Trump's win leaves Ukraine twisting

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory, the question of what comes next for Ukraine looms large as Russia appears to have the upper hand in its war of aggression against its neighbor. During his campaign, Trump sent conflicting signals, sometimes mocking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "salesman" extorting aid from the United States, sometimes promising to settle the conflict in a way Ukraine will find satisfactory. He also famously promised to stop the war in one day — or at least bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.

Given that Trump has often expressed admiration for Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin, his impending return to the White House terrifies most Ukraine supporters. The Trumpist wing of conservatism, hostile to Ukraine almost from the start of the war, has eroded initially strong support for Ukraine in the Republican Party; at Trump’s bidding, even Republicans who had been strongly pro-Ukraine — such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Trump’s pick for secretary of state — helped delay a crucial military aid package for several months earlier this year, enabling Russian gains in Eastern Ukraine.

Now, many fear that Trump will leverage both U.S. aid and Ukraine’s difficult position to force Zelenskyy to accept a deal that would amount to partial or total capitulation: ceding occupied territories to Russia and shelving plans to join NATO for the foreseeable future, or most likely permanently. Such a "solution" would leave Ukraine vulnerable to a new Russian invasion, or to de facto subjugation via a Moscow-friendly regime in Kyiv. Zelenskyy could be forced to accept surrender or face the loss of U.S. assistance. While there is talk of Europe stepping into the breach, it is unlikely that European powers, themselves wary of provoking nuclear-armed Russia, will be able to make up for the shortfall.

A couple of days after the election, a Trump "peace plan" leaked to the media offered a scenario in which Ukraine would make concessions without capitulation. While current battle lines would be frozen and NATO membership put on hold for 20 years, Ukraine would be protected by an 800-mile buffer zone patrolled by soldiers from European countries, and the supply of weapons would keep flowing to further deter future Russian aggression.

Many Russia-watchers agree that Putin would be extremely unlikely to accept such a proposal, which would not only mean leaving in Ukrainian hands large portions of the four Ukrainian provinces Russia has formally "annexed" but also accepting NATO troops on the Russian border. That Russia has been unable to dislodge Ukraine from a part of Russia’s own Kursk province near the border further complicates the situation.

Is it possible that Putin’s rejection of Trump’s "deal" would anger the volatile Trump enough to boost aid to Ukraine and greenlight military strikes inside Russian territory? That’s probably wishful thinking, though Trump’s unpredictability gives Ukraine a window of opportunity.

But this unpredictability also makes the United States an unreliable ally, as Trump’s first moves as president-elect demonstrate. The choice of Rubio and Russia hawk Michael Waltz as national security advisor has been followed by the jaw-dropping pick of consistently pro-Kremlin former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Matt Gaetz, tapped to head the Department of Justice, has been stridently anti-Ukraine from the start and has even opposed sanctions against Russia, which the department has a role in enforcing.

At this point, any "What next?" speculation amounts to fortune-telling with tea leaves. That alone is a bad sign.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.