The US presidential election and the Ukraine war
https://arab.news/juedc
There are just over three months left until the 2024 presidential election is held in the US. Following the surprise withdrawal of incumbent President Joe Biden from the race, Vice President Kamala Harris has now cemented her status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Observers might note the interesting coincidence and wonder whether Donald Trump will again beat a woman, as happened when he faced Hillary Clinton in 2016. However, for those who follow the geopolitical outcomes and scenarios of such castling, especially its impact on the Ukraine war, it changes nothing, as Harris has always backed Biden’s position of offering support to Ukraine.
During the recent Summit on Peace in Ukraine in Switzerland, Harris announced American support of $1.5 billion through the US Agency for International Development and the Department of State, intended to boost Ukraine’s energy sector. It seems likely that, if she were to win the election, the Ukraine war would continue and that America’s relations with Russia would remain at the same low level. The Kremlin’s position on Harris’ candidacy was cautious, stating that she “had made no discernible contribution to relations with Moscow beyond some unfriendly rhetoric.”
By contrast, Trump’s position is to “end the war,” as stated during his recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Some European media outlets have expressed concern, such as France 24 stating that Trump’s “frequent praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, reluctance to directly criticize the Russian invasion and suggestions to back away from NATO deeply concern Ukraine’s allies.”
In this, his policies resemble those of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is known as the Kremlin’s closest ally in the EU. Orban has frequently blocked or delayed EU attempts to increase its help for Ukraine and has sought to avoid sanctions on Moscow. Orban met Zelensky on July 2 in his official first visit to the country since the outbreak of war in February 2022. Three days later, he met Putin, in a rare case of a European leader seeking to discuss the prospects for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.
Another seven days later, Orban met Trump. After the meeting, he stated: “It was an honor to visit President Trump today. We discussed ways to make peace. The good news of the day: he’s going to solve it.” Trump commented: “There must be peace, and quickly. Too many people have died in a war that should have never started.”
It does not really matter whether Harris or Biden is the Democratic nominee, due to their similar views on Ukraine. However, a victory for Trump, who is aligned with the European leader that is closest to the Kremlin, would clearly lean toward the end of the legacy of the Democrats. Fox News reported that a Trump victory would mean an isolationist “America First” foreign policy approach, which might damage relations with its main allies.
Trump may not normalize relations with Putin, but he will promote less harsh rhetoric toward the Russian leader.
Dr. Diana Galeeva
Another crucial matter is the difference over NATO. Reuters last week described Harris’ foreign policy objectives as “tougher tone on Israel, steady on NATO.” At the Munich Security Conference in 2022, Harris stressed that the US had “an unwavering commitment to NATO.” In reference to the mutual defense clause in the NATO Treaty, she stated that “America’s commitment to Article 5 is ironclad.”
Prior to the Ukraine crisis, Harris met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg echoed Harris’ position on the enlargement of NATO during the crisis, stating that “the reality is that North America and Europe are doing more together now than we have done for many years.”
Trump’s dissatisfaction with America’s NATO allies failing to meet their defense spending commitments is well known. However, at this stage, his campaign’s national security team has not openly embraced a new agenda toward the alliance. Politico, reporting the views of anonymous security experts, suggested that the US would maintain its nuclear umbrella over Europe during a second Trump term by keeping its airbases in the UK, Germany and Turkiye, in addition to its naval forces.
Nonetheless, the responsibility to field armor and artillery would pass from the US to European hands. One dimension would be a shift toward significantly downsizing America’s security role. Another would be the emerging Trump game plan of a two-tier NATO system, meaning that member countries that have not met the criteria of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense “would not enjoy the defense largesse and security guarantee of the US.”
The US election is crucial to the international community because, whether other countries like or not — and despite this transitional period from a unipolar American-dominated world toward a more multipolar one — the US remains the main global power on which future geopolitical events hinge. One such event is the Ukraine war, while the potential enlargement of NATO will be similarly affected.
On the one side are Biden and Harris’ evidently similar views on both matters: full support for Ukraine and backing for a strong NATO. Meanwhile, Trump follows another route: he wants to end the war, focus on internal matters and maintain dialogues with European leaders who are close to the Kremlin. He may not normalize relations with Putin, but he will promote less harsh rhetoric toward the Russian leader. As for NATO, Trump offers alternatives, if not to leave the bloc, then to at least reform it. Above all, he needs to create a legacy in terms of his security and geopolitical stance that will distinguish him from the Democrats.
As stated at the outset, within the context of the Ukraine war, the Democrats’ nomination of Harris or Biden does not matter; the only material differences will come if Trump wins the Nov. 5 election. This would clearly help the Russian cause, perhaps allowing it to end the war on Moscow’s terms and, following the historic situation with Finland, possibly making Ukraine a neutral state. Meanwhile, a victory for Harris would mean the US supporting the Ukrainian cause, the possible enlargement of NATO and an increasing amount of rhetoric over nuclear war.
• Dr. Diana Galeeva is an academic visitor to Oxford University. X: @Dr_GaleevaDiana
