Will Trump Abandon Ukraine?

The U.S. presidential election, closely watched worldwide, ended unexpectedly with a convincing victory for Trump. He received 5 million more votes than Kamala Harris—a rare margin in American politics. Additionally, Republicans regained control of the Senate, having already held a majority in Congress. With widespread public support, the Republicans now possess absolute power, giving Trump a free hand to pursue his agenda. The most pressing question in Europe and the region concerns his plans for the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump claimed he could end the conflict in just 24 hours. Following his victory, a conflict resolution plan leaked to the press, reportedly drafted by former members of Trump’s administration: Keith Kellogg, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former executive secretary of the National Security Council, and Fred Fleitz, an experienced CIA analyst and former chief of staff to John Bolton.

Trump reportedly liked the plan, but has yet to endorse it. According to the proposal, the war would end with a ceasefire along the current front line, establishing a demilitarized zone spanning 800 miles of the new Ukraine-Russia border. European peacekeepers would be deployed there. Ukraine would commit not to pursue NATO membership for the next 20 years in exchange for security guarantees and defensive weaponry. If Ukraine refuses, the U.S. would halt all aid. If Russia declines, military support for Ukraine would intensify. The feasibility of this plan and its alignment with U.S. interests remain uncertain. This proposal resembles the Istanbul agreements previously rejected by Kyiv. Zelensky has already dismissed it, unwilling to accept the loss of 20% of Ukraine’s territory after three years of resistance. For Ukraine, this plan would be seen as a defeat and a victory for Russia. Additionally, Ukrainian officials are skeptical about the security guarantees, recalling that similar assurances were given when Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal—promises that were not upheld, as demonstrated by the annexation of Crimea and U.S. reluctance to provide long-range weaponry or allow strikes deep into Russian territory.

If Ukraine rejects the plan, European opinion will become decisive. Here, Trump is likely to face pushback. For Europeans, the war in Ukraine is a far more immediate concern than it is for Americans, given its proximity to EU and NATO borders. They would view this proposal as freezing the conflict, compromising their sense of security. The EU's priority is for Ukraine to hold out, fearing that a defeat could spell danger for Europe itself. The first European response came from Nigel Farage, a prominent British MP, Brexit architect, and Trump ally, who stated that concessions must be mutual, and Ukraine should join NATO. The UK Treasury announced that, despite Trump's victory, it would uphold its commitments to support Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron also weighed in, saying, "Europeans should not endlessly delegate their security to Americans." Speaking at the European Political Community summit in Budapest—a forum he initiated in 2022—Macron emphasized that Trump will prioritize American interests. "The question is whether we are prepared to defend European interests," Macron said, calling Trump’s election a "historic moment" for Europeans and urging the summit to safeguard "national and European economic and strategic interests." He argued that the EU must see itself as an "independent power," regain control over geopolitics, and stop delegating this responsibility. Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer plan to jointly appeal to President Biden for permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. This indicates that the EU is unlikely to endorse Trump’s initial plan. If so, Trump will not be able to implement it unilaterally. Europe has the resources to support Ukraine independently, without U.S. assistance.

If Trump halts aid to Ukraine following rejection by Zelensky and the EU, it could be perceived as a betrayal, damaging Washington's credibility and standing on the global stage. The U.S. would find itself isolated, weakening its ability to compete effectively with China. Historically, the U.S. conducted major military operations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan jointly with NATO, and has pursued economic isolation policies against Iran and Russia alongside European allies. This understanding is shared in the EU, as Macron remarked in Budapest: "Europe must more assertively defend its interests in the competition between the U.S. and China." It is noteworthy that EU-China trade turnover currently stands at $782 billion, $118 billion more than U.S.-China trade, giving Europe leverage in the geopolitical game.

Trump and the American elite view China as the primary rival. Neutralizing Beijing is the top priority for the current administration, as China’s influence is growing daily. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute identified 67 technology sectors, with China leading in 37 of them. Hence, Trump is unlikely to jeopardize relations with the EU and will need to consider Brussels’ interests in the Ukraine conflict. A question arises: Could Trump’s concessions in Ukraine be aimed at securing Russia’s neutrality towards Beijing? However, the relationship between Putin and Xi Jinping is strong and has withstood the test of the Ukraine war. China continues to politically and economically back Russia, making it unlikely that Putin would accept such an offer from Trump. This concern is shared by China, as evidenced by a direct question from a Chinese representative to Putin at the Valdai Forum about whether Russia might ally with Trump against Beijing—Putin’s response was reassuring.

Thus, the only viable strategy for Trump would be to weaken Russia by ensuring it cannot win in Ukraine. A weakened Russia would be unable to fully support China. This is the view of a prominent Republican figure, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who believes that Xi Jinping is closely watching Putin's progress. If Russia succeeds, it could pave the way for a China-Russia alliance that would be difficult to counter in the future. Pompeo proposes a $500 billion Lend-Lease program for Ukraine, removing all restrictions on arms supplies, allowing Kyiv to use them at its discretion. He even suggests providing Tomahawk missiles with permission to strike Moscow.

It is plausible that the Kellogg-Fleitz plan is only an interim solution. If the EU and Ukraine reject it, Trump would have greater freedom of action. He could escalate support for Ukraine, neutralizing Russia before turning his focus to China, with the backing of the EU.