It is pretty obvious that the outcome of the US Presidential Election will have a significant impact on American foreign policy, especially with regard to its support for Ukraine.
For Ukraine the current level of US assistance is a major factor in thecountry’s survival and sovereignty. This election presents a turning point, with both major parties offering different visions of America’s role inglobal security and, by extension, its commitment to Ukraine.
The big question is, of course, whether the USA will maintain its current substantial military and financial assistance, or whether that support will wane in favour of more isolationist or transactional approaches.
Under President Biden, American commitment to Ukraine has been robust, with significant military aid packages, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic backing for Kyiv. Biden’s leadership has been influential in forging international coalitions, coordinating sanctions on Russia, and providing Ukraine with the wherewithal to defend itself.
The Biden administration’s stance on Ukraine is consistent with the broader Democratic Party foreign policy tradition of supporting democratic nations and deterring authoritarian expansionism. They seethe conflict as a struggle not just for Ukraine’s future, but for the principles of democracy, international law, and a rules-based global order. Thus, a continuation of a Democrat presidency would likely mean a continuation of current policy on Ukraine.
The Republican Party, however, is more complicated. There are two primary factions with differing views on Ukraine; the traditional hawkish wing, represented by figures like Senator Mitch McConnell and former President George W Bush, views support for Ukraine as a strategic necessity. These policymakers argue that a strong Ukraine is critical toregional stability, deterring Russian aggression, and maintaining the credibility of NATO.
The party’s more populist and isolationist wing, led by figures such as former President Trump and some of his allies in Congress, has voiced concerns about the US becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict in Eastern Europe. This faction questions the wisdom of further military and financial commitments to Ukraine, arguing that America should prioritise its domestic concerns over foreign entanglements.
If Trump were to regain office it is perfectly possible that US support for Ukraine could be scaled back, or at least made contingent on Europe’s willingness to share more of the burden. The narrative might shift towards a transactional foreign policy, where American aid to Ukraine could include demands for the other NATO members to step up their contributions to the war effort.
So the Presidential Election will not only determine the fate of American policy towards Ukraine but also set the course for the broader international order. A shift towards isolationism would embolden Russiaand China, signalling to authoritarian regimes that the USA is retreating from its role as the world’s policeman. Conversely, a continued commitment to Ukraine would reinforce the America’s role as a leader indefending the international rules-based order.
As we all know, Ukraine’s ability to survive and eventually reclaim its territories depends not just on its own resilience but also on the level of international support it receives. European nations play an important role here, but American leadership remains indispensable. The outcome of the US election could tip the balance in favour of continued assistance or usher in a new era of disengagement.
For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. A shift in leadership towarda more isolationist or transactional approach could undermine Ukraine’s position, leaving the country vulnerable to further Russian aggression.
How will it pan out? It appears to be too close to call, but we’ll know soon enough. Meanwhile the whole world is watching, but especially closely in Kyiv.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator andformer army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
