By Alan Lolaev, visiting researcher at the Laboratory for Political Geography and Contemporary Geopolitics, Higher School of Economics (Moscow)
At the end of September, Vladimir Zelensky made another visit to America.
Officially coinciding with “UN Week” and a speech at the General Assembly, Zelensky’s six-day trip was primarily focused on one existential issue for his administration – securing continued financial and military support from Washington, regardless of the election results in November.
- Even Ukraine’s well-oiled PR machine, honed over a decade, struggled to navigate the increasingly polarized American political landscape without incurring damage.
- In response to Zelenskyy’s comments, the former president’s son Donald Trump Jr criticized the Ukrainian leader for meddling in US domestic affairs, asserting that it is unacceptable for a foreign leader dependent on American taxpayers’ support to speak out against Republican candidates.
Things only worsened from there.
The Republican Majority Leader in the House Mike Johnson went even further, refusing to meet with Zelenskyy and demanding that he dismiss his ambassador in Washington for organizing a visit to Pennsylvania without Republican participation.
Johnson characterized the event as “an obvious partisan effort to assist Democrats before the election.”
Negotiating this encounter proved to be extremely difficult, with the Republican occasionally agreeing, then backing off again. In the end, the conversation that extended Zelenskyy’s stay by an extra day finally took place.
- During the meeting, Trump expressed his willingness to work toward ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, aiming for a “fair settlement for both sides.”
- He emphasized that Ukraine has “been through hell.”
- He also voiced his support for maintaining good relations not only with Zelenskyy but also with Russian President Vladimir Putin, believing this could facilitate finding common ground.
- However, when reporters pressed him to clarify what he considered a fair outcome, he suggested it was too early to define, as the conflict remains a complex “puzzle.”
With the Democrats, Zelensky found himself with little to present as a victory either. His meeting with party leaders amounted to routine reassurances of support for Ukraine and its aspirations to join the EU and NATO, coupled with the announcement of yet another aid package.
Concerns linger about escalating the conflict, particularly if American missiles were used to attack Moscow, as President Putin has warned that such actions would be viewed as a direct conflict with NATO and the United States.
***
The US remains Ukraine’s largest donor, contributing over $56 billion of the $106 billion raised by NATO and allied countries to bolster its defense.
A possible victory by Kamala Harris, who could continue Biden’s policies, raises concerns among Ukrainian leaders, as they view the current US approach as overly cautious and indecisive regarding Russia.
Conversely, a Trump victory – despite the uncertainty surrounding his position – offers a glimmer of hope for decisive changes.
- Ukrainian officials are optimistic that Trump, unlike Harris, may take bold steps that could lead to an end to the war, although they recognize that his actions might also risk diminishing Western support for Ukraine.
In Kiev, officials remain hopeful that Trump’s stance could evolve, and they continue to foster relationships with his team.
- Zelenskyy has acknowledged that persuading him of the necessity to support Ukraine will be challenging, but he believes it’s essential, as the future of the country heavily depends on decisions made in Washington post-election.
- Zelenskyy noted that during their phone conversations, Trump conveyed his support for Ukraine.
- However, there remains no clarity about how he would act if he returns to the presidency.
- The Ukrainian leader expressed skepticism that the ex-president has a concrete plan to end the war, despite his assurances to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment