Zelensky’s US visit highlights political risks for Ukraine

Avatar photo
Jalal Uddin Laskar
  • Update Time : Saturday, October 12, 2024
Zelensky

As the US presidential election campaign enters its final stretch, the stakes could not be higher for Washington’s foreign partners-particularly for the current Ukrainian government led by President Volodymyr Zelensky. With the war against Russia dragging on, the lifeblood of Zelensky’s administration rests on continued financial and military aid from the US. The outcome of the November election could dramatically shift Washington’s foreign policy toward Ukraine, potentially altering the trajectory of the war.

At the end of September, Zelensky embarked on another high-profile visit to the US, coinciding with “UN Week” and his speech at the General Assembly. However, his six-day trip was not solely focused on diplomatic protocol; its primary objective was clear: securing future support from the US, regardless of who wins the White House in November.

Zelensky’s mission was fraught with challenges, many of which arose before he even set foot on American soil. In a miscalculated move, he took aim at Republican JD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, calling him “too radical” in an interview published in The New Yorker. Vance, a staunch opponent of military aid to Ukraine, has advocated for a negotiated peace with Russia, even if that requires territorial concessions. Zelensky’s remarks earned swift backlash from Trump supporters, including Donald Trump Jr., who accused him of interfering in American domestic affairs. Trump Jr.’s criticism was particularly sharp, stating that it was inappropriate for a foreign leader dependent on American taxpayer dollars to wade into the US electoral process.

This confrontation set the tone for the rest of Zelensky’s visit, turning what was meant to be a diplomatic mission into a political minefield.

Zelensky’s first stop was Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he visited a defense manufacturing plant responsible for producing the artillery shells crucial to Ukraine’s war effort. The plant had significantly ramped up production in the past year, with over three million 155mm shells shipped to Ukraine. While Zelensky expressed his gratitude to the workers, his appearance in Pennsylvania, alongside the state’s Democratic governor, sparked another wave of criticism from Republicans.

Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, a vocal Trump supporter, described Zelensky’s visit as little more than a Democratic campaign event designed to boost the party’s chances in a key battleground state. Sean Parnell, a former Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, echoed this sentiment, accusing Zelensky of “foreign interference” in the US election. His critique cited both Zelensky’s verbal sparring with JD Vance and his apparent alignment with Democratic officials.

The most damaging response, however, came from House Majority Leader Mike Johnson, who outright refused to meet with Zelensky. Johnson went so far as to demand the dismissal of Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington, accusing her of organizing a partisan event that excluded Republican participation. Johnson’s denunciation of Zelensky’s visit as a “partisan effort” reflected the deepening polarization in Washington over US support for Ukraine-a polarization that Zelensky had hoped to mitigate but inadvertently inflamed.

After these missteps, Zelensky’s team managed to secure a face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, a last-ditch effort to salvage the visit. However, the road to this encounter was not smooth. Trump, notorious for his unpredictable decision-making, vacillated between agreeing to meet Zelensky and reconsidering. After an extended stay in the US, Zelensky finally secured a meeting with the former president.

During their conversation, Trump signaled his desire to bring the war to a close, calling for a “fair settlement for both sides.” He expressed sympathy for Ukraine, acknowledging that the country had “been through hell,” but he also emphasized his belief in maintaining positive relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s stance echoed his long-standing position of avoiding direct confrontation with Russia, even suggesting that good relations with both sides could be key to a resolution.

When pressed by reporters about what a “fair settlement” might look like, Trump remained evasive, remarking that it was still “too early to define” and describing the conflict as a complex “puzzle.” Zelensky, meanwhile, reiterated his belief that Ukraine must prevail and emphasized the importance of continued American support. He diplomatically sidestepped Trump’s vague remarks, expressing hope for ongoing cooperation but recognizing the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s future policies.

While Zelensky may have hoped for a more straightforward engagement with Democrats, his meetings with party leaders offered little more than reassurances of continued support for Ukraine. The Democratic Party, particularly the Biden administration, has remained committed to backing Ukraine with financial and military aid. Yet, despite these commitments, Zelensky walked away without a clear victory. The announcement of yet another aid package-though welcomed-was overshadowed by a significant setback. The White House publicly denied Ukraine the right to use American weapons for strikes deep into Russian territory, underlining the administration’s cautious approach to escalating the conflict.

This limitation frustrated Zelensky, whose Victory Plan for reclaiming Ukrainian territories remains contingent on robust Western support. The White House’s refusal to endorse Ukraine’s more aggressive strategies was seen as a signal of restraint, a reflection of Washington’s fear of crossing red lines that could provoke a direct conflict with Russia.

The US remains Ukraine’s largest donor, having contributed over $56 billion of the $106 billion raised by NATO and its allies for Ukraine’s defense. With this level of support hanging in the balance, Zelensky’s future-and the future of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia-hinges on the outcome of the US election. A victory for Kamala Harris, who may continue Biden’s cautious policies, raises concerns among Ukrainian officials about further indecision and overly cautious strategies toward Russia. On the other hand, a Trump victory offers hope for decisive changes, though it comes with its own set of uncertainties. Trump’s promises of a “fair settlement” could either end the war or leave Ukraine vulnerable to diminished Western backing.

For now, Ukrainian officials remain hopeful that they can navigate this complex political landscape. They continue to foster relationships with Trump’s camp, recognizing the importance of maintaining American support post-election. Zelensky has expressed skepticism about Trump’s concrete plans for ending the war, but he also acknowledges that Ukraine’s future depends on persuading whoever holds the Oval Office after November.

Ultimately, Zelensky’s visit to the US-while meant to reinforce Ukraine’s ties with Washington-ended up highlighting the deep divides within American politics. As the election draws nearer, Ukraine finds itself at the mercy of not only foreign policy decisions but also the volatile dynamics of domestic US politics.

Avatar photo Is a senior journalist.

Please Share This Post in Your Social Media

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More News Of This Category
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
© All rights reserved © 2005-2024 BLiTZ
Design and Development winsarsoft