The re-election of Donald Trump looked like bad news for the Ukrainian people in their heroic struggle against Vladimir Putin’s aggression – but it need not be. Mr Trump is not wrong to suggest that a negotiated settlement would be better than a “forever war”.
But this will require some adroit diplomacy by Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, who said tactfully on Friday: “It is certain that the war will end sooner with the policies of the team that will now lead the White House.”
He said he had had a “constructive exchange” with Mr Trump in their phone conversation after the election, and added: “I didn’t hear anything that goes against our position.”
He even spoke of the war ending “through diplomatic means”, which sounded rather different from his sharp reproach to Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, earlier in the day, for talking to Mr Putin on the phone.
Mr Zelensky is right, however, that Mr Scholz’s initiative was an unhelpful one, driven more by Germany’s disastrous internal politics than by the interests of the Ukrainian people or those of the world as a whole. Mr Scholz’s call had opened “Pandora’s Box”, Mr Zelensky said, encouraging “other conversations”, which is “exactly what Putin has long wanted”, allowing the Russian president to weaken the united front against him.
The only conversation that matters now is that between Mr Trump and Mr Putin. Mr Zelensky recognises that reality, and his words aimed at Mr Trump are intended to convince the president-elect that he is ready to negotiate – while relying on Mr Putin being so unreasonable as to force Mr Trump to back Ukraine.
This is the calculation on which the world must rely: that, whatever Mr Trump has said about ending the war on his first day back in the White House, he will not want to look weak. He was able to avoid giving that impression when he signed the deal to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban, because he was no longer in office when Kabul fell. This time the stakes are higher, and his responsibility for the way it ends is inescapable.
For all his bluster, Mr Trump has made two valid arguments. One is that Europe ought to share more of the cost of standing up to Mr Putin’s aggression. He and JD Vance, his vice-president-elect, are entitled to ask why America should bear the lion’s share of financing a war on someone else’s continent.
And, given that the US does bear such a large portion of the cost, we Europeans have to accept that the American people have a say in the conduct of the war. As Mr Zelensky said of the incoming US administration: “This is their approach, their promise to their citizens.”
Mr Trump’s other valid argument is that, unless Ukraine wins a total victory and occupies Moscow, peace will have to come from a negotiated settlement. Mr Zelensky is seeking, rightly, to ensure that when that moment comes, he is able to negotiate from a position of strength. We must hope, for the sake of the Ukrainian people and the principle of self-determination, that he succeeds.
