Most Ukrainian media were apprehensive about the victory of the Republican candidate. However, some commentators believe that his term could have positive aspects.
“What should Ukraine expect under a Trump presidency?” wonders the news site Komentari. This question is echoed across all Ukrainian media following the American election. To address it, Komentari called upon various analysts and political scientists. While many predict a worsening situation for their country in the coming months, a few believe that Trump’s presidency could prove beneficial for Kyiv.
It’s Not the Worst-Case Scenario
Diplomat Vadym Trioukhan posits that with Donald Trump’s arrival, “it will mark the end for Ukraine of the ‘dosed’ aid it was receiving under Joe Biden’s administration. Dosed aid, in the sense that it was not sufficient to win, but merely kept the country from being brought to its knees by the Russian aggressor.”
“It’s not the worst-case scenario,” asserts Valeriy Tchaliy, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States from 2015 to 2019, in an interview with NV.ua’s radio. “The Russians, he explains, are ready to work with Trump if it helps them achieve their known goals: for Ukraine to become neutral, for it to have no army, and for the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea to be permanently seized by Russia.” However, “not everything will be so simple,” he adds, as he is convinced of one thing:
“In Russia, they are not thrilled about Trump’s arrival. What they desired was chaos, turmoil, and conflict in Washington and the United States, which could have led to political collapse.”
Furthermore, Volodymyr Iermolenko, a philosopher and activist cited by Espresso TV’s website, recalls that in 2014 and 2022, “Putin attacked Ukraine twice while the Democrats were in power because he knows that the Democrats advocate de-escalation and risk reduction. Whereas Trump aims to increase risks.”
Putin Facing a Strong President
Trump possesses an “unpredictable, destructive, amoral” side, Iermolenko continues. “This could suit Putin (like Hitler with Stalin and vice versa), or it might not suit him at all. It will be a conflict between two unpredictabilities that view their own unpredictability as their main strength.”
Of course, he points out, “between Trump and Putin, Ukraine might find itself in a position similar to that of being between Hitler and Stalin. Whether it’s in a scenario where they get along (a new Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) or in one where they go to war (a global conflict on our territory, on an even larger scale).” Regardless, with Trump, Putin will be facing a strong president, warns diplomat Vadym Trioukhan:
“[Trump] will slam his fist on the table when the U.S. is ignored, despised, or not listened to.”
Iermolenko even acknowledges that for Trump, “a ‘strong talk’ might mean (over time) not a compromise with Putin but a response—a response that would stop the war and provide Ukraine with security guarantees. […] And if our interests align, the question will be whether we can find a common strong discourse with the Republican and convince him that the strategic defense of Ukraine translates to the strength of the United States.”
