Maybe we can make a Ukraine strategy after the election
By now, I think most people just want the U.S. election to be over. We are so far into the election campaign that the candidates will not come up with anything new. Instead, we are seeing that every day the rhetoric is intensified, with more and more divisive content spread on social media.
Everywhere, there is nervousness and anxiety. The supporters of both candidates feel that this election has existential significance and that American democracy is on the line if the other candidate wins. And on top of that, there is the concern that Mr. Trump might not accept a defeat, and the United States could be thrown into a period of turmoil if Harris wins on Tuesday.
As a European, I am looking forward to this election being over, and I can imagine that it is even more agonizing for Americans to watch. But at the same time, I think most people also have a feeling that history is being written these days. The outcome of the American election will have big consequences not only for U.S. politics but for the entire world community.
One only has to look at the war in Ukraine to see the significant impact that the election in the United States has already had. It has been clear for a long time that the absence of a coherent Western strategy has had a profound impact on the course of the war and the ability of the Ukrainians to fight and win. The inability of Western countries to define and pursue strategic aims has impacted the war since day one. However, in the last year, it has been extreme.
It began with the crisis when the Ukraine aid package was stranded in Congress for half a year. Then, once the assistance was finally approved by Congress, it was so close to the presidential election that the issue was pushed aside due to concerns over domestic politics.
In hindsight, it seems clear that Joe Biden did not want Ukraine to become an issue in the election campaign. It would help Donald Trump and be a disadvantage to Kamala Harris if Ukraine became a topic. I think that’s one of the reasons why we’ve seen the United States take an even more cautious approach to providing military assistance to Ukraine in the last six months compared to earlier in the war.
The Kursk offensive led to reduced help
These things are often only clear in hindsight. When Ukraine launched its Kursk offensive, I speculated at the time that this might have been done with some level of approval from Washington. It seemed to be a dangerous gamble by Ukraine if they did this against the will of Joe Biden, as it could lead to reductions in the weapons assistance they would receive.
Looking back, it seems clear that there was no approval from the United States and that Joe Biden was both displeased and concerned about the Ukrainian course of action. The weapons packages that the United States has provided since August have been very modest. They seem almost designed to ensure that Ukraine does not have the resources for bold ventures. This also explains the strange diplomatic process in September when Ukraine clearly expected to be allowed to use long-range weapons to strike targets inside Russia, and, after several weeks, Joe Biden made it clear to Zelensky that this was not going to happen.
A leadership vacuum
The result has been that, for almost a year, there has been a remarkable absence of leadership on the Ukraine issue within the Western alliance. And the frustration is becoming tangible. There was an interesting and telling episode in one of Jake Broe’s great YouTube videos the other day. Jake, who is one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine on YouTube and a major advocate for stronger military support from the United States, expressed frustration with parts of the European pro-Ukraine community on social media. They keep pointing fingers at the United States for not winning the war, while many European countries are also underperforming in their contributions to Ukraine.
Because why do Europeans keep complaining that the United States does not do more instead of directing their anger at other European countries that seem to be free-riding? Jake has a point. The United States definitely provides crucial military support for Ukraine, and many European countries are not pulling their weight, including major countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom. (Big countries often like to talk about contributions in terms of absolute sums of money, but if you look at the contributions as a share of GDP, it is less impressive.)
The leader of the free world
But incidentally, Jake himself probably provided the answer to his own question earlier in the video when he referred to the President of the United States as “the leader of the free world”. The problem with Western support for Ukraine right now is the absence of leadership, and no other country is in a position to take on this role. Everyone is still looking to the American president for guidance, and for the time being, the message is that we should wait and that the most important thing is to avoid doing anything dramatic.
For that reason alone, it is good that the election will soon be over. If Harris wins, it will hopefully be possible to have a meaningful discussion about what needs to happen in Ukraine, rather than letting the Ukraine strategy be dictated by campaign issues in the United States.
If Trump wins, things will be more difficult. The aid to Ukraine from the United States may be reduced, and significant political bandwidth will go into just keeping NATO together. But even in that situation, it will be possible for other countries to start taking initiatives and demonstrate leadership. Some countries in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, have a clear vision of what needs to happen in Ukraine. If Trump is elected and it becomes clear that the United States will not provide leadership going forward in the effort to help Ukraine, then that will create a vacuum for other countries to fill. But nothing can happen until after the election.