Basically, Russia's military aggression in Ukraine is not among the top topics in American society, but as the presidential election approaches, it seems to be "setting the rug on fire" of the two candidates - Kamala Harris and especially Donald Trump. First there was the 9/11 debate, in which Harris and Trump exchanged scathing remarks about the conflict as well. Then came the second assassination attempt against Trump, where the "Ukraine" was again involved, although not officially stated as a motive. And it got to the point where the Republican candidate accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he "wants the Democrats to win the US elections in 2024".
It was also clear before that the Ukrainian cause also strongly depends on the outcome of the upcoming presidential elections in the USA - especially since the European allies of Kiev voluntarily cede "the leading role of Washington" in international military aid. Now, however, a reverse process is beginning to be noticed - the outcome of the November 5 elections will depend, if not on the events on the front line, then at least on the stated intentions of the two candidates for the White House in this direction. How decisive the second trend is, only those very familiar with the American electoral specifics can say - at that, state by state. But the first one - what would happen to Ukraine under US President Kamala Harris or Donald Trump - is worth thinking about.
Donald Trump's main point regarding the war in Ukraine is that it (the war) has to stop and he knows how to do it. And that the war started in the first place because Joe Biden doesn't know how to talk to Vladimir Putin (unlike Trump himself, of course). This sounds so good it can't be real. Or rather, it could be accomplished, but the results would be far from desirable. Yes, Trump can talk to Putin and Zelensky and convince them to reach a truce, but it will take into account the current "frontline realities", at most with some concessions from Russia because of the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk. But significant territories of pre-war Ukraine remain in Russian hands. Which may be OK for Trump and his supporters, but not good for Ukraine or Europe. As I have emphasized before, the maximum the West can accept as Ukrainian concessions without looking humiliated is Crimea.
When Trump tells American voters "I want the war to stop", he may mean "I want the war to stop bothering us (us, American citizens)". Which, at first reading, sounds discouraging, but in the medium and long term it may also prove to be sobering for Europe. Let's not forget that as president, Donald Trump quite a lot of "pushing" the European NATO countries to undertake more serious defense commitments.
Or it could just be that the candidate for a second term in the White House is telling the audience what they want to hear. And to say completely different things to the allied leaders, to Zelensky, to Putin...
For her part, Kamala Harris is definitely looking to impress pro-Ukraine voters. And at first glance, the "more profitable" for Europe candidate, at least as far as aid to Ukraine is concerned. If Trump were now president of the United States, "Putin would be sitting in Kiev looking at the rest of Europe," Harris says. Maybe. And what did she do at the same time as Joe Biden's vice, who in the first hours of Russian aggression declared that the US would not intervene? And soon after that, the Russian tanks were already in the suburbs of Kyiv...
Yes, in the mandate "Biden-Harris" the American share of international aid to Ukraine is decisive, but the aid itself is enough to hold the front in positions already conquered by Russia. Of course, the blame for this lies more with Europe than with the US, but where are the guarantees that Kamala Harris will be able to motivate the European allies to give themselves more light? Or that the United States itself will make up for the European shortfall?
And doesn't it turn out that with regard to the war in Ukraine, the election for the 47th president of the United States is a choice between a "terrible end" (Trump) and "horrors without end" (Harris)?
Of course, of the two candidates, Kamala Harris definitely seems more concerned about Ukraine, and by extension, Europe. And at such a time, planning a second assassination attempt against Donald Trump seems illogical when the bomber sympathizes with Ukraine. For the simple reason that, unlike the first attempt, Trump has already nominated his VP candidate in the person of JD Vance. Who is even more skeptical of the need for the US to help Ukraine militarily. In the event that the assassination attempt on Trump succeeds, it effectively paves Vance's path to the White House. And so far with the military aid. It is no coincidence that the official authorities in Kiev do not even want to invent any connection with the bomber, and in the White House they were "relieved" that Trump was safe - otherwise Harris's fragile lead (according to polls) was going damn...
If Kamala Harris becomes US president, US military aid to Ukraine can be expected to be continued and even increased. And one day, the Ukrainian army may be able to push out the Russian aggressors. Meanwhile, European military dependence on the US has become even greater. History so far indicates that parallel to American military involvement in Europe, Europe's dependence on the US is also increasing.
If Donald Trump becomes the president of the USA again, we can expect an increase in diplomatic pressure to conclude peace between Russia and Ukraine. Putin would hardly mind, he already hinted at the end of May that he was ready for a truce on the current front lines. The bigger question is how Zelensky will "sell" that of his compatriots. Yes, he is a good actor, but still... And Europe will have to choose between shame and the mobilization of its military industry. From what I've seen so far, I'm really afraid of what the European leadership will choose.
Perhaps the optimal scenario for us is some combination between the two described. Which is not absolutely impossible given the "balancing" role of the US Congress. But we should not forget that the election of the US president affects much larger processes in the world than a military conflict. And the war in Ukraine can "ignite" for a month or two the American presidential candidate campaign, but the consequences of the result on November 5 will be "burning" whole 4 years. All over the world.