At a time when the election of the new tenant of the White House is reshuffling the cards on the international scene, American support for Ukraine in the war opposing it to Russia will be reassessed. Despite ambiguous statements, Trump should during his second term provide pragmatic support towards kyiv penalizing Moscow.
President Volodymyr Zelensky was one of the first world leaders to speak with Donald Trump after his victory in the election on November 5, 2024. On this occasion, the Ukrainian president expressed his confidence in the “potentiality of a enhanced cooperation”.
However, this optimism is far from being shared by most experts. Indeed, many observers of international politics point out that Donald Trump has in the past displayed a critical stance towards NATO, considered the amount of American aid granted to kyiv to be too high and, moreover, , promised a rapid agreement with Moscow to end the conflict. So many positions which have fueled uncertainty about Washington’s commitment to helping kyiv repel the Russian army.
As a specialist in Eastern Europe, I understand these concerns, but I propose to take the opposite approach. In my opinion, the return of a Trump presidency is not necessarily bad news for Ukraine.
NATO’s mission against Russia will not change course
Donald Trump is often portrayed as an isolationist leader, deeply nationalist and opposed to any type of interventionism on the international scene.
He fueled this image by asserting, for example, that the United States would not defend a NATO member in the event of a Russian attack if that country did not meet its military spending objectives in accordance with its commitments. the Atlantic Alliance.
Read more: Trump’s victory, good news (paradoxical) for Europeans?
However, this observation can be qualified by established facts and the previous positions of the Republican Party.
In December 2023, the US Congress passed a bipartisan law prohibiting a president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO – effectively including the security and stability of Europe in the interests of the United States . The co-author of this bill, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, has established himself in recent months as a key partner of Donald Trump during the electoral campaign and, above all, has just been appointed by the latter to integrate his future government to the prestigious post of Secretary of State.
Furthermore, the United States and Europe remain mutually important economic partners. So Washington should continue to engage in European security issues as long as a destabilization of the Old Continent has effects on the world economy and in particular that of the United States.
Furthermore, it is not at all certain that the new administration will significantly deviate from the foreign policies pursued by those of Presidents Obama and Biden, and by Trump during his first term. A consensus exists among the American political class that China constitutes the main threat to the United States. However, Beijing provided its support to Vladimir Putin after the deployment of military operations in Ukraine.
Continued cooperation between the United States and its European allies would strengthen the country’s position in Asia. Direct military cooperation, such as the AUKUS agreement signed with the United Kingdom and Australia to provide the latter with nuclear-powered submarines, is part of the American strategy aimed at countering and containing the threat. China in the Pacific. Washington also intends to show its allies in Asia – such as Japan, South Korea or Taiwan – that it is a reliable security partner in times of crisis.
Trump and Putin: an affinity to be qualified
The idea that Donald Trump has good relations with Putin has been widely relayed. During his election campaign, the Republican candidate insisted that if he won, he would bring peace to Ukraine even before his inauguration. He also called the Russian leader a “genius” and a “wise” man for having invaded Ukraine.
Putin congratulated Trump on his victory, praising the “courage” he showed following the assassination attempt which targeted him during a meeting in July 2024. The Kremlin also said it was open to dialogue with the newly elected US president.
Read more: With the return of Donald Trump, which America on the international stage?
But in reality, Donald Trump’s policy towards Russia during his first term was significantly more muscular than his words suggest. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the first Trump administration was tougher on Putin than the Obama administration that preceded it.
Trump had, for example, provided the Ukrainians with anti-tank missiles while the Obama administration had refused to transfer such weapons to them. Similarly, in 2018, under Trump, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty due to Moscow’s violations of the text, while in 2014, after Russia had allegedly tested a (long-range) cruise missile, President Obama accused Moscow of violating the INF Treaty but did not withdraw the United States from it.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described the withdrawal decided by Donald Trump as a “very dangerous” decision. And for good reason: the INF Treaty prevented the United States from developing new weapons and tied its hands in the Pacific, as part of its strategic rivalry with China.
Trump White House Archived Shealah Craighead/Flickr
In 2019, Trump signed a text including sanctions against the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline which was to directly connect Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. The gas pipeline, since rendered inoperable by sabotage that occurred in September 2022, was roundly denounced by Ukraine because it allowed Moscow to export its oil by bypassing the pipelines present on Ukrainian territory and to implement against the Kiev government an “economic and energy blockade”. These sanctions against Nord Stream 2 are just one of 52 political actions taken by the first Trump administration aimed at putting pressure on Russia.
For its part, the Biden administration first lifted sanctions against Nord Stream 2 in 2021, before reimposing them on February 23, 2022, the day before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.
“Drill, baby, drill” a credo that risks harming Russian oil
Nearly three years after the Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory, the Kremlin’s war machine still operates thanks to revenues from the export of fossil fuels. Despite unprecedented Western sanctions aimed at restricting Russian oil and gas sales, many countries continue to import hydrocarbons from Russia. India, for example, became the largest buyer of Russian crude oil following the outbreak of the conflict.
In such a context, Trump’s energy policy, even if it will not directly target Moscow, could still harm Russian interests. Indeed, Trump has repeatedly promised to increase oil and gas exploitation on American soil. And even if it takes time for this to translate into an alteration in fossil fuel prices, increasing production in the United States – already the world’s largest producer of crude oil – would have significant consequences on the global market. .
Read more: These climate policies that Trump will not be able to completely undo in the United States
Trump’s return to the White House could also result in stricter enforcement of U.S. oil sanctions on Iran, reducing Tehran’s ability to sell weapons to Russia. Indeed, Iran has supported Russia both diplomatically and militarily since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, since 2020, Iranian revenues from oil exports have almost quadrupled, passing from 16 billion dollars to 53 billion in 2023 according to the Energy Information Agency (U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Finally, any conjecture on the decisions that Trump will make once in power proves difficult as the latter has always shown himself to be unpredictable on the political scene. Without forgetting that United States foreign policy can evolve over the long term: we should therefore not expect immediate breakthroughs or major surprises. It emerges from all these elements that the record of Trump’s first term allows us to counterbalance the opinions of commentators who suggested that his victory would not bode well for Ukraine…
Related News :