US Elections 2024: “Trump is a terrible end, while Kamala is horror without end”

The visit may have shaken some support among Ukrainian Trump advocates. Trump’s comments — that all Ukrainian cities have been wiped out, the army is left with only children and the elderly, and Zelenskyy is solely focused on securing another bag of money from the US — are hard to interpret in any positive light.

A Ukrainian government official recently commented on the upcoming US presidential election, stating that the choice between President Harris and President Trump is like deciding between a "terrible end" and "horror without end." This sentiment highlights a key question on the minds of many Ukrainians: which candidate would be more beneficial to their country.

Despite President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to the US and interactions with both contenders, clarity on this matter remains elusive. Some Trump supporters may have been swayed by his remarks, which included claims that Ukrainian cities have been destroyed, leaving only children and elderly soldiers, and that Zelenskyy is preoccupied with obtaining US funds. Trump's proposed solution is for Ukraine to concede to Russia's demands, leading to an end to the war.

While Trump's specific plan for Ukraine is unclear, some hope that his impulsivity and unpredictability could ultimately benefit the country. They believe that Trump may surprise Putin with unexpected demands, provoking a backlash that could galvanize Trump and lead to Congress approving massive aid for Ukraine. However, this theory relies on too many contingencies to serve as a solid basis for expectations.

Regarding Kamala Harris, her stance is less clear. The general perception is that her victory would lead to a continuation of Joe Biden's policies, including those pertaining to Ukraine. Compared to her opponent, she appears to be more systematic and predictable, but this provides limited insight into her approach to foreign policy.

Several factors will influence Harris's handling of this area, including the individuals appointed to her administration, especially considering her minimal involvement in foreign policy throughout her political career. Some key figures in the Biden administration, with specific exceptions, will not be joining Harris's cabinet. Additionally, predicting a future president's actions based on their pre-presidential activities is a challenging endeavor, as Ukrainians know well with their current leader.

The official's assessment of a "terrible end" or "horror without end" stems from the belief that the US will inevitably withdraw from Ukraine, regardless of the election outcome.

The common argument that America has invested too heavily in Ukraine and is too deeply entrenched to abandon it now, due to a reluctance to lose its "investment," does not withstand practical scrutiny. The most striking example is Afghanistan, where Americans invested far more, in every sense of the word, and were much more deeply involved. Yet when the decision was made, the US withdrew, though the manner in which this was done is widely regarded as a major failure of the Biden administration.

The style of "withdrawal" from Ukraine under Trump and Harris would differ significantly. Trump may abruptly cut off all support, simply not raising the issue of a new aid package — assuming his attempt to broker "peace in 24 hours" predictably fails.

Harris, while less overtly isolationist, would prioritize domestic concerns, reducing US involvement in the war and shifting responsibility to Europeans.

However, the US will still aim to prevent Ukraine's complete defeat and the aggressors' military victory. Studies indicate that such an outcome would be unacceptable to most American voters, including Republicans, and would be seen as a clear humiliation for America on the international stage, bolstering its archenemies.

These same studies also reveal that the average American is largely indifferent to the precise location of Ukraine's eastern border or the flag flown over Donbas villages — matters that remain critically important to a vast majority of Ukrainians, according to sociological surveys.

Thus, pressure on Kyiv to accept a peace deal after the elections will likely increase. Ending the war while preserving Ukraine's independence — these conditions can be easily sold to both Democratic and Republican voters.

But not to Russia. Against the backdrop of numerous Western press articles discussing various formats for negotiations, peace, and ceasefire, former Washington Post editor Robert Kagan's column stands out for its remarkable sanity.

"As is so often the case, US foreign policy toward Ukraine has been driven by what Americans don’t want. They don’t want to wind up at war with Russia; they don’t want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on a seemingly unwinnable war; but they also don’t want to bear the guilt and shame of letting Ukraine lose, with all the humanitarian horrors and strategic problems that entails," writes Kagan.

The problem is that all Western advocates of peaceful resolution propose options that suit the West but do not satisfy the Kremlin. Whoever ends up in the White House will have to deal with Putin, who shows no signs of backing away from his outrageous demands. "We are not going to be rescued by a peace deal. Americans need to decide soon whether they are prepared to let Ukraine lose," concludes Kagan on a grim note.

Of course, this bleak scenario is not the only possible outcome. External conditions can shift rapidly. In about a year, the situation for Ukraine may become notably more favorable. For instance, a change in government in Germany could lead to a more decisive leadership after the next elections. If serious internal problems begin to escalate in the aggressor