About one month before the US elections, in the Kharkiv region, I sat down with a group of Ukrainian infantry soldiers together with US historian Timothy Snyder. I suggested they ask questions of him not only as an American historian, but also as an American citizen.
The servicemen were curious about the election, but mainly the chances of receiving significant military aid any time soon. They expressed pity that many Americans still do not understand that the Ukrainian fight is not just about us. It is in the world’s interests to support the fight against blatant breaches of the international order.
The anxiety of the US elections is felt more strongly in Kyiv among Ukrainian officials and civil society leaders, because Ukraine has become a partisan issue, and part of US domestic politics. These groups have been trying for years to be on good terms with Democrats and Republicans in the US. This was especially true during the long delays in Congress over the vote for security assistance to Ukraine.
However, engaging with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) camp has become difficult.
This only got worse when it was revealed that former US president Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate JD Vance had said in 2022: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.” During the race, Vance has characterized Russian President Vladimir Putin as an “adversary” and “competitor,” rather than an enemy, and has generally said that the US should be focusing on China, not Russia.
Then there are the claims from Trump that he could end the war in “24 hours,” presumably with a phone call to Putin. To be honest, these sorts of statements do not worry Ukrainians that much since they do not sound remotely realistic. There are no signs that the Russian president is changing his goal to destroy Ukraine as a state. What people are really worried about is the slowing down, or even stopping, of US military assistance.
In Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, one of the most important battleground states, I had a chance to talk to various Ukrainian Americans, including those from the older, more conservative diaspora, who have traditionally voted Republican. They shared strong anti-communist sentiment in the past, but today are more united around ideas of faith and family values. Some of them told me they were worried by Vance’s remarks. Still, their arguments would alight elsewhere: It was Democrat and former US president Barack Obama who did not firmly react to the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 and refused to provide military aid. Some of those narratives can be heard among conservative Ukrainians back home, too.
Ukrainians often ask me what exactly the candidates are saying about the country on the campaign trail. I had to reply that, honestly, Ukraine was not being explicitly mentioned at the rallies, at least the ones I attended.
In Saginaw, Michigan, a manufacturing town, Vance did not mention Ukraine even once, mainly warning about the risks of local workers losing their jobs, because of Chinese electric vehicles. Meanwhile, US Vice President Kamala Harris, at a campaign rally in the university town of Ann Arbor, spoke of Trump’s fascination with authoritarian leaders such as Putin.
Trump himself, speaking in Pennsylvania, did say at least three times that he would not spend taxpayers’ money on wars “in countries you have never heard of and don’t want to hear of.” The audience loudly cheered.
After US President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, some people in Kyiv hoped that he could now afford to be less cautious and use his remaining time in office to accelerate support for Ukraine. The speculation was that he would want a positive foreign policy legacy to leave behind, amid the retreat from Afghanistan and tragedy unfolding in the Middle East. By last month, it became clear that the current US administration was not planning on doing anything big before the election.
Some measures were taken. Washington on Oct. 23 finalized its US$20 billion portion of a US$50 billion loan to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets. This would be placed alongside a separate US$20 billion EU commitment and US$10 billion split between the UK, Japan and Canada. It is supposed to be repaid with the earnings from the more than US$300 billion in sovereign Russian assets that were immobilized in February 2022 and are mostly held in Europe.
However, in the long run, the lives of Ukrainian soldiers depend not just on the funds for military aid, but on specific types of weapons.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has spent recent months lobbying in the west for his “victory plan,” which would involve the US providing long-range missiles to Ukraine, which could strike deep inside Russia — something western powers have been reluctant to approve. His argument is that this might not just turn the tide on the battlefield, but take away the burden from those suffering the most — Ukrainian infantry. Without that, the Ukrainian army is left to rely on exhausted footsoldiers. Whether or not this plan has any chance of progressing would depend in large part on who wins next week.
Right after landing in New York, a US colleague asked me if “it was all over for Ukraine if it didn’t receive US assistance after the elections.” I was puzzled by the way the question was asked. I explained that it might be extremely difficult to preserve the lives of Ukrainians if, say, Trump is elected, but it would not mean the Ukrainian army would stop trying to defend its fellow citizens or simply give up.
Travelling from one swing state to another, I detected an extreme sense of anxiety among many Americans. It was so palpable, I felt the need to comfort them. Whatever happens, on the morning of tomorrow, life in Ukraine would go on. The same would be true in the US. However, it does not mean things would be easy. Ukrainians have learned in recent years that worrying can be a luxury; the best option is to commit yourself to working hard to avoid the worst-case scenario and fighting for what is right.
Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab.
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
RSS