Trump vs. Harris on the Ukraine War

As the 2024 U.S. Presidential election draws nearer, the two candidates’ differing approaches to the Ukraine War constitute a stark divide for American voters to evaluate. The policies of the two potential administrations clash on more viewpoints than one, including diplomatic relations, the timeframe required for their respective solutions to succeed, and the scope of U.S. aid. 

Kamala Harris says she “will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies,” in keeping with the Biden administration’s strategy. She proclaims her biggest concern to be continued Ukrainian sovereignty. She led the US delegation to the Ukraine Peace Summit in June, and met with President Zelenskyy six times post-2022. 

Harris plans to preserve military, economic, and humanitarian aid for Ukraine. To date, the US Department of State reports having provided over $61.3 billion in military assistance since the onset of the 2022 invasion. National security journalists Jack Detsch and Amy Mackinnon defended the Biden Administration’s Ukraine policy, arguing that the billions to Kyiv have managed to starve the Russian defense industry and rally support for Ukraine.

Critics have denounced the Biden administration’s lack of a clearly articulated vision for conflict resolution. Political commentator Ben Burgis argues that policy failure in Ukraine has stemmed from the Biden administration’s “default approach” of writing blank checks to its allies. Many foreign policy realists and non-interventionists, most notably realist political scientist John Measrsheimer, have argued that Russia’s invasion was partially instigated by the West’s encouraging Ukraine to join NATO. They tend to support cutting aid to Ukraine and seeking a ceasefire.

Liana Fix, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the US is loosely supporting Ukraine, providing just enough to stay in the war, but not enough to outright win. Fix concluded that “there’s not a real strategy for the war.” 

Though Biden has provided Ukraine with billions worth of military aid, he has also ordered the state to withhold strikes on Russian territory. Biden has held that Zelenskyy’s requests to use the US’s Army Tactical Missile Systems (ACTMS) would only further agitate Moscow and create a wider conflict. 

Former President Donald Trump intends on pursuing a vastly different approach to the conflict. He has touted his unique ability to end the war in a single day if elected, claiming in a Fox News interview that he would tell President Zelenskyy, “No more. You got to make a deal.” Trump claims he could use his relationship with Zelenskyy and Putin to negotiate a peace agreement within an incredibly short timeframe. He intends to pressure Kyiv by threatening to cut Ukrainian aid, thereby forcing the country into accepting a truce. 

Congressman Michael McCaul (R), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, agrees that continued aid will not mitigate violence in the region. McCaul believes that the U.S.’s military assistance to Ukraine has only prolonged Putin’s path of aggression, which in turn signals frailty to both allies and adversaries. 

Richard Grenell, a former Trump administration ambassador, has already proposed a peace deal which would create “autonomous zones” in Ukraine—a move which some analysts view as effectively  a loss for Ukraine.

Journalists Robert Wright and Anatol Lievin note that forced negotiation is a double-edged sword for Ukraine: either Ukraine accepts a peace proposal, after which the Kremlin would declare victory, or Ukraine does not take the deal, in which case Russia might be prompted to escalate further.

Edited by Idan Miller

Featured Image: “Kamala Harris met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy during MSC 2022” by The Office of the Vice President of the United States, published on February 19, 2022, is licensed under CC0.