Ukraine's uncertain future: Zelensky's US visit and election impact. Opinion

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. The entire trip across the ocean was, after all, a collision for the Ukrainian president with the realities of American politics, increasingly divided on the Ukraine issue and weary of the war.

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

In his UN speech, Zelensky painted a deeply pessimistic vision. He warned that Ukrainians could face the harshest winter since the beginning of the war, all because, as gathered intelligence indicates, Russia plans to attack Ukraine's power grid to cut off major urban centres from electricity. Nuclear power plants are also to fall victim to such attacks, potentially leading to a nuclear catastrophe.

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

This argument is deeply thought out, as Zelensky wants to reach countries in the Global South that are also grappling with the legacy of colonialism. Russia and its allies, in their propaganda directed at countries outside Europe and North America, present the war in Ukraine as an act of Russian self-defence against American imperialism. Although this narrative is absurd, it finds an audience where anti-American sentiments are strong. Zelensky rightly 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 sharp words. British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, asked by what right the representatives of a country conducting an aggressive war against the basic principles of the United Nations Charter dare to show up during the sessions. Polish Foreign Minister, Radosław Sikorski, in a factual speech, showed that contrary to Russian propaganda continuously speaking about "fascists in Kyiv," it is Russia that behaves in this war like a fascist state – for instance, abducting Ukrainian children and giving them up for adoption by Russian families.

Such words are not without significance. The sentiments of world public opinion are important for all participants in this war, including Russia, which puts a huge effort into convincing poorer states in Africa, Asia, or South America to its narrative about the conflict in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, sharp words against Putin's Russia at the UN are not enough for Ukraine. The UN has no tools to stop Russian aggression not least because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power – which in the future might be a starting point for a discussion on how to reform this institution. Today, crucial for Ukraine's future – beyond its heroic effort – is not the debates at the UN, but US support. And, as the past week has shown, this issue is becoming increasingly complicated.

Part of these complications is due to the election campaign entering its decisive phase. Zelensky's visit fell right in the middle of it, generating a number of typical campaign period controversies – not always serving the Ukrainian cause.

The biggest 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 crucial for Ukraine's defence. However, Zelensky was shown around the factory by the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, who was very actively involved in Kamala Harris' campaign. No Republican representatives accompanied them – although the residents of Pennsylvania elected as many as 8 Republicans to the House of Representatives.

Many Republicans considered Zelensky's visit to Scranton effectively part of the Democrats' campaign. Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives – equivalent to our Sejm Marshal, one of the most important people in the state - Mike Johnson, even demanded that Zelensky dismiss the Ukrainian ambassador in Washington, who organised the factory tour.

Johnson did not find time to meet Zelensky in the US capital. Considering that he had previously blocked for many months a vote on an aid package for Ukraine, this is not particularly surprising. But Johnson was not an exception, interest from American congressmen and senators in meeting with Zelensky was clearly lower than during previous visits of the Ukrainian president. Partially, this is due to the campaign – Congress suspended work so politicians could focus on it in their districts.

Regardless of the campaign, however, it is clear that the issue of Ukraine divides the American political scene: especially Republicans are increasingly sceptical of aid to Ukraine. When the latest, 50 billion pound aid package for Ukraine was finally put to a vote in Congress, it passed with the votes of both parties and by a fairly large majority, but most Republican members of the House of Representatives and nearly one-third of Republican senators voted against it.

During Zelensky's American visit on the campaign trail, scepticism about the current model of aid to Ukraine was expressed as usual by Trump. He once again called Zelensky a "great salesman" who, every time he visits the US, leaves with a cheque for 41 billion pounds – at the expense of American taxpayers. Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of driving his country to destruction by refusing to reach an agreement with Russia.

At the same time, it was the logic of the campaign that may have forced the meeting between Zelensky and Trump and the words about a "fair deal" to end the war. Although according to the latest poll by the "New York Times" and Siena College, only 3% of voters indicate foreign affairs as key to their decision in the presidential election, very small differences in votes in a few states that could support either a Democrat or a Republican in November may decide who moves into the White House next year. Among them are the mentioned Pennsylvania and Michigan, states with a large community from Central and Eastern Europe – including Ukraine – looking with concern at the new wave of Russian aggression and rooting for the fighting Ukraine.

Before the meeting with Trump, Zelensky met separately with Biden and Kamala Harris. These two meetings, one with the sitting president and the other with his possible successor, were supposed to emphasise the continuity of Ukrainian policy in a possible 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 main goals of the visit: to obtain approval to use American long-range ATACMS missiles and more binding declarations regarding Ukraine's NATO membership than distant promises. In both of these areas, the Biden administration fears escalation and wants to act cautiously for now, playing for time.

On Wednesday, while Zelensky was speaking at the UN forum, Putin announced a new nuclear strategy for Russia. It grants Russia the right to use nuclear weapons in situations where it is attacked by any state "supported by a nuclear-armed state." Such an attack could be considered a Ukrainian attack with American long-range missiles on Russian territory.

Analysts mostly believe that the risk of Putin using nuclear weapons is not high. However, Americans fear that in response to the transfer of long-range missiles to Ukraine, Russia could engage in hostile actions against the US and its allies on other fronts. For instance, further tightening cooperation with Iran or starting to transfer missiles to Yemeni Houthi rebels that could threaten maritime trade routes around the Arabian Peninsula. American administration officials speaking to US 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.

A much bigger problem is NATO. Neither the American public, 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 Democrats may have been, the alternative in the form of a Republican Trump administration is a much more dangerous option for Ukraine. The former president has never publicly stated what exactly his plan for immediately ending the war – which he continually promises in the campaign – would entail. According to reports from the "Washington Post," Trump privately said he would force an agreement on Putin and Zelensky: peace in exchange for territorial concessions. Similar proposals – combined with the concept of Ukraine's neutralisation, meaning permanently closing its path to NATO – were made by Trump's entourage.

Such a peace would be deeply unfair to Ukraine and dangerous for our entire region. It would allow for a forceful change of borders, which the entire international order based on the United Nations Charter, built after World War II, was supposed to prevent. Putin would consider this an encouragement for further aggressive actions against areas he perceives as lying within Russia's sphere of influence, including those belonging to NATO. It goes without saying why this is a scenario we should realistically fear in Poland.

In the deepest interest of not only Kyiv, but also other capitals in the region, is that Ukraine does not find itself in a situation where its until recently main ally pressures it to make an unfair and dangerous peace. Unfortunately, after November, this cannot be ruled out.