What can Ukraine expect from Trump?
During the election campaign, Donald Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine in just 24 hours if elected president, but gave no indication of how he intended to keep this promise. Europe's media examine the next US president's options for bringing about a peace deal and what consequences it could have.
Kyiv wouldn't have had it much easier with Harris
Nothing will change for Ukraine in terms of strategy with Trump in the White House, writes political scientist Iliya Kusa in Unian:
“The logic of controlled escalation and localisation of the war is supported by both the Republicans and the Democrats. So is the trend of reducing foreign aid. Trump has spoken a lot and convincingly about this, and so has his running mate, J.D. Vance. Under Trump, this logic will be pursued in a more eccentric and drastic manner. Under Harris, it would be the same story, just more gradual and more complicated. But there is no way the Americans will cross 'red lines' because they're not crazy and they know very well what is in their interest.”
It can't look like a defeat for the US
Political scientist Volodymyr Fessenko explains on Facebook why Trump will find it difficult to keep his promise:
“Russia will take a very tough and aggressive stance in any potential peace talks and demand peace on its own terms, with Ukraine having to make major unilateral concessions. This will be unacceptable for Ukraine. But it wouldn't suit Trump either. ... Because it would be interpreted as weakness on the part of the US - also by its opponents. And that would have extremely negative consequences for the US in various international contexts – from Taiwan to the Middle East. Trump doesn't like losing. He is unlikely to agree to a peace that would make him look like a weakling and a failure.”
Oil prices could put the thumbscrews on Putin
Trump could give Moscow and Kyiv ultimatums, comments Anton Barbashin, editorial director of the Russia-analysis platform Riddle:
“Either Putin and Zelensky sit down at the negotiating table, or Trump will cut off all military aid to Kyiv to put pressure on Zelensky; and to put pressure on Moscow, on the contrary, he will threaten to significantly increase support for Ukraine with weapons, and radically increase economic pressure on Moscow, including hitting the most vulnerable spot - Russian income from the sale of oil and gas, by collapsing oil prices. ... In fact, if we exclude that Putin and Zelensky will want to immediately sit down for negotiations at Trump's invitation, then we find ourselves in a situation of possible conflict escalation rather than resolution.”
EU must take its fate into its own hands
Now is the time for Europe to free itself from external dependence, Le Quotidien argues:
“Donald Trump has reiterated that he would not help his Nato allies if they were attacked, be it by Russia or any other country, and that he would only do so if the countries invest more in their defence - at the level he sets. And this would suit him just fine because his country has weapons to sell. The next four years will be difficult for countless reasons, but they will also offer Europe an opportunity: it's time for the EU to take its fate back into its own hands and stop just wondering what lies ahead for it – whether at the hands of the occupant of the White House or the Kremlin boss.”
The peace dividend is dead
Under Trump, Europe will have to learn to stand on its own two feet militarily, writes The Times:
“European leaders could find themselves in uncharted waters - the position, novel since the end of the Second World War, of having to create a truly independent security policy. ... It is, of course, possible that Mr Trump will shrink from cutting Ukraine loose for fear of the shame it would bring on his presidency. But while hoping for the best European leaders must plan for the worst. Whatever happens, the peace dividend is dead. Defence spending will have to rise and military integration in Europe must be stepped up.”