Donald Trump’s election in 2024 signals a geopolitical shift that could put at risk Ukraine’s sovereignty and embolden Russian aggression. His administration’s ties to the Kremlin, history of transactional diplomacy and promises of isolationism might bring devastating consequences for Ukraine, Europe and the global community.
Trump’s Election Celebrated in Russia
Trump’s victory in 2024 has been met with celebratory remarks by Russian officials and ideologues.
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev directly tied Trump’s election to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. He posted on X, “Kamala is finished…Let her keep cackling infectiously. The objectives of the Special Military Operation remain unchanged and will be achieved.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Trump during his speech at an economic forum and expressed his willingness to engage in dialogue. He said, “What has been said about [Trump’s] desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion, deserves at least attention.”
Putin also referenced an assassination attempt on Trump—a statement that, in the context of Kremlin modus operandi, means a veiled threat. Putin’s aide Nikolai Patrushev, in an interview with a major Russian publication, followed up with a remark that Trump “relied on certain forces to which he has obligations” and would be “responsible to fulfill them.”
When asked about the consequences of Trump failing to meet these obligations, Patrushev ominously noted, “Four U.S. presidents died at the hands of assassins while in office.”
Russian philosopher Alexandr Dugin, often referred to as “Putin’s brain,” declared, “So we have won. That is decisive. The world will be never ever like before. Globalists have lost their final combat. The future is finally open. I am really happy.”
Foreign Influence and Trump’s Administration Picks
Trump’s first administration appointments raise further concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy as the composition of his future team reflects a broader alignment with Russian interests. For instance, Susie Wiles, Trump’s announced appointment for chief of staff, has a complex history entwined with foreign influence.
Before leading Trump’s 2024 campaign, Wiles co-chaired a lobbying firm representing sanctioned Russian oligarchs and companies tied to the Kremlin. Her ex-husband has connections to a Russian lobbyist linked to the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has been a frequent favorite on Russian state media. She opposed sanctions against Russia and suggested that Ukraine should abandon its NATO aspirations. Her controversial 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Russia, raised eyebrows about her foreign policy stance.
Bypassing traditional vetting processes and background checks raises major concerns for national security while these picks signal a pivot toward policies that could benefit Russia at the expense of U.S. allies—and Ukraine.
Trump’s History with Ukraine
In 2019, Trump faced impeachment for withholding a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine. The aid, mandated by Congress, was blocked as Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden and a debunked theory about Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election. When a whistleblower complained about these actions, the aid was released.
The House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Although the Senate acquitted him, the Government Accountability Office later concluded that withholding the aid violated federal law.
In December 2023, all 49 Republican senators blocked an emergency appropriations bill that included $61 billion in aid to Ukraine amid the Russian full-scale invasion. The package also encompassed funding for Israel, Taiwan and U.S. border security. President Biden accused Republicans of holding Ukraine aid “hostage.”
Anticipated Policies under Trump 2025
In 2025, under Trump’s leadership, U.S. policy toward Ukraine will likely shift dramatically, prioritizing a so-called peace deal that would cement Russia’s illegal territorial claims and undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Reports suggest Trump’s advisers are considering a plan to freeze the 1,300-kilometer front line in Ukraine, creating a demilitarized zone while imposing a 20-year moratorium on Ukraine’s NATO membership. This proposal would pressure Ukraine to negotiate under coercion, with the U.S. threatening to cut military aid entirely.
In exchange, Washington might promise weapons to deter future aggression—a hollow guarantee given Russia’s consistent disregard for international agreements. These measures would grant Putin time to regroup while leaving Ukraine vulnerable to future invasions.
Beyond this deal, Trump could lift sanctions imposed after the annexation of Crimea and return billions in frozen Russian assets. In 2017, Trump reportedly sought to ease sanctions on Russia but was constrained by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which Congress passed overwhelmingly in response to Russian election interference, aggression in Ukraine and cyber activities.
CAATSA codified existing sanctions, imposed new ones and limited the President’s authority to lift them without Congressional approval. Trump reluctantly signed the bill, criticizing its constraints on executive power. With a Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives, he might now face fewer obstacles in fulfilling this agenda. The removal of sanctions would provide Russia with economic relief, fueling its military ambitions.
Ukraine: Between Two Evils
In case the Russia appeasement plan succeeds, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians trapped in occupied territories would face the erasure of identity through bans on the Ukrainian language and cultural heritage, forced adoption of Russian citizenship and indoctrination through militarized education for children.
Politically, Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership would falter, leaving the country vulnerable to future aggression. Economically, the lack of international investment and aid would further isolate Ukraine from global markets, reducing its capacity to rebuild and contributing to regional instability.
Another overlooked issue is Russia’s forced conscription of Ukrainian men in occupied territories. This practice not only violates international laws and human rights but also strengthens Russia’s military by coercing Ukrainians to serve. According to Russian state media and officials, these efforts align with Moscow’s openly stated ambition to march “on Berlin.”
In 2014, the slogan “Today Crimea, tomorrow Rome,” linked to Russia’s concept of the “Third Rome,” emerged during the annexation of Crimea. This phrase reflects Russia’s historical narrative of Moscow as the successor to the Roman and Byzantine empires, reinforcing expansionist ambitions under the guise of protecting Orthodox Christianity.
If Ukraine persists and turns down “the deal,” the withdrawal of U.S. military and financial aid would have catastrophic implications. Without sustained support, critical infrastructure in Ukraine-controlled territories, already damaged by relentless Russian attacks, would remain in disrepair, crippling the economy. Reparations for the destruction caused by Russia’s invasion would become unattainable.
Russian Strategy Ahead of Anticipated “Peace Deal”
Russia aims to maximize territorial gains in the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions before Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, inauguration to strengthen its position for anticipated negotiations, leveraging territories it has formally declared as part of the Russian Federation through disputed referendums and a constitutional decree signed by Putin.
Russian forces have advanced in the Donbas region, sustaining massive casualties but seizing more territory in a recent week than at any prior 2024 period. Russia is targeting the Zaporizhzhia region with artillery, aerial-guided bombs and might open a new front in this direction. In the Kherson region, the Russian military has intensified assaults, unsuccessfully attempting to regain the islands in the Dnipro River.
The Russian army is also seeking to regain the lost territory in the Ukraine-controlled Kursk region, where Ukraine’s August offensive captured 1,000 square kilometers. Russia has since mobilized 50,000 troops, including North Koreans, and reclaimed half of the territory.
Russia continues its strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as nightly Iranian-made Shahed drone attacks in the Odesa, Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy regions; aerial bombings in Kharkiv; and escalated “human safari” tactics in the Kherson and Dnipropetrovsk regions, targeting civilians to destabilize the economy and erode morale.
Call for Countermeasures
The Biden administration should take proactive steps before Trump’s inauguration to safeguard Ukraine and maintain international stability. The Biden administration should accelerate weapons deliveries to Ukraine, ensuring it has the resources to defend itself against Russian aggression. This includes providing advanced long-range systems, enabling Ukraine to strike military targets within Russian territory.
The window for decisive action is narrow. The Biden administration and its allies must act swiftly to empower Ukraine and prepare for a geopolitical landscape reshaped by Trump’s return to the White House. Delay could embolden Russia, undermine democratic institutions and destabilize the global order.
Global Instability
With the U.S. position changing, European nations need to increase military spending, coordinate defense strategies and ensure the continuity of support for Ukraine. The European Union should also take the lead in imposing additional sanctions on Russia and addressing loopholes that allow Moscow to evade existing measures.
However, European internal challenges complicate such responses. Political instability in Germany, economic pressures and migration crises strain European unity. Without a cohesive and robust strategy, Europe might struggle to provide the military and financial aid Ukraine needs to defend itself. Strengthening alliances with countries such as Japan, South Korea and Australia could counterbalance the vacuum left by potential U.S. policy shifts under Trump.
The ripple effects of U.S. disengagement could extend far beyond Europe. Iran’s regional ambitions, bolstered by decreasing U.S. influence, could escalate tensions in the Middle East. China’s assertive foreign policy, coupled with growing ties to Russia, poses a direct challenge to the international order. Russia’s alliances with states like North Korea and its influence in Africa could further destabilize global geopolitics.
Conclusion
Trump’s history of leveraging Ukraine’s vulnerabilities for personal or political advantage, coupled with GOP resistance to providing critical support, risks destabilizing not only Ukraine but also emboldening authoritarian regimes worldwide.
*****Zarina Zabrisky is an American journalist and an award-winning novelist currently reporting on the Russian war in Ukraine. She is a war correspondent for Bywire News (UK); writes a Daily Review column for Euromaidan Press, an online Ukrainian English-language independent newspaper since 2014; and contributes articles and podcasts on information warfare, reports from the sites and interviews military experts and eyewitnesses for these and other publications, including The Byline Times (UK) (UK) and the Community Alliance newspaper (Fresno).
