If Donald Trump were to win the elections in today’s US presidential election, it would likely introduce a significant shift in US policy toward the war in Ukraine. Trump has consistently voiced skepticism about continued US involvement in Ukraine, arguing that the conflict is not a core US interest and suggesting a focus on negotiating a settlement.
If Trump takes office with this stance, the implications could reshape the war’s trajectory. Here are several possible scenarios:
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
A shift in US policy and reduction in support
A Trump victory could lead to a decrease or an outright halt in US military and financial assistance to Ukraine. US support has been crucial, with billions in military aid and advanced weaponry bolstering Ukrainian forces. Trump may push for a settlement through negotiation rather than continuing to fund Ukraine’s defense. A withdrawal of or reduction in US support would likely weaken Ukraine’s military capabilities, which have been heavily reliant on US-supplied HIMARS, air defense systems, and intelligence support.
Impact on NATO and European unity
A diminished US role could place unprecedented pressure on NATO and the European Union to independently sustain support for Ukraine. Although European countries have provided significant aid, their resources and capabilities do not match those of the US. The EU would face an enormous financial and logistical burden, and without US leadership, there could be a split within NATO regarding the extent and nature of future support for Ukraine.
What Happens to Ukraine Now After Trump’s Victory? Ceding Territories, Probably
Some European nations - such as Poland, the Baltic states, and the United Kingdom - are firmly committed to supporting Ukraine and might push for continued assistance even without the US. However, wealthier and more influential countries like Germany and France, which have historically favored diplomacy and are cautious about further escalation, could push for a peace settlement, potentially leading to diverging policies within the EU.
Possible negotiated settlement and Russia’s advantage
Trump’s desire to broker a “quick deal” could embolden Putin. A scenario where the US pushes Ukraine to negotiate might involve significant territorial concessions, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and potentially forcing Zelensky to accept unfavorable terms. Trump’s rhetoric has sometimes suggested a willingness to allow Russia to retain control over disputed territories in eastern Ukraine, a stance that could weaken Ukraine’s leverage and signal to Putin that his aggressive tactics are effective.
If a settlement were reached that preserved some Russian gains, this would not only bolster Putin domestically by validating his narrative of Russia’s strength but also create a dangerous precedent. It would signal that territorial aggression can yield results, potentially emboldening other nations with similar ambitions.
European self-reliance and military build-up
With the US potentially reducing its involvement, the EU would face a pivotal moment: either bolster its collective defense or risk capitulating to Russian pressure. Europe has the economic power to counterbalance Russia if it fully unites, but it would require substantial increases in defense spending, acceleration of military integration, and enhancement of its military-industrial complex to become self-sufficient.
The EU would need to adopt an integrated approach to defense that currently does not exist on the scale required. Given that many EU countries rely heavily on US military technology and intelligence, transitioning to independent support for Ukraine would require years of restructuring and investment. Countries like Germany, which have been reluctant to invest heavily in defense, would need to transform their policies quickly.
Strategic stalemate or Ukrainian decline without US support
Without continued US assistance, Ukraine might struggle to maintain the current level of resistance against Russia. A shift in US policy could lead to a slower and more costly war of attrition, with Ukraine forced to defend its territory without sufficient resources to reclaim Russian-occupied areas. European support alone may not be enough to sustain the full breadth of Ukraine’s military operations, potentially leading to a strategic stalemate where both sides remain entrenched without any decisive outcome.
This scenario could lead to a frozen conflict, with Ukraine losing de facto control over eastern territories while maintaining Western support in a more limited capacity. This outcome would be advantageous for Russia, as it would likely retain control over the regions it has already annexed and face less international pressure to withdraw.
The question of European capability minus the US
The EU, without US backing, could find itself outmatched by Russia’s sheer military scale. Russia, while facing economic challenges and logistical issues, still maintains a robust military infrastructure that European forces alone may struggle to counter. The absence of the US would leave a significant gap in NATO’s military capabilities, especially in airpower, intelligence, and logistical support.
The EU would also struggle to match the level of advanced weaponry and financial resources the US has contributed. While European nations could continue supplying Ukraine with arms, a reduction in the flow of high-tech systems and the absence of American intelligence assets would weaken Ukraine’s defenses. Additionally, European nations might have to ration their stockpiles for their own security, reducing the volume and quality of aid they can send to Ukraine.
Potential fallout on global influence and alliances
A Trump victory that results in a US retreat from Ukraine could reshape global alliances. Eastern European countries, fearing Russian aggression, may pursue stronger bilateral defense ties with non-European allies, such as the UK, Japan, or even Australia. Meanwhile, Russia would likely grow closer to China, feeling emboldened by a fractured Western response.
Additionally, a US pullback from Ukraine could signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that the West is divided and may not intervene against aggressive actions, potentially increasing instability in other regions. If the US is perceived as an unreliable ally, European nations may seek to deepen their military and economic ties with each other, possibly accelerating EU defense integration and diminishing the central role of the US in European security.
Who would emerge victorious?
Putin’s Advantage:
If Trump’s policy leads to reduced US support for Ukraine and Europe cannot adequately fill the gap, Putin would likely emerge with a strategic advantage. This scenario would validate his long-term strategy of outlasting Western resolve and create opportunities for further influence in Eastern Europe. Russia could consolidate its control over occupied territories, and Putin would gain a significant propaganda victory by portraying the West as divided and inconsistent.
Zelensky’s Challenge:
Without US support, Zelensky would face an uphill battle. Although Europe could continue to provide some assistance, the scale would be insufficient to match the resources that Ukraine has received from the US so far. In this case, Zelensky might have to choose between accepting a potentially unfavorable negotiated settlement or continuing a drawn-out, costly conflict with diminished resources.
The role of the EU and NATO:
In the absence of the US, the EU and NATO would be forced to confront their security vulnerabilities. This might push Europe towards strategic autonomy, but it would be a challenging and lengthy transition. If Europe can unify and invest substantially in its defense capabilities, it could counterbalance Russia to some extent. However, achieving this would require unprecedented cooperation and spending, which is uncertain.
Conclusion
In the short term, a Trump victory and subsequent US withdrawal would likely benefit Putin, allowing him to solidify gains in Ukraine and weakening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. While Europe could attempt to step up, the absence of US military and financial support would be difficult to replace. Russia might gain the upper hand, at least temporarily, and any hope for a Ukrainian victory would become significantly more challenging.
In the longer term, a diminished US role in European security could motivate the EU to bolster its defenses and pursue strategic autonomy, though this transition would be fraught with challenges and would not yield immediate results. Ultimately, the West’s ability to contain Russian aggression would be significantly weakened in the absence of US support, risking further instability in the region and beyond.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
