As Donald Trump prepares for his return to the White House, analysts agree that US policies on Ukraine are about to undergo significant changes that could potentially reshape the course of its conflict with Russia.

Trump has been vocal about his desire to end the war, making it a key feature of his electoral campaign, touting his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a potential gamechanger in any negotiations.

Kyiv and its leadership, particularly President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have been visibly anxious about Trump’s plans, which threaten to completely disrupt Ukraine’s strategic aims.

“Ukraine is a US client state that is heavily dependent on its military, financial and political support in the war with Russia, and this war is also a proxy war between US-led NATO and Russia,” said Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa.

“It is very likely that Trump would try to stop the war in Ukraine and significantly reduce US aid to Ukraine. But his electoral promises concerning these issues might also change.”

For others such as Simon Schlegel, senior Ukraine analyst at the International Crisis Group, Trump’s second tenure spells major trouble for Ukraine.

“It’s really just very bad news for Ukraine that Donald Trump got elected president. I think there are really rough times ahead for Ukraine,” he told Anadolu.

Could Trump end the Ukraine war?

Experts agree that Trump’s claim of ending the war in a day is “overly optimistic,” but there could actually be a resolution during his term.

“Chances that this would happen … are much more likely compared to Biden or Harris. While Trump has little leverage over Putin, he can make Zelenskyy agree to a cease-fire, de facto Russian control over occupied and annexed territories of Ukraine, and abandoning its NATO membership bid by withholding or significantly reducing US military and financial aid,” Katchanovski told Anadolu.

Lev Zinchenko, a program assistant at the European Policy Center, believes that efforts for a “freezing” of the war are likely to begin soon, but pointed out that Trump’s foreign policy team appears uncertain about the best possible approach.

“The most viable path to halting hostilities, while safeguarding both American and Ukrainian interests, would be through a ‘peace through strength’ strategy – an approach notably lacking in the Biden administration’s handling of the situation,” he said.

“The ‘escalation management’ approach led by Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, has proven impotency in deterring Russian aggression on a meaningful scale.”

Others like Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, questioned Trump’s own planning.

“I don’t think he has a clear view and, in fact, he’s been very vague with his vision for ending the war,” Magid told Anadolu.

“I do not believe that Trump has decided what his policy will be yet. He also has not decided on all of his policy advisers and his Cabinet. That will be crucial … Some of them do not see Russia as a threat and don’t think that supporting Ukraine is important for US and NATO.

“Others have eyes wide open and see that Russia is aggressive, is a threat, and is also working in partnership with Iran, North Korea and China.”

The one thing for certain about Trump, she added, is “that he values strength, so we expect he will prioritize being bold.”

On Trump’s Cabinet picks, Schlegel explained how things could play out differently depending on his choices.

“If it’s a team of Asia hawks, it’s not good for Ukraine because then Ukraine will become less of a priority,” said the Crisis Group expert.

Regarding the possibility of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, he said it remains unclear whether Moscow would be really interested since “they are winning on the battlefield at the moment.”

Uncertainty and aid cuts

While the overall atmosphere in Ukraine is apprehensive, there are still “lots of people who find sort of a glimmer of hope in Trump’s unpredictability,” according to Magid.

People believe Trump could be bold “and there’s also some thinking that the Russians might show how aggressive they are and how disrespectful they are towards the US,” she said.

“This might irritate Trump enough that he goes and backs Ukraine enough that they have a chance of winning.”

Schlegel, who is based in Kyiv, offered a similar view.

“The hope is that Trump gets rejected by Putin and that he will feel angry about that. He will fear he’s going to look like a loser because he promised a swift end to the conflict and … he would flood Ukraine with American weapons to put more pressure on Putin and that Ukraine could use those weapons to retake some territory at least,” he said.

On the flip side, analysts say there is a real possibility of significant cuts to US military and material aid.

US financial aid to Ukraine is likely to be reduced, according to Zinchenko, and “the primary responsibility for assisting Ukraine will certainly shift to Europe.”

“This shift underscores Ukraine’s defense as a strategic priority for Europe – a reality that may not have been fully clear to European leaders even after the full-scale invasion, despite Europe’s own vulnerabilities to Russian aggression,” he said.

“The future of military aid is difficult to forecast until after Trump assumes office. In the meantime, the Biden administration will likely expedite the delivery of remaining aid over the next two months. Nonetheless, Ukraine will still require ongoing military assistance from the US, even at a reduced level, particularly given Europe’s current challenges in developing a robust defense-industrial complex.”

Question of NATO membership

For any sort of negotiations with Russia, Ukraine’s NATO membership has to be off the table for some years at least, according to Schlegel.

“One scenario is that they will just postpone this for 20 or 25 years. Ukraine will have to agree to that and the Russians will then hope that in these 20 years or so, they will have the upper hand in this conflict and can somehow subordinate Ukraine,” he said.

Magid agrees that Ukraine’s chances of joining NATO in the short term are not extremely strong, regardless of who is in power in the US.

“President Biden understands how important Ukraine is, yet he has been unwilling to extend an invitation to Ukraine out of fear of escalation. And we know that other countries, Germany and some others in Europe, that potentially … have the same view,” she explained.

One possibility in a negotiated settlement could be that “part of Ukraine could get into NATO,” according to Magid.

Zinchenko, however, opposed the idea of delaying Ukraine’s membership, saying it is “neither practical for Ukraine nor strategically sound for the alliance.”

“It only empowers Russia to push further for Ukraine’s ‘neutrality.’ Such a stance disregards Ukraine’s constitutional commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration and the assurance it has received about its irreversible path toward NATO membership during the Washington Summit,” he said.

Long-term strategy of disengagement?

On Washington’s long-term strategy, Schlegel warned that forcing Kyiv “into a surrender … would very much diminish the credibility of America as a security partner around the world.”

The Chinese and Taiwanese would be watching very closely, he said, so the US would “want to achieve something that they can present, at least to the American audience as a peace deal that is going to hold for some time.”

This, he added, will be “a good legacy for Trump,” who is concerned about his own image.

“They will disengage, or they were trying to disengage, but if they see that they run into a PR disaster, they might reconsider. But the long-term goal is definitely to spend less money and to take less risks in Ukraine.” (Anadolu Agency)