Ukraine and Its Allies Need To Prepare For A Second Trump Presidency Now

The Biden administration should devise a more effective Ukraine strategy for itself, but must also work with Ukraine and Europe to come up with a strategy for a second Trump presidency

Jul 16, 2024

Subscriptions sustain this work, so if you have the means and motivation to become a paid subscriber, it will help me continue to not only produce this material, but to expand to video, interviews with prominent figures in policy and academia, and more. If not, just spread the word, that helps just as much!

To become a free or paid subscriber, just click this button.

You can also support this site with a one-time donation, rather than—or in addition to—a subscription, through my CashApp account by clicking this button.

Donate Through CashApp

To share this newsletter with your friends, just click this button.

Share Cutting Through

Foreign policy has been unusually prominent in this election season. The attention has mostly been focused on Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, and rightly so. But Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine remains a major issue, one that is likely to become even more volatile if Donald Trump wins in November.

That grim possibility is becoming increasingly likely with each passing day. Americans with enough good sense to understand what a disaster that will be not only for the United States but for the world, are in a desperate position. As I explained recently, too many of us waited too long to step into the fight and object to the Democrats’ decision to remove the choice of the 2024 nominee from their voters.

I have also, over the past three years, made it clear that I have major criticisms of President Joe Biden’s policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Biden eschewed diplomacy even before Russia began its buildup on the Ukrainian border in 2021, and, along with the United Kingdom, opposed a tentative agreement that Russia and Ukraine reached in Istanbul in 2022. While that was not the only reason those talks failed, it was a major factor.

Unlike some on the left, I don’t think Biden did this just to encourage conflict or further enhance the already stuffed coffers of the American defense industry. Rather, it seems far more likely that Biden wished to reassert American primacy as the world’s sole superpower, which Donald Trump had moved away from; breathe new life into NATO, an alliance which Trump had significantly harmed; and weaken Russia, which had been a Democratic priority since the illegal invasion and seizure of Crimea in 2014.

With talk of potential EU and NATO membership for Ukraine, Putin massed his forces on the Russian-Ukrainian border and eventually launched his brutal and wholly illegal invasion. There were opportunities to defuse this, and they centered on guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO, which is a reasonable concern of Russia’s, and ensuring Russian access to the Black Sea.

To be clear, Putin engaged in genocidal rhetoric regarding Ukraine before and during the war, denying Ukraine’s history as a distinct nation and absurdly claiming it was dominated by neo-Nazis; has committed major war crimes there since the invasion; and, in any event, had no justification for his invasion, even if Russia has some legitimate security concerns. It should also be clear that the argument here is that diplomacy had a chance to work, and that there were openings. Those who argue that Putin would not have really negotiated could be right, although the 2022 talks in Istanbul strongly suggest otherwise. One way or the other, we’ll never know because Biden refused negotiations.

An opportunity for Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength when it managed to stave off the Russian forces after the initial invasion was missed, thanks in part to the West’s desire to see Ukraine completely beat Russia back, a goal which was never realistic and is even less so now.

Zelensky was convinced that the West would stand by him, as Biden promised, for “as long as it took,” but this was a promise no American president could be certain to keep, given the distinct possibility that an anti-Ukrainian Republican could well take over the White House, as is likely to happen in November.

We’ve already seen the warning signs. When Congressional Republicans, inspired by Trump’s anti-Ukrainian stance, held up aid to Ukraine, it significantly hampered their defense effort, and Russia gained ground. It was not decisive, but it clarified just how dependent Ukraine is not just on Western aid, but specifically on American aid.

Trump has already made it clear that he will not continue that funding “for as long as it takes.” He has stated that he can end the war “in 24 hours,” which, of course, is simply another Trumpian fabrication. But he is likely to press Ukraine to enter negotiations on very unfavorable terms.

It’s never easy to predict what Trump will do because he is an impulsive man who doesn’t follow a strategic plan, even on those occasions that he has one. But one plan, which is being pushed by far-right neoconservative stalwarts, Frederick Fleitz and Keith Kellogg has the United States threatening to cut off all aid to Ukraine if it doesn’t enter peace talks with Russia. It also suggests that if Russia doesn’t comply, aid to Ukraine would be boosted significantly, though that hardly seems relevant as the terms Trump has in mind would be so weighted toward Russia that they would jump at the chance.

Politico reports that Trump’s notion of negotiations largely mirrors that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It would begin with a commitment that Ukraine would not enter NATO (a condition that is both reasonable and a sine qua non for any agreement in any case), but, crucially, would negotiate “how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep,” according to two national security professionals allied with Trump.

That replicates Putin’s insistence that talks begin from a starting point of “current realities on the ground.” This not only means that Ukraine must acknowledge that it will have to surrender land Russia is currently occupying, but also opens the possibility that Russia could demand even more territory.

In any case, it makes sense that, given Trump’s close relationship to Putin and the grudge he doubtless still holds against Ukraine over his first impeachment, that he will act to end the war on terms favorable to Moscow.

So what can the Biden administration do to insulate Ukraine against a Trump victory?

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through

Preparing U.S. Ukraine policy for a second Trump term

One thing that is surely off the table is a major diplomatic push for a ceasefire right now. While Russia may be willing to engage in talks, there is no chance they would make any concessions before the U.S. election. Why concede anything to Biden when you can simply wait him out for a few more months until the more Putin-loving Trump re-enters the Oval Office?

Instead, the Biden administration needs to focus on Europe and brokering understandings between them and Ukraine. There will be a significant period of time to work with even after Trump takes office if he wins. He is not going to simply cut all aid to Ukraine right away, if for no other reason than because aid to Ukraine is a massive windfall for American military manufacturers.

One of the biggest problems with Biden’s policy toward Ukraine is that it has no strategy behind it. As things stand now, the U.S. and Europe send defensive arms to Ukraine with significant restrictions preventing the Ukrainians from using most of those weapons across the border, for fear of triggering a much wider war. There have been some exceptions, largely in response to some of the most despicable Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians (would that such careful considerations also applied to Palestinians, but that is another topic).

This enables Ukraine to hold Russia off but leads to a war of attrition that Russia is likely to win despite the enormous losses they have taken to their own troops. It is Ukraine that suffers the damage to its towns and cities, and it’s Ukraine that is facing a serious shortage of recruiting options to replenish its troops.

Current U.S. policy reflects a strategy that leads to stalemate at best, a loss at worst, but cannot, in itself, lead to victory, certainly not as Ukraine currently defines it: the complete withdrawal of Russia from all Ukrainian territory.

Perhaps there would be some opportunity to change the conditions of the war over time, but if Trump wins in November, that time will have run out. A strategy needs to be formulated to address this reality.

Zelensky has presented a ten-point plan he calls a peace plan, but it is unrealistic. It’s not a peace offer, but terms of Russian surrender. This doesn’t change the fact that the ten points in the plan are all just and fair, but there is no way to get Russia to agree to many of them, outside of the use of massive force by NATO, which risks triggering World War III.

A plan needs to be formulated that has a chance of success, and that means taking into account that Russia has the upper hand now and will have a decisive advantage if Trump wins. It’s not fair, it’s certainly unjust for Ukraine, but it’s the way things are.

Such a plan must not start where Putin, and apparently Trump want it to. It must exist in the real world, and that means acknowledging that Russia controls a significant portion of Ukrainian territory, however illegally. Yet it must also recognize the inadmissibility of that control, as the United Nations charter so clearly states.

Any peace plan with any chance of success will have to guarantee that Ukraine never joins NATO (the door to EU membership must be left open) and that Russia has secure access to the Black Sea. Beyond that, it makes the most sense to try to get back to something resembling the, admittedly unsatisfactory, status quo ante, with the status of the Donbas region left for future negotiations, security guarantees for Ukraine, and a ceasefire that resembles the Minsk agreements be put in place with United Nations peacekeepers placed there to try to ensure that major fighting doesn’t break out again.

The Biden administration should work with Ukraine and its European allies to get them to determine what the minimal, but realistic, conditions they will accept will be, while also strategizing on how to strive for more optimal terms. It is possible that if they can come up with maximal demands that allow for the beginning of talks, with their red lines fully agreed to in advance, that they can convince the ever-opportunistic Trump to agree to support their position.

It's not a great solution. Whether one thinks the Biden administration has enacted effective and wise policy in Ukraine or not, as I do not, this is where we are. Russia has the advantage on the battlefield and is expecting a much friendlier American president by next January. Putin has every reason to believe that he is in the driver’s seat. Bravado or even real courage is not enough to overcome these realities.

The Biden administration need not admit defeat here. They should also devise a more effective policy toward Ukraine and Russia that they can pursue if Biden does somehow turn the tide and win in November.

But Ukraine can’t afford to count on that. Their allies need to work with Kyiv and devise a strategy that addresses the significant diminishment of American support, both politically and militarily. And they need to start doing that right now.

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through

My Latest Articles

Biden or not, U.S. policy on Palestine stays the same

July 12, 2024

Realistic contenders to replace Biden won’t be better on Palestine than Genocide Joe. And when it comes to Dems and Republicans, you pick your poison, but there’s no healthy choice.

As always, follow me on:
Twitter @MJPlitnick
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/MitchellPlitnick
Bluesky @mjplitnick.bsky.social
Threads @mjplitnick
Mastodon @MitchellPlitnick@journa.host
for my latest hot takes, comments, and news updates.

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through

Ukraine and Its Allies Need To Prepare For A Second Trump Presidency Now

The Biden administration should devise a more effective Ukraine strategy for itself, but must also work with Ukraine and Europe to come up with a strategy for a second Trump presidency

News Roundup

My Latest Articles

Discussion about this post