NEW YORK — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with former President Donald Trump on September 27, 2024, at Trump Tower, aiming to solidify U.S. support for Ukraine amid the prolonged war with Russia. This meeting, the first of its kind since Trump’s impeachment five years prior, occurs during heightened uncertainty surrounding aid for Ukraine as the U.S. gears up for another presidential election.
During their time together, Zelenskyy sought to convey the pressing importance of continued U.S. assistance against the backdrop of deepening fears about American political support for Ukraine. By discussing the ramifications of the upcoming election, he raised concerns about what could happen if Trump wins and what challenges Zelenskyy might face if U.S. support waivers.
“I think we have a common view,” Zelenskyy remarked about the necessity to end the war, stressing the urgency of the situation as he noted, “Putin can’t win.” Trump echoed these sentiments, referring to their meeting as indicative of positive relations and reaffirming his stance on the matter: “It takes two to tango.”
This meeting was highly anticipated not just because of Trump’s controversial past dealings with Zelenskyy, particularly the infamous July 2019 phone call which led to Trump's impeachment, but also due to Trump’s current criticism of U.S. funding to Ukraine. At various points, Trump has suggested the U.S. should withdraw its support, framing the situation as overly costly and misguided.
The conversation took place just after Zelenskyy had met with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden has actively portrayed himself as the stalwart defender of Ukraine, contrasting Trump’s more isolationist views. This kind of dynamic draws sharp lines between the two leading presidential candidates as they approach the November elections.
Unsurprisingly, tensions ran high as both leaders have pointedly critiqued each other recently. Trump labelled Ukraine as “demolished” and suggested its current plight as disgraceful, indicating there was scope for improvement had different decisions been made. “Any deal — the worst deal — would’ve been much preferable to what we have now,” he stated, hinting at the prospect of what he perceived as mismanagement by current officials.
For his part, Zelenskyy has expressed reservations about Trump’s direct involvement, arguing he oversimplified the complex geopolitics at play. He was quoted as remarking on Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, saying he was “too radical” and advocated unacceptable sacrifices from Ukraine.
Throughout their meeting, both leaders emphasized the need for collaborative dialogue to achieve peace. Trump reassured Zelenskyy, claiming he possesses the necessary relationships to facilitate discussions with Putin. “If I’m elected President, the war with Russia and Ukraine will end quickly,” Trump promised, reiteratively alluding to his confidence and capability of negotiating effectively.
Public sentiment remains divided within the U.S. with some voicing skepticism about Trump’s ability to mediate peace without demanding territorial concessions. Historically, his approach has raised alarms among Ukrainian officials, who fear any potential U.S. compromise may come at the significant cost of their territorial integrity.
Further complicity arises from the fact Trump has not hesitated to backtrack on previous support for Ukraine, referring to funding assists as ineffectively channeled resources. This introduces uncertainty about what U.S. relations with Ukraine would look like should he claim the presidency again. His remarks hinted at leveraging the situation for political capital – depicting Zelenskyy’s efforts as tantamount to capitalizing on the concerns of the American people.
Election experts stress the impact of Trump’s presidency on Ukraine cannot be understated as Trump’s fluctuative rhetoric continues to raise anxiety levels among U.S. allies. After all, Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump occurred shortly after several discussions with global leaders at the U.N. General Assembly where he advocated for NATO support.
While the stakes have been high, it is clear both leaders are under pressure. Behind closed doors, they reportedly exchanged ideas on possible collaborations, though the details of these discussions remained undisclosed. Fear looms large not just for Ukraine's operational decisions but also for how the U.S. political climate will shape the future course of the conflict.
With uncertainties surrounding U.S. aid and the political politics of the impending election, Zelenskyy’s mission is far from straightforward. Rather, it involves assessing the sentiments of various factions and their positions on Ukraine's future, especially as insecurity grows around Russian advances. “We hope to have strong U.S. engagement,” Zelenskyy noted, reiteratively hoping for enduring support, strategically yet cautiously managing each interaction.
Trump’s post-meeting impression conveyed to the public presents him as confident yet vague. He claimed to have “learned much” from Zelenskyy and emphasized the intention to build on the open dialogue, promising to pursue peace agreements beneficial to both nations, reflecting his stance on mutual agreements with officials from both Russia and Ukraine. Critics, nevertheless, have remained skeptical, as echoes of unwillingness for potential territorial negotiations pit against steadfast Ukrainian principles rear their head again.
For Zelenskyy, these meetings also pose significant challenges. His recent statements capture his collective desire to learn from historical interactions, eager for the U.S. to maintain its influence within NATO and globally against a backdrop of emergent crises. The internal politics will undoubtedly come to shape how the U.S. proceeds with Ukraine post-election, warranting the urgency felt by Zelenskyy as he pushes for clarity amid rising concerns of waning interests.
While both leaders currently appear aligned on the need for swift negotiations, Zelenskyy’s fate will increasingly depend on subsequent U.S. support and the specifics Trump lays out as he charts his path back to the White House. Time, and the election outcome, is of the essence—a tense waiting game for Ukraine, where every passing day will significantly dictate the fate of millions caught up in the conflict.
