Reproductive rights, the conflict in the Middle East, student debt relief and inflation have dominated the US election so far. However, these issues represent only a fraction of the concerns weighing on minds across the world as election day nears.
As details emerge about Donald Trump's campaign and policies, apprehension grows in places acutely impacted by US foreign policy.
The central question in Europe is whether the US might leave Ukraine and its EU allies to face Russia alone.
Trump's team claims to be actively developing various strategies for a potential resolution to Russia's war against Ukraine. However, so far, no promising developments have emerged for Kyiv.
After Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy in September, he claimed he would achieve a peace deal "that's good for both sides".
However, it is essential to recognize that Trump has harbored grievances against Ukraine from the outset, and his attitude reflects caution, if not outright bias.
On the other hand, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin skillfully continued to maintain his non-public connections with Trump since at least 2013. And, therefore, you could hear Trump repeatedly blame Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for the start of the war.
Predictable Trump
The ruthlessly transactional Trump is entirely predictable to Americans in this regard. What he might possibly do if re-elected as president is clear.
He claimed, when accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, that he would end the war in Ukraine within a single day.
John Bolton, who served as Trump's national security advisor, said that if Trump were to win, US aid to Ukraine would cease.
Ukraine's economy is currently heavily dependent on financial support from Western partners. More than 70 percent of Ukraine's state budget is subsidized by the West, with 87 percent of that aid coming from the United States.
One must consider the consequences if this financial support suddenly stopped — an immediate cessation of funds would significantly destabilize Ukraine's already fragile economy.
For instance, in August 2024, Ukraine received $US8.5 billion in foreign financial assistance for its budget: $US4.5 billion from the European Union (including a $US1.6 billion grant, with the rest provided as a concessional loan) and a $US3.9 billion grant from the United States.
However, by September, foreign funding had nearly vanished for the second time since the start of the full-scale invasion. Ukraine secured only $US11 million in loans from the Council of Europe Development Bank.
In such a scenario, what would happen to a country whose economy is in a "critical condition," sustained by Western financial support? If US policy were to shift under Trump's leadership, and shift drastically, it would mean one of the worst-case scenarios.
As of now, Ukraine has already faced an onslaught of missile and drone attacks, with a total of nearly 23,600 launched by Russia up until August 2024 and 1,300 in September 2024 alone.
Missile attacks
Despite Ukraine's efforts, only a portion of these were intercepted by its air defence systems, leaving a significant number to strike their intended targets. Russian ballistic missiles have also posed a significant threat, with only 4.5 percent being intercepted.
These missile attacks have had devastating consequences.
More than half of the targets were civilian, including homes, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure. This destruction is exacerbated by restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western-supplied weapons against Russian launch sites, which continue to operate from positions deemed untouchable under current international limitations.
A Trump victory could lead to worsening conditions for Ukrainians.
The scale of the destruction and the relentless nature of the attacks underscore Ukraine's urgent calls for enhanced air defence systems and a revision of restrictions on its military operations (so-called "deep strike").
These limitations have allowed Russian forces to continue launching devastating attacks from positions that could otherwise be neutralized.
Zelenskyy's concerns
Zelenskyy has acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the future of US support and expressed his concerns: "I do not know what will be offered to us after the US elections."
He outlined potential scenarios for Ukraine's future, one of which includes continued support from allies who remain cautious due to perceived risks.
Zelenskyy emphasized the significance of the presidential election, noting that the outcome could determine the direction of US policy toward Ukraine.
"We see two other potential paths, depending on who wins the race for the White House. Will it be more positive or less so? Frankly, I do not know. And this uncertainty is highly sensitive for our people," he said.
Ukraine, for its part, remains hopeful of securing an invitation to join NATO before Joe Biden's presidency ends, underscoring the critical nature of international support in the context of ongoing geopolitical tensions.
The lives of thousands of troops, civilians and non-combatants have already been lost since the Russian invasion, first in 2014 and again in 2022. Billions of dollars have been put into the defence of Ukraine by the US and Europe.
It could all be abandoned after November 5, as the weight of each vote in each US state holds the potential for Ukraine's future.
Wrong signal
When historians eventually reflect on this war, one of the key takeaways will likely be that the West's cautious approach, while seemingly prudent, sent the wrong signal to Russia. What appeared to be de-escalation measures from the West inadvertently emboldened Moscow.
Paradoxically, actions that seemed provocative — such as Ukraine's strikes on Russia's Black Sea Fleet, often using Western-supplied missiles — proved to be more effective in de-escalating the conflict.
Despite Putin's repeated threats of severe retaliation, many of the Kremlin's so-called red lines have turned out to be hollow when challenged.
This misjudgment by the West allowed Russia to expand its aggression, making the war far more brutal and extended than it might have been with a firmer initial response.
(The author is Joint Program Leader at the Center of Geopolitics at the University of Cambridge and Program Director for Security Studies at the Center for Defence Strategies. This article was originally published under Creative Commons by 360info)
