Zelensky's tough US visit reveals looming challenges for Ukraine

The Trump-Zelensky meeting and the courteous words that followed do not change the fact that if the Republican wins in November, Ukraine could find itself in a very difficult international situation. Zelensky's entire trip to the United States was, in fact, a confrontation with the reality of American politics, increasingly divided on the issue of Ukraine and weary of the war.

Zelensky's visit had two goals: the first was to maintain support for Ukraine from the United States and the American political class, and the second was to present the Ukrainian cause to the world at the United Nations forum in New York.

In his speech at the UN, Zelensky painted a deeply pessimistic vision. He warned that Ukrainians might face the harshest winter since the beginning of the war, all because, according to information gathered by the relevant services, Russia plans to attack Ukraine's power grid to cut off large urban centers from electricity. Such attacks would also target nuclear power plants, potentially resulting in a nuclear catastrophe.

The Ukrainian president portrayed the war Ukraine is fighting as a national liberation and anti-colonial war. Russia, the Ukrainian leader argued, continues to behave in Eastern Europe like a colonial power, unable to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, treating it as its "rebellious colony."

This reasoning is deeply considered; Zelensky aims to reach the countries of the global South, which are grappling with colonialism's legacy. Russia and its allies, in their propaganda directed at countries outside Europe and North America, portray the war in Ukraine as an act of Russian self-defence against American imperialism. Although this narrative is absurd, it finds its audience where anti-American sentiments are strong. Therefore, Zelensky sensibly reminds the most global forum possible that Russia is the true colonial aggressor in this war.

During the UN Security Council debate, Russian diplomats heard many harsh words. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer asked by what right representatives of a state conducting an aggressive war in violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter dare to appear during the proceedings. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, in a factual speech, showed that contrary to Russian propaganda, which continually speaks of "fascists in Kyiv," it is Russia that behaves like a fascist state in this war—for example, by kidnapping Ukrainian children and giving them up for adoption to Russian families.

These kinds of words are not without significance. Global public opinion is important for all participants in this war, including Russia, which makes a tremendous effort to convince poorer countries in Africa, Asia, or South America of its narrative about the conflict in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, harsh words against Putin's Russia at the UN are not enough for Ukraine. Because the UN has no tools to stop Russian aggression. Among other reasons, because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power—which in the future might be a starting point for discussing how to reform this institution. Today, crucial for Ukraine's future—besides its own heroic efforts—are not the UN debates, but U.S. support. And as shown by the past week, that issue is becoming increasingly complicated.

Part of these complications is due to the election campaign, entering its decisive phase. Zelensky's visit came right in the middle of it, generating a series of campaign-related controversies—not always serving Ukraine's cause.

The most significant of these was Zelensky's visit to an ammunition factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, President Biden's hometown. The visit was supposed to be an opportunity to thank the workers producing large-calibre ammunition critical for Ukraine's defence. However, Zelensky was guided through the factory by Pennsylvania's Democratic governor—very actively involved in Kamala Harris's campaign—Josh Shapiro. No Republican representatives accompanied them—although Pennsylvania residents elected as many as 8 Republicans to the House of Representatives.

Many Republicans considered Zelensky's visit to Scranton an event effectively part of the Democrats' campaign. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson—equivalent to Canada's Speaker of the House of Commons, one of the most important people in the country—even demanded that Zelensky remove the Ukrainian ambassador in Washington, who organized the factory tour.

Johnson did not find time to meet with Zelensky in the American capital. Considering that he had blocked the vote on the aid package for Ukraine for many months earlier, this is not particularly surprising. Johnson was not an exception, either; interest from American congressmen and senators in meeting with Zelensky was noticeably lower than during previous visits by the Ukrainian president. The campaign partly explains this—Congress halted work so politicians could focus on it in their districts.

Regardless of the campaign, the issue of Ukraine divides the American political scene: Republicans are becoming increasingly skeptical about helping Ukraine. When the latest $61 billion aid package for Ukraine was finally put to a vote in Congress, it passed with votes from both parties and by a significant majority. Still, most Republican House members and nearly one-third of Republican senators voted against it.

During Zelensky's American visit on the campaign trail, skepticism about the current model of aid to Ukraine was, as usual, expressed by Trump. Once again, he called Zelensky a "great salesman," who every time he visits the States, leaves with a $50 billion check—at the expense of American taxpayers. Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of leading his country to ruin by refusing to agree to peace with Russia.

At the same time, it was the logic of the campaign that could have forced the meeting between Zelensky and Trump and the words about a "fair agreement" to end the war. Although according to the latest New York Times and Siena College polls only 3 percent of voters cite foreign affairs as crucial to their decisions in the presidential elections, very small differences in votes in a few key states that could support either a Democrat or a Republican in November might determine who moves into the White House next year. Among them are the aforementioned Pennsylvania and Michigan, states with large communities from Central and Eastern Europe—including Ukraine—watching the new wave of Russian aggression with concern and rooting for fighting Ukraine.

Before meeting with Trump, Zelensky met separately with Biden and Kamala Harris. Two meetings, one with the sitting president, the other with his potential successor, were to emphasize the continuity of Ukrainian policy under the potential Harris administration and assure Kyiv that it could count on the first female president in history if she wins the election in November.

At the same time, Zelensky failed to achieve the two most important goals of the visit: obtaining approval to use American long-range ATACMS missiles and receiving more binding than distant promises regarding Ukraine's NATO membership. In both areas, the Biden administration fears escalation and wants to act cautiously and buy time, at least for now.

On Wednesday, while Zelensky was speaking at the UN forum, Putin announced Russia's new nuclear strategy. It gives Russia the right to use nuclear weapons if attacked by any state "supported by a state possessing nuclear weapons." Such an attack could be considered a Ukrainian attack on Russian territory with American long-range missiles.

Analysts are mostly convinced that the risk of Putin using nuclear weapons is not high. Americans, however, fear that in response to the transfer of long-range missiles to Ukraine, Russia might engage in hostile actions against the U.S. and its allies on other fronts. For example, by intensifying cooperation with Iran or starting to hand missiles capable of threatening maritime trade routes around the Arabian Peninsula to Houthi rebels from Yemen. American administration officials speaking with American media argue that the strategic gains from using ATACMS do not outweigh the risks. On the other hand, the British and other allies are also pressuring the Americans on this issue, and Biden has changed his mind several times in the past about transferring various types of weapons to Ukraine.

NATO is a much bigger problem. Neither American public opinion nor, even more so, that of Western European countries is ready to make any binding assurances to a state defending itself against Russia.

However frustrating recent negotiations with the Democrats may have been, the alternative of a Republican Trump administration is a much more dangerous option for Ukraine. The former president never publicly explained what exactly his plan for the immediate end of the war—which he continually promises in the campaign—would entail. According to "The Washington Post," Trump privately said he would force Putin and Zelensky into an agreement: peace in exchange for territorial concessions. Similar proposals—combined with the concept of neutralizing Ukraine, thus permanently closing its path to NATO—came from Trump's entourage.

Such peace would be profoundly unjust to Ukraine. It would also be dangerous for our entire region. It would allow the forcible change of borders, which the entire international order based on the United Nations Charter established after World War II was meant to prevent. Putin would see it as an encouragement for further aggressive actions against areas he perceives as being within Russia's sphere of influence, including those belonging to NATO. It does not need explaining why this is a scenario we should genuinely fear in Canada.

It is in the deepest interest not only of Kyiv but also of other regional capitals that Ukraine does not find itself in a situation where its recent main ally pressures it to make an unjust and dangerous peace. Unfortunately, after November, it will not be entirely out of the question.