In recent months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been hard for the United States and European countries to double down on military support for his country until he can achieve his ” ” against Russia.
Author
- Jessica Genauer
Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Flinders University
In September, Ukraine undertook a into Russian territory for the first time, capturing a chunk of land in the Kursk region. At the same time, Ukraine renewed requests to use to strike targets deep into Russian territory.
Driving these actions seems to be Zelensky’s desire to position Ukraine as strongly as possible before the US presidential election. Whoever wins, the new president has the potential to drastically change the shape of the war.
What would a Harris presidency mean?
If Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris wins, this would likely mean more in US foreign policy and US military support for Ukraine.
A game-changer for Ukraine would be to NATO. While Zelensky has publicly ceding territory in exchange for Russia accepting its membership in the military bloc, this is at least a conceivable possibility.
After more than two and a half years of full-scale war, from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows a steady increase in the percentage of Ukrainians willing to make some territorial concessions for peace (now at 32%). However, just over half remain opposed to any territorial concessions.
In addition, Zelensky has said joining NATO is a .
However, Harris has of committing to supporting Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has flatly to make this a part of negotiations.
Without NATO membership for Ukraine, a Harris presidency would likely result in a protracted war of attrition with Russia.
This will only end when both Russia and Ukraine view a settlement to be preferable to continued fighting. Unfortunately, the history of conflicts this can take many years to occur.
What would a Trump presidency mean?
Trump claims he would be able to with a negotiated settlement. There’s no evidence to suggest this is feasible.
In Trump’s first presidency, his foreign policy followed a populist style. Populist diplomacy tends to disregard the existing architecture of the international system and is more in approach.
As such, Trump’s diplomacy relied heavily on personal relationships with his counterparts to drive outcomes. He was also focused on achieving rapid and easy solutions to complex problems – with limited success.
If elected, Trump would likely focus on his personal relationship with Putin, as well as his with Zelensky, to try to push a swift and decisive conclusion to the war.
The problem is, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has already a possible peace plan that would give Putin what he wants: the Ukrainian territory Russia already holds and a neutral Ukraine not part of NATO.
Putin would likely agree to such a deal. Claiming a large chunk of Ukrainian territory could be presented as a victory to the Russian people, who are tired of the war and unnerved by Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk. Putin desperately needs a political win.
Until a majority of Ukrainians support territorial concessions, however, it would be political suicide for Zelensky to trade “land for peace”.
Yet, Zelensky may be forced into negotiations under pressure from Trump and the threat of US military aid being cut off. Ukraine is already struggling to hold off Russian advances due to a critical . Though European military aid has remained steady since the war began, it cannot if the US cuts off Ukraine completely.
Trump has already Zelensky as “the greatest salesman of all time” and vowed to have Ukrainian military aid “settled” quickly, if elected. It’s unclear if this means pressuring Zelensky to agree to a political settlement.
Ukraine may continue to fight without US support, but Russia could from weakened and ill-equipped Ukrainian forces.
Another possibility, by a former Trump adviser in recent days, is the fighting stops without a declaration of a permanent ceasefire or political settlement.
This could lead to a frozen conflict similar to the end of the Korean War, with a demilitarised zone like the one that separates North and South Korea today. This would leave Ukraine in perpetual territorial limbo with no security assurance for the future.
What does all this mean for Zelensky’s leadership?
Zelensky’s popularity increased dramatically after the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, however, his domestic support has gradually declined. shows Ukrainians’ trust in Zelensky decreased from a high of 90% directly after the invasion to 59% in September 2024.
This year, Zelensky also expected presidential elections due to Ukraine being under martial law. Ukrainians supported at the time, but as trust in Zelensky declines, this may shift.
Zelensky’s domestic support depends on the perception at home that he can continue to deliver on Western support in the war with Russia.
If it looks like Zelensky will compromise on Ukrainian territory in a way that is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people or can no longer deliver material support from Western allies, his popularity may drop quickly and severely.
If that happens, Zelensky may be nudged by Western allies to hold presidential elections despite the ongoing war. Some conservative have already started calling for elections. Zelensky’s political rival, former President Petro Poroshenko, has said he will in the next elections, too.
Much of this depends on who wins in Washington in a week. A Harris victory will give Zelensky more time, a continued stream of aid and even the possibility of future NATO membership.
If Trump wins, Zelensky may lose his aid and international support – and perhaps even his presidency. This outcome is far more uncertain for Ukraine and undoubtedly makes the country – and Zelensky – far more nervous.
