-Analysis-
PARIS —The ABC reporter asked Donald Trump twice: “Do you want Ukraine to win?” On both occasions, the Republican candidate dodged the question and refused to answer. It was one of the most immediately significant moments of the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, as it had repercussions thousands of miles away from the Philadelphia debate floor: on the Ukrainian frontline in its war against the invading Russian army.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Yes, we already knew it, but Trump’s non-response confirms an important fact: nothing will happen on the diplomatic front between now and November 5, the date of the American election.
Vladimir Putin has no reason to curb his attacks on Ukraine if he thinks that a Trump victory could change the game in his favor. The Republican candidate was particularly reluctant to continue U.S. aid to Ukraine, and raised the specter of “World War III,” with nuclear weapons to boot. His vice-presidential choice, JD Vance, is even more radical: he has declared that he is “indifferent” to Ukraine’s fate.
High stakes
The first consequence of these positions is that the war will remain high-intensity for nearly two months until the American vote. Ukraine is still occupying part of Russia’s Kursk region, and has carried out drone raids as far as Moscow; while the Russians are carrying out their most intense bombardment of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, promising that country a terrible winter.
These two months are crucial for defining the balance of power. Ukraine is trying to redress the balance after a very difficult start to the year: its advance into Russian territory has contributed to this, but at the same time it is losing ground in the Donbas.
The role of armaments is crucial. On Wednesday, just after the American debate wrapped up, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his British counterpart David Lammy arrived in Kyiv. At the heart of the discussions: NATO-supplied weapons and their use.
Balance of power
This of course refers to the authorization to strike Russian territory with U.S. and UK arms, because this is the new step that has been under discussion for weeks.
Kyiv must establish a balance of power before negotiations, which everyone now considers inevitable
Kyiv is pressing for it: “Ukraine has a vital need to use available weapons against legitimate targets on Russian territory, without hindrance”, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha declared on Wednesday. And it’s likely that the green light will eventually come, despite Western hesitations.
The aim is to enable Kyiv to establish a balance of power before negotiations, which everyone now considers inevitable. The ABC journalist’s question to Donald Trump lacked a key element: what does “Ukrainian victory” mean? Does it mean defeating the Russian army, which few reasonable observers consider possible? Or is it about negotiating an honorable way out that guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty, which many are encouraging as a way of ending the bloodshed.
Meanwhile, Ukraine provided Kamala Harris with one of her best punchlines of the debate: “If Trump had been president,” she said “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe.” As you can see, the war is being waged as much at the American ballot box as the trenches of the Donbas.
