The White House in a decisive battle: will the new US President become a guarantor of peace for Ukraine?
The world is holding its breath as the United States elects the 47th president of the country with the most powerful economy, global geopolitical power and traditional role as a ‘defender of democracy’. An event that was once perceived as a purely domestic American affair has now turned into a key moment for international politics, global security and economic stability. For Ukraine, which is at the forefront of the confrontation with Russia, the outcome of these elections could be a matter of life and death: the support of one of our most powerful allies depends on their results. In an environment where U.S. assistance means modern weapons, financial resources and political protection, every American vote today can determine how long the war will last and how it will end.
The leaders of the election race are a clash of two different worlds
America stands at a crossroads: Democrat Kamala Harris, who promises to continue the current course of support for Ukraine, and Republican Donald Trump, who advocates limiting US military aid and focusing more on domestic affairs. In other words, the battle for the White House between Trump and Harris has turned into a clash of two worlds, where each candidate not only offers a new approach but also represents completely different versions of America itself. Trump’s and Harris’s views are so different that it seems as if they are not choosing a new leader, but a new country. It is a choice between open global leadership and nationalistic isolation, between protecting allies and closing ourselves off behind our own borders.
Kamala Harris is the first woman and the first vice president of African-Asian descent, known for her progressive policies and willingness to maintain stability in global alliances. Her stance on Ukraine is clear: support in the fight against Russia is not just a gesture of solidarity, but a strategic necessity. Harris sees this as the key to stability in Europe, and thus to the world order. Under her programme, the administration plans to not only maintain but also increase military assistance to Ukraine, invest in intelligence to provide Ukraine with more accurate information, and deepen sanctions pressure on Moscow.
For many Ukrainians, Harris has become a symbol of a reliable partnership. Her rhetoric is confident and focused: The US must remain part of a global alliance where every ally plays an important role. She emphasises the importance of NATO, cohesion with Europe, and the preservation of international treaties, which she believes are the main obstacle to authoritarian states. However, Harris is perceived by many as a technocrat, overly cautious and diplomatic. Her rhetoric is logical and structured, but lacks the charismatic spark that voters often expect from politicians. It is the voice of an intelligent analyst, a professional consultant, but not an inspiring leader. Harris is like a representative of a ‘calm America’ – bureaucratic, cautious, and reasonable. Although her policies are safe and logical, they are boring. And although her reliance on the image of Trump’s antipode looks logical, she has not created a unique image for herself. To voters already wary of Trump, Harris could have offered something new and distinctive, but her merger with the Biden administration’s image has negated that effort.
Harris supports a new wave of sanctions, seeks to cut off all avenues of funding for the Russian regime, and actively encourages other countries to strengthen their own sanctions regimes. For Ukraine, Harris’s victory is an opportunity for reliable assistance that will strengthen its defence, financing, and allow the country to plan the next steps in its struggle.
On the other side of the political spectrum is Donald Trump. The former president is the embodiment of the America the world is used to seeing on posters and caricatures. Loud, straightforward, bright, he re-enters the arena under his iconic slogan ‘America First’. It combines the image of both the desperate Uncle Sam and the archetypal ‘backwoods American’ as depicted in the 1930s in the books of Ilf and Petrov. This image is the strength of America, which has been criticised for its aggressive individualism, outdated views and excessive straightforwardness. But for many, this image is attractive because Trump is not afraid to challenge political correctness and standardised expectations.
His campaign is reminiscent of a brightly coloured poster that reads ‘Come Home’, and his promises to focus on domestic issues resonate with many Americans who are tired of constant international conflicts. For Trump, aid to Ukraine is an ‘unnecessary burden’ on the budget, and his call for more responsibility to be transferred to Europe is a reflection of his policy of building walls around America. At the same time, he remains so outspoken in his positions that it is frightening and reassuring at the same time: yes, he does not look beyond the US, but this also means a move away from active participation in global politics.
Trump has a controversial reputation in Eastern Europe, but his influence on the international stage cannot be overstated. He is willing to abandon the quick support of NATO, and his stance on allies is unpredictable. His personal sympathy for Putin and his tough stance on NATO allies make European countries worried: a Trump victory could allow Russia to regain influence and feel less pressure, while Ukraine risks being left alone in the fight against the enemy.
How the US election is going – the fight for every vote and the threat of unrest
The 2024 US presidential election is not just a contest between two candidates. This year, Americans are deciding which direction the country will take, and the outcome could affect the global order. Although citizens vote directly, the election of the president depends on a complex system that involves the electoral college. It is an integral part of the American political system, which preserves the tradition of balancing the interests of the states.
The electoral college consists of 538 members, and a candidate must win the support of at least 270 of them to be elected. The number of electors in each state depends on its population, and most states give all their votes to the electors representing the winning candidate in that state. This means that the votes of citizens turn into an ‘inherited’ result in the form of electoral support.
Particular attention is paid to the ‘swing states’, where the level of competition between Republicans and Democrats is traditionally high. This year, states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada are becoming a fiercely contested field where every vote can determine the winner. And while other states have long been ‘fixed’ for Democrats (blue states) or Republicans (red states), the outcome in swing states is impossible to predict in advance. These are the states that become the decisive factor for victory, as even a small margin of a few votes can change the outcome for the entire state, and thus affect the election results.
The fact that these elections in the US are being held in an atmosphere of unpredictability that the country has not experienced for many years is also significant. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck going into the election day, with opinion polls showing a minimal gap between the candidates. This not only exacerbates political tensions, but also forces analysts around the world to refrain from making any predictions.
Firstly, the outcome of this election is largely dependent on swing states, where support is divided almost equally between the two candidates. States such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin are crucial to the final outcome. In each of them, the fight is so fierce that even a small margin of a few thousand votes can determine who will receive the electoral votes.
Second, both candidates have high and almost equal support among voters. This polarisation raises serious doubts that either candidate will win a landslide victory. Given the experience of the last election, when the vote count was delayed for several days, there is no guarantee that the winner will be determined immediately.
After the 2020 election took several days to count, there is growing concern in the US about possible unrest. In the previous election, when Joseph Biden defeated Donald Trump, the latter refused to accept the results and his supporters stormed the Capitol. Now, in 2024, tensions have risen to a critical level with Trump saying he is not ready to accept Harris’ victory. Harris, in contrast, has already stressed that she will recognise the election results in order to maintain civil peace.
More than 20 US states, including Washington, are now preparing for potential protests. The security measures in place include the installation of metal fences around vote-counting buildings, especially in cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix. For example, in Michigan, the capital city of Detroit has already stepped up security measures with metal detectors and fences, and is also preparing for possible protests. Concerns are so great that some schools and churches that were previously used as polling stations have decided not to provide space this year because they fear violence.
In addition, governors, such as Joe Lombardo in Nevada, are already calling in the National Guard to respond quickly to possible disturbances. Barricades have been set up in downtown Phoenix, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department is preparing to use the latest equipment, including drones and snipers, to monitor activity. This level of mobilisation demonstrates the seriousness of the situation.
Given the mood and memories of the events of 6 January 2021, when Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, this year the federal government and individual states have developed plans for mass unrest. Washington is preparing additional National Guard support to protect government buildings, although a formal request from the District of Columbia has not yet been made. The National Guard Bureau believes that this support may be needed in the coming weeks, especially during the certification of the election results by Congress or before the inauguration of the new president.
In the event of a protracted vote count or litigation, the US could find itself in a state of political crisis, with both sides accusing the other of fraud. This unpredictability essentially leaves the country without a clear leader, which is especially dangerous in a time of global instability.
So, regardless of who becomes the 47th president, this election has already become one of the most polarising in US history.
Can the US election bring the end of the war and the longed-for peace in the country closer?
Voting is well underway in the US, but for Ukraine, this is not just a political event across the pond. This is an issue that matters to every Ukrainian who waits for news from the frontline every day and hopes for the end of this war. Whoever becomes the next president of the United States, his or her position on the Russian-Ukrainian war will be one of the decisive factors in the issue of peace for Ukraine. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offer two different paths to the future, and only one of them has the potential to bring peace to Ukraine on favourable terms.
From the very beginning of her political campaign, Harris emphasised that strategic support for Ukraine is not only necessary, but also a path to peace. Her concept is that sustained military and financial support for Ukraine will force Russia to the negotiating table, but on Kyiv’s terms. Harris and her team are convinced that only through consistent pressure can the Kremlin be forced to make concessions, including withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories.
Support for air defence, the supply of precision missile systems, and funding to strengthen borders – all of these should remain a priority under Harris’s presidency. For Ukrainians, this means not only the ability to defend themselves, but also a chance for a counter-offensive that will bring victory closer and the possibility of negotiating on favourable terms. Today, analysts emphasise: The Kremlin is ready to make peace only when the pressure from Ukraine is unbearable. And this is exactly what the Harris administration is promising.
At the same time, Trump’s strategy for the war in Ukraine is a completely different philosophy. He has repeatedly stated that he would end the war immediately, that he wants to restore ‘normal’ relations with Russia and end ‘aid that drains America.’ His main interest is to reduce American spending on foreign conflicts. In one of his campaign speeches, he even stated that ‘Americans should not pay for other people’s wars’. This approach carries serious risks for Ukraine: Trump tends to see peace talks not as a tool to put pressure on Russia, but as a way to end the conflict quickly, even if it means concessions from Ukraine.
In such a scenario, peace may come, but on terms that will not suit the Ukrainian authorities at all. Trump may be willing to approve a treaty that leaves part of Ukrainian territory under Russian control in order to maintain ‘good relations with Putin’. For many Ukrainians, this sounds like a threat: the peace that Trump seeks may not mean the return of Crimea or Donbas, but rather their loss to Russia.
On the other hand, the war that has been going on for so many years has exhausted Ukrainians, so they want an immediate end to the war on any terms. Many are tired of constant anxiety, death, destruction and fear for the future. At a time when the majority of the population is living in a state of uncertainty, the desire for peace – any kind of peace, at any cost – is an understandable desire. Each new day of fighting means not only casualties at the front, but also a burden for those who stay at home, support the army, and live in a state of anxiety and sadness.
For many Ukrainians, peace is no longer associated with justice or victory, but has become synonymous with tranquillity and the opportunity to return to a life where they do not have to fear for their homes or families. When each new death seems to be an endless repetition of the tragedy, there is a desire to end it, even if it means losses. More casualties at the frontline, more destruction – all this makes people look for any way out, even if it means a difficult compromise.
Lessons from history: how the last US presidential election affected Ukraine
Over the decades, the United States has repeatedly decided whether to support Ukraine. And each new American president and his administration changed the terms of this support. Each choice of a leader in the United States has been a turning point for Ukraine’s future: from decisions on financial assistance to critical moments of military support and sanctions against Russia.
In 1994, Ukraine took a fateful step: it gave up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. Bill Clinton was then President of the United States, and it was under his administration that the Budapest Memorandum was signed, where the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s security in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons. Ukraine hoped that the United States would act as a shield against potential aggression. However, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, it became clear that the memorandum on paper did not mean protection in reality. This historical experience made many Ukrainians doubt the firmness of Western support, particularly from the United States.
In the early 2000s, George W. Bush actively supported democratic transformation in Eastern Europe. During his presidency, he spoke openly about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, and in 2008, during the NATO summit in Bucharest, his administration officially supported the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia’s membership in the Alliance. But it was all just declarations – membership never became a reality, and that is what left Ukraine in the dangerous ‘grey zone’ between East and West. Russia, realising that Ukraine had no real membership in NATO, began preparations for war. For many Ukrainians, Bush’s promises remain a painful memory of an unrealised opportunity for protection.
Barack Obama’s presidency has been a real test for Ukraine. In 2014, when Russia launched military operations in Donbas and annexed Crimea, the Obama administration’s response was restrained. Despite the sanctions imposed and statements of support, the US did not provide Ukraine with lethal weapons that were critically needed for defence. Obama hoped to deter Russia through diplomacy and believed that the involvement of American weapons could lead to a larger conflict. This decision was a sore point for the Ukrainian army, which was fighting with old equipment against heavily armed Russian separatists and the military. It was only later, when Obama took over, that the US Javelins finally appeared on the frontline, but for many, it was a bitter reminder of the lost support at a crucial time.
During the last presidency of Donald Trump, Ukraine was at the centre of a major political scandal. In 2019, the so-called ‘Ukrainegate’ erupted: Trump was accused of pressuring Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch an investigation into the son of his political rival Joe Biden. This scandal led to Trump’s impeachment in the House of Representatives, and Ukraine suddenly became a figure in US domestic political conflicts. Nevertheless, Trump did provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and sanctions against Russia remained in place, but his policy left Ukrainians in a state of uncertainty: they were always waiting for new drastic decisions that could change the direction of support.
With the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, the Joe Biden administration became an ally for Ukraine. Biden not only supported the imposition of sanctions against Russia, but also led the movement for the unity of Western countries in supporting Ukraine. Under his leadership, the US has provided billions of dollars in military aid, including advanced air defence systems and long-range missiles. His policy has continued to strengthen Ukraine as an outpost of democracy in Europe.
For the world, therefore, a Trump or Harris victory is more than a simple choice between two politicians. It is a determination of the path the global order will take in the coming years. At the same time, the US presidential election today has a significance for Ukraine that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. It is no longer just a change of political figure in Washington, but a potential change in the balance of power on the battlefield. Depending on who becomes the next US president, it will be clear how and when peace will come. History shows that American presidents and their policies have repeatedly changed the course of events in Ukraine. Now, America’s next choice once again puts Ukraine at a crossroads between peace and a prolonged military confrontation.
