidency as it was to the Biden presidency. And while the Biden administration started out with outdated assumptions on Ukraine, it has made up for lost time, the Harris team may well be more decisive on Ukraine than the Biden team, than the Biden team, based on lessons already learnt.
Obviously, Snyder means that Harris will not start from scratch and “reset” relations with Russia, as Barack Obama did after Russia’s aggression against Georgia to demonstrate a principle: new leader, new approaches. The administration of the Democratic leader should have already realised who Putin really is, what the Russian Federation really wants , despite its rhetoric, and how to treat Russian promises that have always been broken.
There is speculation in the media that Harris had little interest in Ukraine before and even had a chilly relationship with Zelensky, although if she wins, such trifles will not affect the US geopolitical position in the world. Most likely, Harris’s victory for Ukraine means either increased support or maintaining its current level, with all the “metered” arms supplies and “red lines”. But we cannot rule out a decline in support, which could be affected by a Republican filibuster or rash actions by the Ukrainian leadership.
Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk
Leave a Reply