Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to end the war in Ukraine, which, depending on your perspective, began when Russia invaded Ukraine, in early 2022, or when it annexed Crimea and fomented separatism in eastern Ukraine eight years earlier. Many Ukrainians fear that Trump—who is both skeptical of sending more military aid to Ukraine and an admirer of Vladimir Putin—will force the Ukrainian government to agree to cede chunks of its territory to Russia. At the same time, the Ukrainians are clearly exhausted from the war, and the Biden Administration’s support has not been enough to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor.
To talk about the war, I recently spoke by phone with Rod Thornton, an associate professor in the defense-studies department at King’s College London, and an expert on the Russian military, who has lived in both Moscow and Kyiv. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed what the arrival of North Korean troops allied with Russia says about the state of the war, what Trump plans to promise Ukraine and Russia, and how the war might have been expected to play out if Kamala Harris had won the election.
How would you define where the war is right now?
It is a stalemate. Yes, there are advances on various fronts, but a few hundred metres or kilometres here and there. The only big advance was made by the Ukrainian side into Kursk Oblast back in August. And that is what the Russians are now trying to sort out, as it were, using the North Korean troops.
A recent piece in the New York Times stated, “Two senior [Ukrainian] officials said that defending Ukraine’s interest in potential talks would hinge not on territorial boundaries, which are likely to be determined by the fighting, but on what assurances are in place to make a cease-fire hold.” For a long time, Ukrainians have said that they would not agree to any deal that requires them to give away territory. To me, this suggests the Ukrainians believe that Trump is going to push for a deal that will be favorable to the Russians. The question now is not about whether they will have to give up territory but how to make sure that any peace holds. How do you understand what that means in practice?
Well, in practice, it’s very hard to say—just like it’s hard to say what might happen with Trump—but the idea is that he comes down on both sides and says, “Right, let’s hold the line,” i.e., the front lines where they are now. That will be, I think, Trump’s mantra. Putin might accept that because he is under a lot of pressure domestically to get this war finished in a way that looks beneficial to Russia, and to himself.
Zelensky, on the other hand, will not appreciate the front lines being fixed where they are now. But I think Trump is going to put on so much pressure that Zelensky’s got no real option. And Zelensky himself is under pressure domestically to end this war. People in Ukraine are sick of it, sick of the casualties and the drain on the economy, and living in a wartime environment. This allows Zelensky some leeway to accept the front lines where they are, without pushing for the Russian forces to leave, which has been the Ukrainian position till now: they want Ukrainian territory entirely free from Russian occupation. That’s no longer in the cards. In many ways, both sides, Putin and Zelensky, might be amenable to what Trump suggests because of the war weariness in both countries.
What’s being raised in the Times article is the question of how Ukraine can have any confidence that, after a deal is agreed to, Russia won’t just try and take more territory in six months, or whenever. And I’m sure the Ukrainians would harken back to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in 2014, and the separatism that was encouraged by Russia in eastern Ukraine before and after. Even with a peace agreement in place, the Russians continued to mess around with the front lines, and then there was the full invasion of Ukraine, in 2022.
Trump would say to Putin, Accept this, or otherwise we will do X. Trump’s approach to politics is to make these threats, and I think Putin would accept. Putin isn’t going to accept a pullout of Russian forces, and Trump is not going to make him do that. Trump has already said, in essence, that Crimea’s lost. Crimea’s been lost, basically, since the start of the war, back in 2014, when it all first kicked off. I think the Ukrainians have to accept that Crimea is lost. It’s the eastern Donbas where the true problems will arise, if they do arise. But I think Trump makes a difference. Trump will tell Putin, Do not use any more aggression. And Putin will listen to Trump.
If I were the Ukrainians, my concern would be that we are agreeing to give up more territory in the east, and the Russian military will be stationed there, and the only hope that we have that they’re not going to attack again is that Donald Trump is making some sort of guarantee. That would not fill me with much confidence.
Well, no. But, again, what is the alternative? The alternative is that Ukrainians keep on fighting and fighting and fighting without American financial support. If Trump is going to use that as leverage on the Ukrainian side, saying, O.K., we’ve supported you financially and militarily, but we’re going to cut off the money unless you do this, then the Ukrainians haven’t really got an option. Trump is going to hold their feet to the fire. He’s going to say, Accept this or we pull the plug. The Europeans haven’t got the money or the military ability to help Ukrainians on their own. It’s the United States that supplies the money, the military heft, the intelligence sources and satellites. And if Trump pulls the plug on that what do the Ukrainians do?
So your sense is that if Trump comes into office and says that military aid to Ukraine is over, and then that aid actually stops, the Ukrainians would basically collapse?
Well, it’s not just American military help; it’s American financial help. The Ukrainian economy is just not operating. It’s only being supported by Western money, and significantly by American money. We have to remember that factor. But you also have to factor in what I said earlier: the war weariness in Ukraine, among the Ukrainian population. Yes, there are those who want to keep on fighting the Russians, but, for most of the population, they are sick of this war. It isn’t going to be that much of a problem for Zelensky if the front lines are maintained as they are and Putin provides the Ukrainians with the promise that he will not start any future aggression, at least while Trump is in office.
But just to go back to my question: If no deal is reached and American aid stops—military aid, financial aid—do you think the war would essentially be lost for Ukraine?
