About one month before the US elections, in the Kharkiv region, I sat down with a group of Ukrainian infantry soldiers together with US historian Timothy Snyder. I suggested they ask questions of him not only as an American historian, but also as an American citizen.
The servicemen were curious about the election, but mainly the chances of receiving significant military aid any time soon. They expressed pity that many Americans still do not understand that the Ukrainian fight is not just about us. It is in the world’s interests to support the fight against blatant breaches of the international order.
The anxiety of the US elections is felt more strongly in Kyiv among Ukrainian officials and civil society leaders, because Ukraine has become a partisan issue, and part of US domestic politics. These groups have been trying for years to be on good terms with Democrats and Republicans in the US. This was especially true during the long delays in Congress over the vote for security assistance to Ukraine.
However, engaging with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) camp has become difficult.
This only got worse when it was revealed that former US president Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate JD Vance had said in 2022: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.” During the race, Vance has characterized Russian President Vladimir Putin as an “adversary” and “competitor,” rather than an enemy, and has generally said that the US should be focusing on China, not Russia.
Then there are the claims from Trump that he could end the war in “24 hours,” presumably with a phone call to Putin. To be honest, these sorts of statements do not worry Ukrainians that much since they do not sound remotely realistic. There are no signs that the Russian president is changing his goal to destroy Ukraine as a state. What people are really worried about is the slowing down, or even stopping, of US military assistance.
In Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, one of the most important battleground states, I had a chance to talk to various Ukrainian Americans, including those from the older, more conservative diaspora, who have traditionally voted Republican. They shared strong anti-communist sentiment in the past, but today are more united around ideas of faith and family values. Some of them told me they were worried by Vance’s remarks. Still, their arguments would alight elsewhere: It was Democrat and former US president Barack Obama who did not firmly react to the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 and refused to provide military aid. Some of those narratives can be heard among conservative Ukrainians back home, too.
Ukrainians often ask me what exactly the candidates are saying about the country on the campaign trail. I had to reply that, honestly, Ukraine was not being explicitly mentioned at the rallies, at least the ones I attended.
In Saginaw, Michigan, a manufacturing town, Vance did not mention Ukraine even once, mainly warning about the risks of local workers losing their jobs, because of Chinese electric vehicles. Meanwhile, US Vice President Kamala Harris, at a campaign rally in the university town of Ann Arbor, spoke of Trump’s fascination with authoritarian leaders such as Putin.
Trump himself, speaking in Pennsylvania, did say at least three times that he would not spend taxpayers’ money on wars “in countries you have never heard of and don’t want to hear of.” The audience loudly cheered.
After US President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, some people in Kyiv hoped that he could now afford to be less cautious and use his remaining time in office to accelerate support for Ukraine. The speculation was that he would want a positive foreign policy legacy to leave behind, amid the retreat from Afghanistan and tragedy unfolding in the Middle East. By last month, it became clear that the current US administration was not planning on doing anything big before the election.
Some measures were taken. Washington on Oct. 23 finalized its US$20 billion portion of a US$50 billion loan to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets. This would be placed alongside a separate US$20 billion EU commitment and US$10 billion split between the UK, Japan and Canada. It is supposed to be repaid with the earnings from the more than US$300 billion in sovereign Russian assets that were immobilized in February 2022 and are mostly held in Europe.
However, in the long run, the lives of Ukrainian soldiers depend not just on the funds for military aid, but on specific types of weapons.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has spent recent months lobbying in the west for his “victory plan,” which would involve the US providing long-range missiles to Ukraine, which could strike deep inside Russia — something western powers have been reluctant to approve. His argument is that this might not just turn the tide on the battlefield, but take away the burden from those suffering the most — Ukrainian infantry. Without that, the Ukrainian army is left to rely on exhausted footsoldiers. Whether or not this plan has any chance of progressing would depend in large part on who wins next week.
Right after landing in New York, a US colleague asked me if “it was all over for Ukraine if it didn’t receive US assistance after the elections.” I was puzzled by the way the question was asked. I explained that it might be extremely difficult to preserve the lives of Ukrainians if, say, Trump is elected, but it would not mean the Ukrainian army would stop trying to defend its fellow citizens or simply give up.
Travelling from one swing state to another, I detected an extreme sense of anxiety among many Americans. It was so palpable, I felt the need to comfort them. Whatever happens, on the morning of tomorrow, life in Ukraine would go on. The same would be true in the US. However, it does not mean things would be easy. Ukrainians have learned in recent years that worrying can be a luxury; the best option is to commit yourself to working hard to avoid the worst-case scenario and fighting for what is right.
Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab.
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
RSS