Written by Alex Ye
The re-election of Donald Trump into the office of President of the United States has reignited debates about the trajectory of US foreign policy, particularly regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine. The pre-election discussions from many media outlets and political analysts focused heavily on Trump’s ambiguous stance toward Ukraine, with concerns over his close relationship with Vladimir Putin and repeated assertions that he could swiftly negotiate peace of particular note. Analysts, such as Dragonfly Intelligence, even speculated that Russia’s aggressive posture in Donetsk was partly based on expectations of a Trump victory that might solidify their territorial gains. Predictions ranged from reduced military aid to a potential push for a peace deal that might favor Russian interests, raising concerns about the future of European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty. These fears were compounded by Trump’s often-ambiguous stance on American involvement in foreign conflicts and his long standing skepticism of NATO.
Now, with Trump’s return to the White House confirmed, attention has turned to his early post-election responses. While the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) believes Trump continues to highlight a swift settlement, he also emphasized in a post on his social media platform Truth Social in April 2024 that Ukraine’s survival is “not only important to Europe, but also to the United States.” Additionally, Trump’s previous administration enacted several measures to curb Russian aggression through levying numerous sanctions and providing lethal military aid to Ukraine. It is conceivable that there could be a continuation of military aid, leaving many people questioning the administration’s next steps.
Before the 2024 U.S. election, many sources highlighted the potential implications of Donald Trump’s re-election for the Ukraine war. The EIU predicts that a re-elected Trump would likely pressure both Ukraine and Russia to enter peace negotiations shortly after taking office in January 2025 (EUI). This prediction is based on Trump’s repeated statements that he would aim for a “swift close” to the war and his choice of the Ukraine-sceptic JD Vance as a running mate reinforces this. It is also stated that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyi may be presented with a choice between participating in peace talks or continuing to fight without additional US assistance. Participating in peace negotiations is a win-win for Russia, as if it does not get what it wants, then it will have an opportunity to rearm, while Ukraine is weakened by reduced US aid.
The CFR emphasized Trump’s refusal to commit to backing a Ukrainian victory, citing his repeated claim that he could end the war within 24 hours. However, it also acknowledged that Trump’s first term included significant steps to counter Russian aggression, such as sanctions and military aid to Ukraine, suggesting that fears of a disastrous second term might be overstated. Nonetheless, the fact that Trump has gone as far as saying that he would allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” if NATO members don't increase their military contributions raises questions about the alliance’s stability and its role in supporting Ukraine.
However, on November 30th, the appointment of an 80-year-old retired US Army lieutenant general Keith Kellogg as a special envoy for Russia and Ukraine has reshaped the US’s involvement in the war. CNN describes Kellogg’s selection as a “reasonable choice” for Ukraine, acknowledging that Kellogg co-authored a peace plan proposing a “freeze of the front line”, a temporary halt to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, and a partial lifting of sanctions on Russia. However, the article also mentions that the plan prioritises US military aid to deter further Russian aggression. Ukrainian analyst Volodymyr Fesenko praised Kellogg as an experienced and pragmatic figure who is “acceptable for Ukraine,” contrasting him with more controversial candidates like Tulsi Gabbard or Pete Hegseth, whose potential appointments had raised alarm in Kyiv.
The Kyiv Independent highlights Kellogg’s deep military and political experience, including his service in the Vietnam and Gulf Wars, his tenure as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and his role as National Security Council chief under Trump’s first administration. Experts express cautious optimism about Kellogg’s ability to secure a peace deal that supports Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, they also acknowledge that elements of Kellogg’s peace plan, such as sanctions relief for Russia, could raise concerns in Kyiv.
Despite Kellogg’s perceived pragmatism, significant uncertainties remain about Trump’s willingness to fully endorse his envoy’s proposals. Ukrainian analyst Fesenko warns that Kellogg is “just an instrument,” and ultimate decision-making power lies in Trump’s hands. This, once again, highlights an area of unpredictability in Trump’s Ukraine policy.
In conclusion, Trump’s re-election has brought both uncertainty and cautious optimism to the Ukraine war. While pre-election fears highlighted the risk of diminished US support, the appointment of Keith Kellogg as special envoy signals a more pragmatic approach that may prioritize Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, the ultimate direction of the US foreign policy rests with Trump, with many of his commitments to Ukraine and NATO still unanswered.
In conclusion, Trump’s re-election has brought both uncertainty and cautious optimism to the Ukraine war. While pre-election fears highlighted the risk of diminished US support, the appointment of Keith Kellogg as special envoy signals a more pragmatic approach that may prioritize Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, the ultimate direction of the US foreign policy rests with Trump, with many of his commitments to Ukraine and NATO still unanswered.
コメント