Paths Magazine

January 10, 2025

By John McCormick

Even before the Russian Federation’s unjust and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in the Winter of 2022, NATO had pledged its full support to Ukraine under the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP). After the war began, at NATO’s 2024 summit, the commitment to Ukraine was reaffirmed under the Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine agreement, which declares that all of NATO’s members agree to contribute a minimum total of $43 billion to the Ukrainian cause, so far, the United States has provided over $90 billion under the Biden Administration, which has been a prominent advocate for Ukraine’s defense. The war in Ukraine has arguably become one of the Biden Administration’s most pressing issues, earning Biden a lower approval rating among Democrats and Republicans. Many far-right Republicans, including President-elect Donald J. Trump, have taken advantage of the widespread concern over the cost of Ukraine’s defense to better their political campaigns.  In his campaign, Mr. Trump took a hardline stance on Russia’s invasion, stating during his debate with President Biden that he’d “end the war on day one.” which, as the country watched, was wildly successful in influencing voter behavior. But given Trump’s history of making outlandish claims on the campaign trail, one might wonder if Trump’s agenda of slashing U.S. support for Ukraine should be taken seriously, if these claims are merely what Trump might call “concepts of a plan.” 

What are the new administration’s plans to end the war? Will it properly restore Ukrainian sovereignty of Crimea and other unlawfully seized lands?  Or will Trump follow through on his campaign promises? Many of these questions remain unanswered by Trump and members of his newly-formed cabinet. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has also expressed vocal criticism regarding American support for the Ukrainian people. During his 2022 senatorial race, Vance was quoted saying, “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.” A President-elect without a clear plan of action and a Vice President-elect without sympathy for the victims of invasion may prove to be a deadly combination for peace and stability in Eastern Europe. Given these statements, we ought to take Trump and Vance’s claims seriously, and as indicators of the future policy decisions of Trump 2.0, a concern highlighted by Trump’s declared intention to reinstate Schedule F. This provision would allow Trump to purge civil servants he deems disloyal more easily, and fostering “yes man attitudes” in the administration.

“I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

As for public support, the 2024 U.S. elections saw the public elect an increasingly Republican and increasingly MAGA House and Senate. Many right-wing politicians find their positions affected by populist Trumpism. As a result, these members of Congress will likely feel compelled to support Trump’s anti-Ukrainian policies to ensure their political viability. We can expect this legislature to support the popular demand in the Republican Party to reduce funding for Ukraine. Failure to support Trump’s agenda has led to job insecurity, most notably when Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy lost the speakership by work with Democrats to avert a government shutdown against MAGA wishes. McCarthy’s fall from power serves as a powerful lesson to lawmakers who may consider defying Trump. 

As the domestic forces affecting Trump 2.0 stand poised to abandon Ukraine it also seems unlikely that foreign influences could alter this course.  Pressure from our NATO allies, most of whom reside in Europe, is unlikely to succeed due to Trump’s uncooperative NATO position. During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to sideline NATO in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy. Trump has repeatedly shown his disregard for the NATO alliance, most notably when he said he would “encourage” Russia to attack member countries that don’t meet NATO’s defense spending obligations. Additionally, as a pact made to deter Soviet threats, the possibility of NATO’s strongest member capitulating to such Russian aggression signals discordance within the alliance, further weakening its collective influence. It’s clear that among NATO members, interests are split.  

We ought to take Trump’s promises about Ukraine seriously. Trump’s previous comments prove he holds a consistent isolationist position. His civil service is more likely to be comprised of “yes men.” The domestic political winds blow strongly toward a U.S. withdrawal while foreign pressures for otherwise look weak.  This discussion has gone beyond the point of hypotheticals; we should expect Trump 2.0 to bring about a radical change in U.S.-Ukraine policy, likely with a withdrawal of American support for Ukraine. The incoming Trump administration has the motivation, the means, and very little standing in its way. The era of an America-secured Europe is in steep decline, and Americans and Europeans alike must start paying attention.

John McCormick can be reached at mccormick2@kenyon.edu

---

---