For Ukraine, the year 2024 will be more decisive and turbulent than the previous one. Support from the United States is an integral part of further developments in the Russian-Ukrainian war. Further stability in this area will be determined by the US presidential election scheduled for November this year. There are two key candidates running for the presidency: the incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden and his opponent, Republican Donald Trump. The latter is openly opposed to providing financial assistance to Ukraine. Instead, data from The Economist on 21 March shows that, according to opinion polls, Biden is ahead of Trump for the first time since August last year. Thus, the current president is gaining one per cent more than Trump. On average, the current US president’s figures are 45 per cent compared to 44 per cent for his predecessor.
In an interview with Komersant ukrainskyi Vladyslav Faraponov, head of the Institute of American Studies and analyst at Internews Ukraine, told what Ukrainians should expect from the US this year and whether Trump would be the “worst case scenario” for Ukraine if the Republicans triumph.
“There have already been three Trumps. No one has seen President Trump-2024 yet”
Vladyslav, we are seeing two powerful and reputable politicians competing for the presidency. Is it possible to predict who will win this race and the struggle for the sympathy and affection of the majority of Americans?
It’s too early to say, even if we start analysing sociological data. The polls include candidates who will definitely not run. So for now, we need to look at the primaries, not the general election. Right now, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have a good chance of getting the nomination – that is, winning the primaries. The general election is a separate, still unknown story that will become clear around the end of July or beginning of August. That’s when we can look at the polls or the so-called general election. Until July, it is worth watching the party nominations – that is, who dominates, who becomes a candidate, and so on.
It’s too early to say who will ultimately win.
Is Trump really as bad a scenario for Ukraine as many people used to think?
This is a difficult question. However, it is incorrect to say or think that the President of the United States, or a candidate for the presidency of the United States, can be the worst option. Our two countries have a long history of relations, of serious assistance and support. Many people believe, on the contrary, that it was under Trump that Ukraine received lethal weapons – this is true. However, Trump in 2020, Trump in 2016, and Trump in 2024 are three different people. What the 2024 version will be like is not entirely clear. On the one hand, he says he wants to end the war. On the other hand, he says that aid should be provided on credit. It’s too opposite rhetoric to understand and predict actions. Perhaps we don’t need to predict, we need to work and treat all candidates equally.
It is clear that when there is an existing level of cooperation over the past 2 years, there is a risk that it will decrease. But this is normal. It also works in European countries. But you have to understand that not everything in the United States depends on one person. And Trump realised this during his presidency. If he becomes president, he will again face a problem and a system called the “system of checks and balances”. That is, the influence of Congress – it is not clear what its composition will be. After all, both houses of Congress are elected, the Senate is renewed by a third, and the House of Representatives is fully re-elected. Therefore, a lot will also depend on Congress and who controls both Houses. And, in fact, then we can talk about whether Trump is the best or worst case scenario.
Donald Trump said that he “could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours”. How do you think he could do that?
Of course, this is an element of pre-election populism. It is difficult to end a war that has been going on for years in 24 hours. It’s impossible to end it all at once because Russia declares that it wants peace, but in fact it doesn’t, and so on. But Trump hopes that such rhetoric will allow him to attract the attention of Republicans who do not understand all the complexities and subtleties, and thus turn them from Biden’s opponents into his supporters. It looks something like this. At pre-election meetings with Trump, he is asked a lot of questions: “So you will help Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars?”. He says: “No. We need to end the war altogether. Weneed Ukraine to take money on credit.” And of course, this is pure populism. Because there are no complicated mechanisms being discussed here, but simply: “So you’re in favour of the Americans having more? ” Trump says: “Of course, of course, that’s what I’m for.” In fact, as long as there is no concrete plan from him, I would not take this initiative too seriously. It looks more like an attempt to capture the audience.
Back to the policy of the current US president. Do you see any “gaps” in Joe Biden’s administration, let’s call them? By the way, The Guardian wrote that Americans believe that he is not coping well with economic problems. Is this true, in your opinion, and can it affect his success in this campaign?
The phenomenon of a few years after the pandemic is that Americans have started spending as much as before, and sometimes even more. But at the same time, they say in polls that the economy is not growing because there are natural processes, such as inflation, for example, and so on. In fact, it’s a kind of paradox that formally or nominally, economic indicators are growing, but not so fast that people feel it and say so in polls. This is why there is such a diametrically opposed view of the economy and how it can be interpreted. In polls, Republicans are the worst at speaking about the state of the economy, which is understandable, of course, because the president is a Democrat in the White House.
“Trump will not be able to cancel the security agreement with the US”
At his latest press conference on 25 February, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Ukraine’s security agreement with the US would have specifics on the allocation of funds, which Kyiv insisted on amid challenges for the US. His direct statement read as follows: “We have some steps – these are security guarantees. There are very serious specifics about the money. We insisted on these specifics for a reason, because we see challenges in the United States. But I hope that the US will remain the leader of democracy in the world.”
That is, if this agreement is signed during the term of President Joe Biden, it will be legally binding. But it is known that Trump’s rhetoric is to reduce aid to Ukraine. The question arises: if Trump becomes the leader, can he create ‘artificial circumstances’ to block these initiatives?
Well, actually, Trump will not have such mechanisms. That is, if this agreement is signed, and if it is suddenly ratified in both parliaments, that is, in the Congress and in the Verkhovna Rada, then it will be a point of no return. That is, the point of these security agreements is that they make support for Ukraine not a theorem that needs to be constantly proved to the new Congress, the new administration, and so on. This is an axiom that must be taken into account. Here, Trump will have almost no mechanisms to reverse it. And this is one of the reasons, I think, why Ukraine insists on this format of cooperation with the United States.
The US House of Representatives went on recess on 15 February, which lasted until 28 February. At that time, Speaker Mike Johnson did not put the bill on aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to a vote, citing "other priorities". The White House said that Johnson was "harming US national security and such a move would only exacerbate the problems". And US President Joe Biden himself wrote on the social network X: "The failure to support Ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten."
On Tuesday, 27 February, Joe Biden met with House Speaker Mike Johnson and a number of senior lawmakers at the White House. The talks focused, among other things, on providing assistance to Ukraine. Will this meeting move the issue of aid forward?
The first thing that really catches the eye is that both sides went to the press. There is already a reaction from the US media to this. This was not just a meeting between the Speaker of the House and the President. It was a meeting of, in fact, a key part of the administration, because Vice President Kamala Harris and other members of the administration were present, for example. Among the Republicans at the briefing were, in particular, the heads of several committees. So, in fact, the meeting was more inclusive. And this suggests that there is a real problem. Because it has been discussed for six months. But the fact that so many people, who are very busy and very ambitious, have found an opportunity to talk is encouraging. Because before that, they had not spoken so directly for a long time. And the House of Representatives was on holiday for two weeks. If you recall Joe Biden’s speech after Navalny’s death, he accused Speaker Johnson of sending the representatives on holiday. That is, they have a very difficult relationship. And the parties recognise this.
However, I think it is still too early to say that these relations have reached a dead end. Because this is a difficult election year, difficult political circumstances, political negotiations. Part of these negotiations was the replacement of the speaker of the Republicans, who control the lower house of Congress. That is why it is so difficult. But again, the fact that the parties did meet, as of now, before the House representatives come out of recess, is encouraging. After all, there is already a vote on this draft law. It has already passed one house of Congress. We need a vote in both houses so that the president can sign the bill.
In order for the bill to be voted on in both chambers, it needs to be put to a vote, which is not being done by House Speaker Mike Johnson. We can see that members of the US Democratic Party are now ready to support the idea of providing aid to Ukraine on credit. The Hill writes that "this is necessary to break the deadlock". Similarly, Politico reported that Republicans are seriously considering a loan to Ukraine.
In his latest statements, Johnson promises not to delay consideration of aid to US allies. But such words have been said before. So, what could influence his position?
There are several options here. The first is the introduction of a new initiative that would meet the demands of the far right, in particular the Republicans, and whose opinion Johnson must listen to: on border management, on the so-called migration rules. The Democrats have already offered a fairly compromise version, but Johnson insists that they need to make even more concessions, and so on. In other words, they are trying to get a better negotiating position. Another option is to pass the existing bill and then consider changes to the migration rules again, separately. That is, in fact, what the Biden administration proposed. For some reason, the Republicans decided that the White House would not want to talk to their fellow party members in Congress about the fact that in the months leading up to the election, the border management initiative could be supported. The Republicans jumped at this opportunity to push everything through in one bill. And as a result, it has been discussed for six months and has been advanced to one vote in one of the Houses of Congress.
Interview with Yelyzaveta Nesvit