76 days to get it right in Ukraine (translation)

With less than two weeks to go until the US presidential election, and with polls showing a tie that will make the result depend on a small number of swing states, states that could fall to one side or the other and change the course of events, the electoral issue marks the global political agenda and represents a special element of uncertainty in the case of Ukraine. All the certainties that have existed until now under the leadership of Joe Biden, who has managed relations with Kyiv for two terms, since he was in charge of the White House during the years of the Obama administration, will disappear the moment it is announced who will come to power next January. Although, without a doubt, a victory for Trump would be more worrying for Zelensky, who apparently did not get the desired support from the Republican candidate at the meeting held during the Ukrainian president’s last visit to the United States, neither would a victory for Kamala Harris mean the end of concerns. The scant presence of the war in Ukraine in the campaign is compounded by speculation about the candidate’s cold relationship with Zelensky, despite the fact that it was Harris who attended the peace summit in Switzerland representing the White House. However, beyond slogans such as “support Ukraine as long as necessary,” the candidate has not at any time suggested what specific policy she would pursue with regard to the war or the relationship with Russia. Electoral needs are marked by issues of national policy and neither the Republican nor the Democrat candidate are making long speeches detailing their proposals.

This electoral reality, in which the two parties are playing their future for the next four years, made it impossible for Zelensky to obtain from Joe Biden the rapid action he expected. Ukraine has received practically unconditional support for its actions within the country’s borders without reproach for aspects such as the targeted assassinations in Russia and in the territories under Russian control or for the attacks against oil infrastructure in the Russian Federation, while Zelensky has obtained protection from his allies in the case of Nord Stream, in which his role must have been called into question given the accusations made by The Wall Street Journal and the growing certainty that he was aware of the plans to carry out an attack against these energy infrastructures owned by Russia, but also by its German allies. However, the Ukrainian president has not obtained Biden’s permission to use Western missiles against Russian targets far from the border, but rather a new refusal: during his visit to Kyiv this week, Lloyd Austin, head of the Pentagon, insisted once again that Russia has moved its strategic aviation to a distance beyond the range of the ATACMS that Zelensky intends to use.

Perhaps more worrying for Ukraine is the coldness with which its allies have received the Victory Plan and, above all, its number one and main point: the immediate invitation to join NATO for accession at the moment the war ends. Despite the fact that this point makes any negotiation with Russia unfeasible, Zelensky’s speech tries to present this point as the definitive one, an invitation that will make it impossible for Moscow to continue fighting against Ukraine. “President Volodymyr Zelensky faces a problem with his victory plan based on Ukraine receiving an invitation to join NATO: some of the main members of the alliance are not very willing for that to happen,” wrote Politico on Tuesday, a media outlet with good sources in the Democratic establishment and which points to the United States and Germany as the countries with the most reluctance, but also adds Hungary and Slovakia, which have publicly expressed their rejection, and even Belgium, Slovenia and Spain, a list too long to not cause some panic in Kyiv, which has already proceeded to deny the news. Despite evidence from recent years that several member countries are opposed to Ukraine’s admission, the Ukrainian government insists on the broad support it enjoys in the alliance and the work it is doing to smooth the way with countries that still have some reservations. Judging by the statements of Julianne Smith, the outgoing US ambassador to NATO, she said that “to date, the Alliance has not reached the point of being ready to offer membership or an invitation to Ukraine.” Among them is its main ally.

It is not only Zelensky and his entourage who are banking on the NATO solution as a way to resolve the conflict with Russia. This proposal, which ignores the fact that NATO is one of the causes of this war and can therefore hardly be understood as a constructive or feasible solution in the current circumstances, is aware of the electoral situation. “Ukraine and its allies are preparing for the impact of the US presidential election, considering hypotheses about what Donald Trump or Kamala Harris might do. An equally urgent question is what President Joe Biden might do for Ukraine, regardless of who wins on November 5,” writes Lee Hockstader in The Washington Post, who claims that Biden has “76 days to get Ukraine right.” That is how long the current president will remain in office awaiting the transfer of power, at which point “he will be a lame duck, but not impotent.” The analyst proposes that, whatever the election result, Biden should use “the interregnum as an opportunity to turn the tables against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in a war that is leaning in Russia’s favor.” In short, Hockstader’s proposal is to use this moment, when votes are no longer at risk, to take steps that have proven impossible in part due to the electoral situation. In the event of a Trump victory, the article proposes finally approving the use of ATACMS missiles on Russian territory, an act that would have two objectives: to undermine Moscow’s war effort and to pressure allies such as Germany to send the precious Taurus missiles, which Ukraine has been begging for more than a year and which Chancellor Scholz has also repeatedly refused to accept.

Like Hockstader, Timothy Garton Ash believes that the elections represent a great opportunity in the event of a Democratic victory. “Nothing will happen before the US presidential election on November 5. If Donald Trump wins, all bets are off,” he writes, considering Ukraine to be finished in the event of a Republican victory, in an article published by the Financial Times. However, the article notes that “a transition from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris would provide a golden opportunity to signal this change.” In the event of a Harris victory, the change is the same as that proposed by Hockstader: implementing the first point of Zelensky’s Victory Plan, announcing, apparently unilaterally, the invitation to join NATO for Ukraine. For Hockstader, this invitation would be an element of pressure on Germany, something recurrent in the point of view of the American columnist, to accept the future accession of Ukraine and would also serve as a warning to Hungary and Slovakia, which would basically have to abide by the decision.

The difference between Hockstader and Timothy Garton Ash is the framework in which they envision this invitation to Ukraine. “Even with a formal invitation to join NATO, Ukraine’s accession could take years. Still, it would set the peace agenda for Harris, even if it were a thorny one,” he says, without explaining how the invitation to extend NATO’s borders to the Russian border in conditions of open war can set a peace agenda. Unlike Hockstader, who seems to focus more on putting pressure on US allies and extending the Atlantic alliance, Timothy Garton Ash proposes Ukraine’s rapid accession to NATO and not just an invitation for the future. Without innovating too much, the proposal is the German option of accession based on current territories as an example of the lesser evil and as a path to some kind of peace that is not yet defined and that Kyiv has already described as “immoral.”

“The next crucial step is for Washington to agree to make Ukraine a member of NATO, and for the mutual defense provisions of Article V of the alliance to cover the parts of the country controlled by Kyiv,” he added, without clarifying that the scenario he is proposing, which would be impossible for Russia to accept in exchange for an armed peace agreement, represents a further step towards direct confrontation between the Russian Federation and NATO.

“The obstacles on this path are formidable. But consider the alternative. A defeated Ukraine, divided, demoralized, depopulated, seething with anger at the West and – as Zelensky hinted last week – probably trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Moscow triumphant. The rest of the world concludes that the West is a paper tiger. Xi Jinping encouraged to go after Taiwan. Biden and Harris will go down in history as the leaders who ‘lost Ukraine.’ There is a better way,” he says. Namely, the way to an even more dangerous war.