Manafort assisted Yanukovych after the 2004 election campaign, despite strong opposition from the George W. Bush
administration and US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor. He also helped
Yanukovych rebuild his image following the Orange Revolution, by advancing the message
that Ukraine’s pro-European Union government had grossly mismanaged the economy.
Manafort’s increasingly
prominent role on Trump’s campaign, along with Trump’s relatively cordial
rhetoric towards Vladimir Putin, has led many to conclude that Trump’s election
in November would result in deeper US engagement with Russia and frostier relations
with Ukraine. A closer look at the policy proposals emanating from Trump’s
campaign and the Republican Party in general, suggests that this assessment is
largely unfounded.
Instead, Trump’s election
would likely result in decreased peacetime economic and security engagement
with Ukraine, combined with a resolute US military commitment to protect
Ukraine in the event of further Russian aggression. European powers would be
expected to assume a greater role in determining Ukraine’s economic future and
long-term security, in keeping with Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. The
Republican Party’s control over all three branches of the federal government
(Senate, House of Representatives and the White House) would likely cause the
US to retaliate more aggressively to further Russian violations of Ukrainian
sovereignty.
Trump’s election would give Europe a greater role
in determining Ukraine’s future
Despite numerous
contradictory and esoteric public statements, Donald Trump’s approach towards
Ukraine has emphasized the need for Europe to play the lead role in securing
Ukraine’s economic and political future. In September 2015, Trump chastised the
Obama administration for enabling Russian aggression in Ukraine through weak
leadership. He also expressed indifference to Ukrainian NATO membership and
attacked European leaders for not doing enough to protect Ukraine. Trump’s
position is in synergy with his criticism of US commitments to European
security. He views many of these commitments to be an unnecessary expenditure
and symptomatic of America’s failure to assert itself in deal-making with NATO
countries unwilling to pay their “fair share.”
Trump’s vision of a withdrawn
American role in Ukraine has been met with fierce resistance from Democratic
Party leaders and establishment Republicans. This opposition has revolved
around two main issues.
First, US Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter recently announced that NATO was planning an expansion of its
military presence on the Black Sea. This plan was proposed in tandem with
deepened assistance to US allies in Eastern Europe, and would result in the
quadrupling of US military spending in Europe. NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg has endorsed this buildup as a valuable contribution to collective
defense and countering Russian military aggression.
Second, Democrats and
establishment Republicans have also been more consistently supportive of
Ukraine’s NATO membership. In July 2010, following Viktor Yanukovych’s decision
to temporarily abandon Ukraine’s NATO ambitions in favor of neutrality, Clinton
travelled to Kiev. After meeting with Yanukovych, she insisted that Ukraine
should not be forced to choose between Russia and the West, arguing instead
that Ukraine could maintain favorable relations with both spheres.
This view has been echoed by
prominent Republicans, like John McCain and Marco Rubio, who openly called for
Ukrainian NATO membership after the annexation of Crimea. Many US policymakers
believe that a thaw in relations with Moscow can only proceed if Russia abandons
its hegemonic aspirations in the post-Soviet region.
Therefore, Trump’s election
could result in growing tensions between Washington and its long-standing European
partners. It could also lead to the US
scaling back on investment deals with Ukraine. These deals do not immediately
benefit the US economy but could greatly assist Poroshenko’s economic
reconstruction efforts.
On the flip side, it can be
argued that Trump’s policy shift will have minimal impact. Past investment
offers made by the United States towards Ukraine often did not come to
fruition, as Ukraine did not meaningfully reform its institutions. In 2010,
Clinton urged Ukraine to work more closely with the IMF and called for expanded
US investment in Ukraine. But authoritarian backsliding and egregious
corruption worsened considerably during Yanukovych’s tenure.
While the impact of a US
drawdown is debatable, Trump’s presidency would likely lead to a burden shift
towards Europe. The implications for Ukraine depend largely on how willing
European policymakers are to assume that burden, and the degree to which
Ukraine is willing to make substantive economic, judicial and political reforms
to comply with EU norms.
Trump’s election would likely make America more hawkish towards Russian ceasefire violations
Even though Trump has
proposed a peacetime disengagement of US economic and military resources from
Ukraine, this withdrawal will likely be combined with a more hawkish US
military response to further Russian aggression in Ukraine. Trump has accused
Obama administration of merely conducting a lip-service retaliation to Putin’s
belligerence in Ukraine. Trump has urged a stronger response in order for Putin
to respect the US presidency, though he has not clarified exactly what a show
of strength would entail in the Ukrainian context.
In contrast to his views on
peacetime disengagement with Ukraine, Trump’s hawkish attitude towards Russian
aggression is partially aligned with the stances of establishment Republicans.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a staunch conservative, sponsored a bill to
provide lethal military aid to Ukraine in February 2015. This bill received
bipartisan support and passed by a 348-48 margin in the House of
Representatives.
Texas senator and 2016
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz has also openly emphasized the need
for the US to guarantee Ukraine’s security, noting somewhat dubiously that US
security pledges were instrumental in Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons during
the 1990s.
It can be argued that
Republican calls for US military assistance to protect Ukraine, are primarily
rhetorical and politically motivated. Many of the same GOP policymakers who
have scathingly criticized Obama’s Ukraine policy were silent during Bush’s
muted response to the 2008 Georgian War. But the level of hostilities between
the US and Russia have risen to the point that Trump will likely gain
widespread Congressional support for a small-scale retaliation to further
belligerence from Moscow, provided that it did not require a US ground
deployment.
While Trump is largely
aligned with establishment thinking on the possibility of responding militarily
against Russia, his calls for dialogue with Vladimir Putin has set him apart
from other presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton has had an openly hostile
relationship with Putin, describing him as a “bully” during a 2016 Democratic
primary debate. She also compared the Russian annexation of Crimea to Hitler’s
annexations during the 1930s, a statement, which generated immense controversy
in Russia and beyond.
On the Republican side, Carly
Fiorina staked out the most hawkish position during the primaries arguing that
the US should not even talk to Putin but instead force a compromise though
relentless military escalation in Eastern Europe. Trump’s belief in the
possibility of negotiating a settlement with Putin on American terms has been
understandably met with skepticism. But based on his rhetoric, it is likely
than any military escalation from Trump would follow the exhaustion of
diplomatic avenues, rather than America using military force as a way to bring
Putin to the bargaining table.
In short, Trump’s election
would likely lead to a shift in America’s Ukraine strategy towards peacetime
disengagement. In the event of a Russian military escalation, Trump would
likely be more hawkish than the Obama administration has been thus far, but
would escalate only after direct negotiations with Putin. The impact of this
approach on Ukraine’s security will depend largely on Europe’s willingness to
assist Kiev and the success of Trump’s diplomatic outreach towards Russia.
Regardless of the 2016 election’s outcome, Ukraine must increase the pace of
internal political and economic reforms to retain America’s good faith in the
years to come.
