Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain
As Europe braces for President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, questions loom over its impact on the war in Ukraine and NATO’s future. Nearly three years on, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains the most significant challenge to transatlantic security since World War II.
The year 2024 proved pivotal for the conflict. Russia secured minor territorial gains in Ukraine but paid a steep price. As it ramped up airstrikes on Ukrainian cities. Ukraine responded with bold moves, including an incursion into Russia’s Kursk Oblast and advancing weapons capable of hitting deep inside Russian territory. In a dramatic twist, North Korean ground forces entered the fray on Russia’s side, escalating tensions further.
These developments have underscored the complexity of the war and its far-reaching consequences. With Trump soon to return to office, Europe must tackle shifting dynamics that could redefine its approach to the conflict and test NATO’s resolve in safeguarding transatlantic stability. After Ukraine’s underwhelming counteroffensive in 2023, expectations for any major breakthrough in 2024 were notably tempered. The narrative among Kyiv’s Western allies shifted to a longer-term strategy: rearming, restructuring, and training the Ukrainian military for a potential counteroffensive in 2025.
However, this plan faced significant setbacks, with political gridlock in Congress that delayed critical military aid for months. By early 2024, Ukraine was grappling with dire shortages of air defense missiles, artillery shells, and basic ammunition for its front-line troops. When American aid finally arrived in March, it came just as Ukraine faced mounting pressure from small yet strategically important Russian advances, particularly in the Donetsk region. Nevertheless, bolstered by the much-needed support, Ukraine launched an audacious counteroffensive into Russia’s Kursk Oblast, which showcased Ukraine’s ability to succeed when adequately equipped. The capture of Russian territory reshaped the strategic calculus. Any future peace talks are now unlikely to freeze the front lines at their current positions. Moreover, Ukraine’s maneuver compelled Moscow to divert troops and resources to defend Kursk, alleviating pressure on other critical fronts. This operation not only signaled Kyiv’s resilience but also demonstrated the enduring importance of sustained Western support.
Ukraine also faced diplomatic setbacks during NATO’s landmark 75th-anniversary summit in Washington this July. Expectations were high that the alliance would outline a definitive path for Ukraine’s membership, even as immediate accession was off the table due to Kyiv’s ongoing war with Russia. Instead, Ukraine was handed ambiguous assurances of eventual membership but without a clear roadmap, leaving Kyiv with more questions than answers.
This outcome represented a missed opportunity, both for NATO and Ukraine. For Ukraine, it dashed hopes of a transformative moment in its integration into the Western security architecture. For NATO, it highlighted an internal hesitancy to adapt decisively to the evolving threats posed by Russia’s aggression.
The vague promises made by NATO underscores the persistent uncertainty in Ukraine’s fight for a secure place within Europe’s defense structure. It also signals to Russia that cracks remain in the West’s resolve. Ukraine left the summit with a reaffirmation of NATO’s moral support but without the strategic guarantees it so urgently seeks.
To predict Donald Trump’s strategy in Ukraine, his first-term approach to foreign policy provides useful insights, particularly his handling of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Although he vowed to exit the nuclear deal during the 2016 campaign, Trump did not immediately follow through upon taking office. Instead, he adopted a gradual approach: an interagency review led to a phased withdrawal, which culminated with a definitive exit in May 2018, more than a year into his presidency. This methodical withdrawal was followed by the launch of a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, executed with deliberate planning despite its divisiveness.
A similar pragmatism may shape Trump’s policy toward Ukraine. Although some of his prior comments have raised concerns about his stance on Russia, Trump is unlikely to pursue a course that could be interpreted as weakness. A settlement that favors Moscow would risk significant political fallout, undermining his strongman image. Any conclusion to the war that weakens Ukraine while bolstering Russia could mirror the optics of the Biden administration’s much-criticized withdrawal from Afghanistan, an outcome Trump would be keen to avoid. Whether through intensified diplomatic efforts or recalibrated military aid, Trump’s decisions will likely balance his political ambitions with America’s international credibility. Frustration is mounting among Ukrainians over delays in recent assistance and the strict limitations imposed by the White House on the use of American weapons.
However, Trump’s recent exchanges with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have been notably positive. Their in-person meeting in September was described as constructive, and within 24 hours of Trump’s reelection, the two leaders spoke again by phone, signaling an ongoing commitment to dialogue. Moreover, early indications from Trump’s new administration have been encouraging for Kyiv. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio are both known for their past expressions of support for Ukraine, suggesting a continuation of assistance under new leadership.
As Trump seeks a resolution to the Ukraine conflict, any expectations of a swift or simple outcome are misguided. The world must brace for the likelihood that the war will remain unresolved through 2025.
This first appeared on FPIF.
