Trump Won. What Happened, and What’s Next for Ukraine?
For the first time since Grover Cleveland’s return to the White House in 1893, Donald J. Trump has secured a second, non-consecutive term as President. In the days following the election, political analysts and pundits have scrambled to dissect the forces that led to this outcome, often through a partisan lens. Yet what remains indisputable is that his victory heralds a renewed embrace of the inward-looking, nativist policies that characterized his first administration, raising profound questions about the trajectory of U.S. leadership on the global stage. No less in the case of Ukraine, which for the last two years, has depended greatly on the backing of U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic assistance to defend itself from Russian aggression.
Understanding Trump’s return has, of late, been muddied by efforts of partisans to characterize the outcome as a validation of their existing preconceptions about the American electorate. For Trump’s surrogates, his win signifies the vitality of MAGA as a broadening ideological movement. His critics, conversely, see his win as an indication of endemic moral decay, bigotry, and sexism — or simply a failure of campaign strategy and messaging. To varying degrees, each of these characterizations may have some level of validity. However, it is unlikely that any single of these explanations were themselves determinative, as voting behavior among key undecided or independent voters often falls along more idiosyncratic rather than ideological lines. This can be seen where progressive state-level ballot initiatives on reproductive rights, minimum wage, and recreational cannabis have achieved notable successes—even as the Democratic Party posted its weakest national election performance in decades.
Where pundits’ search for answers in their election post-mortems have fallen short, a larger pattern among developed democracies may offer a clearer perspective. For the first time since at least 1950, incumbent parties across every developed democracy have ceded vote shares to opposition movements, forming what analysts have deemed a “graveyard of incumbents.” The Democratic Party now joins this trend, falling to political headwinds that have upended governing parties worldwide.
Via the Financial Times
Across the ideological spectrum, these incumbents have been bound by a shared circumstance: they governed through the post-COVID period marked by supply chain disruptions and persistent inflation. Irrespective of differing policy responses and political contexts, high prices have driven voters to rebuke those in power. Even as the Biden administration brought inflation close to the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, American voters appear nostalgic for pre-pandemic consumer prices under the Trump administration—despite the inflationary nature of many policies currently supported by the now President-elect.
It’s tempting to think that different choices—a sharper campaign message from Kamala Harris, more scrutiny of Trump’s controversies in the media, or an earlier Biden exit—might have tipped the scales. But the fate of incumbents worldwide suggests that these political headwinds may have been insurmountable for any message or messenger. The question now remains how Trump will wield his mandate, and how exhaustively he will pursue his more extreme and controversial ideas.
In the realm of foreign policy, the Russo-Ukrainian war has emerged as a key issue for Trump, and his approach is shaping to be a controversial detraction from the current administration. His diplomatic efforts began last week with a joint call that included Ukrainian President Zelensky and tech billionaire Elon Musk, with some (now disputed) reports suggesting he also held a recent, separate conversation with Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, further reporting has alleged that Musk—a major Trump donor—has maintained regular contact with Putin since late 2022, raising significant legal and national security concerns. Musk’s elevated role in Trump’s approach to Ukraine negotiations may signal an openness toward Russia’s negotiating position, though the administration’s true direction will emerge more clearly as the presidential transition proceeds.
Trump has long proclaimed his ability to end the war in Ukraine on “day one”, which however unlikely, reflects his irreverence for Ukraine as a key strategic interest of the United States. His self-image as a ‘master negotiator’ has remained omnipresent throughout his political career, especially on the international stage, where during his previous term, diplomatic agreements often favored appearance over actual substance. The Abraham Accords, the Doha Agreement, and the U.S.-North Korea Singapore Summit yielded limited substantive progress on peace or advancing U.S. interests yet offered symbolic victories that bolstered Trump’s standing with his political base. It would be naïve to expect that Trump’s absence of a defined “political philosophy or coherent policy outlook” in foreign affairs will not carry over into a second term, particularly when it comes to Ukraine.
As it is widely understood, the key to a sustainable peace in the Russo-Ukrainian war is the prospect of NATO accession for Ukraine, which now hangs in the balance. According to reports, Trump has signaled support for a deal to halt NATO expansion, specifically regarding Ukraine and Georgia, while proposing concessions on Ukraine’s 1991 borders as a basis to freeze the conflict. In September, Vice President-Elect Vance echoed this stance, advocating for the reintroduction of elements of the failed Minsk agreements, blocking Ukraine’s NATO accession, and ceding Crimea to Russia. Restricting NATO membership at an adversary’s demand would itself breach NATO’s Article 10 ‘open door’ policy. Such a move would leave Ukraine outside the alliance's collective defense shield under Article 5, effectively cementing its position as exposed and vulnerable to future Russian aggression.
President-elect Trump’s prospective Secretary of State appointee, Senator Marco Rubio, previously had spearheaded bipartisan legislation to prevent a future president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. While this may offer some reassurance that the president's chief foreign policy advisor recognizes NATO's significance to global peace and security, the legal safeguards are not absolute and do not prevent Trump from potentially undermining the alliance—at least for the duration of his term. It remains unclear how Rubio’s stance on NATO will align with Trump’s view of the alliance as “obsolete.” However, all indications suggest that NATO cooperation and Ukraine’s prospects within the organization are likely to be low priorities for the incoming administration.
As the presidential transition advances, Trump’s approach to Ukraine will likely come into sharper focus—not necessarily through formal policy statements, but through his appointments to key foreign policy and national security roles. With a narrowed field of mostly loyalist candidates due to high turnover in his prior administration, there are concerns that a final Trump term could lack the tempering influence of experienced institutionalists. Whatever the trajectory in Washington, Ukraine’s European allies must step up to guard against the worst outcomes. Sustainable peace in Europe hinges on Ukraine’s economic and security integration with the West, making it essential that European partners pursue this goal—even if U.S. leadership on the issue proves less robust.
