Why fears of Trump "surrendering Ukraine" may be unfounded - Alexey Golobutsky

Why has there suddenly emerged so many supporters of the idea that Trump will cut off aid to Ukraine and force us to capitulate? In other words, simply hand Ukraine over to Russia.

Let me remind you: the U.S. has invested a significant amount of money and other resources into Ukraine. American industry has adjusted its plans according to the expected supplies to Ukraine and NATO countries.

Trump is primarily a businessman. Why would he suddenly just hand Ukraine, along with the invested funds, over to Putin? That would be an unfounded act of generosity. Trump has never been known for such behavior. If money is invested, it must yield a profit.

Yes, the terms of peace that Trump might propose may not be ideal for us. But what could be the alternative? We can see the results of Biden's "controlled escalation." This is not a viable option for our survival.

However, Trump's currently unpredictable position presents an opportunity. It doesn't guarantee our victory, but it's not a betrayal either. After all, Biden and his administration have consistently asserted "support for Ukraine until the end" — but that hasn't changed the fundamental approach of "just don't let Ukraine die" (let's be honest, "controlled escalation" implies precisely that). Moreover, in the end, Zelensky stated that we received only about 10% of what was promised for aid to Ukraine.

In his first speech after the elections to his supporters, Trump stated that he intends "not to start wars, but to end them." Regarding prospects for contact with Putin, he summarized, "I think we will talk."

However, the foundation of these discussions will likely be economic. It's important to remember that one of Trump's foundational campaign ideas is that the main and only beneficiaries of the American economy should be Americans. This primarily concerns oil: Trump's voters genuinely expect a drop in the price of gasoline per gallon. Because Trump promised to increase production and, consequently, lower oil prices.

Oil priced below $40-50 per barrel would undermine the Russian economy and Putin's desire to fight more than any permission for the use of long-range weapons against Russia. Everyone agrees on this — it's just that not everyone is prepared to suffocate Russia's oil and gas exports (which sometimes leads to very strange statements, like those from Von der Leyen — suggesting that the EU must buy Russian oil so that Putin doesn't earn more from it elsewhere). Trump is theoretically ready.

Then the situation would look like this: Trump would propose some rather uncomfortable peace terms to Putin (because Putin initially set an unrealistically high bar), while simultaneously indicating the prospect of exhausting the "blood of war" — oil money in Russia.

Judging by the very sharp statements from the Kremlin, Trump's anticipated proposals are seen as unacceptably harsh (Dmitry "Nuclear Ash" Medvedev wrote, "...The goals of the special military operation will be achieved. I believe Trump will propose a clearly unfavorable agreement on Ukraine to Russia before January, which we will certainly reject. Donald will throw up his hands and, in his characteristic manner, announce an unprecedentedly large aid package for Zelensky's regime and the lifting of all restrictions on missiles"). This indicates that, in general, Putin is ready to exit the military trap, but not on the expected terms. His offended statement at Valdai suggests: "This shouldn't be a truce for half an hour or half a year, so that Kyiv can be supplied with shells."

Thus, it can be preliminarily assessed that everything is moving towards Trump's declared "Option #2" (maximum arming of Ukraine with weapons and other resources under strict U.S. control), when Putin will refuse "Option #1" (peace on the terms outlined by Trump).

And, unlike Harris and most Democrats, a sufficient number of Republicans clearly recognize the newly formed "axis of evil": China-Russia-North Korea-Islamist regimes in the Middle East. As Republican Senator Roger Wicker noted, "Our adversaries are uniting, expanding, and deepening their cooperation. Let's be clear: the 'Axis of Aggressors' operates on the battlefield. ... We need to strengthen our defense industry and provide Ukraine ... with the necessary tools, otherwise we risk sending American troops into conflict."

Therefore, the war in Ukraine is not perceived as an isolated conflict somewhere on another continent — but as one of the flashpoints of a global war instigated by the "axis of aggressors." A war that threatens the U.S., and the White House will soon have to engage not just American money, but American soldiers for its own security, rather than for defending the sovereignty of a distant Ukraine.

Consequently, Trump will have motivated support from his party to resolve the Ukraine issue relatively quickly one way or another. And for now, based on statements from Putin and those close to the Kremlin, it seems more likely that this will indeed be "Option #2".