Bets were placed, potential outcomes envisioned, and protective measures devised. However, the prevailing sentiment was a desire for the situation to remain unchanged. For months, Ukraine and its NATO partners have contemplated the possibility of a Trump presidency, weighing the implications of a strongman leader in the U.S. who could either become a more formidable ally, a negotiator capable of brokering a favorable peace, or a fresh perspective that might lead to a resolution of a prolonged conflict.

This notion, however, is merely a comforting illusion. The future for Kyiv appears exceedingly bleak. There should be no ambiguity regarding the implications of a Trump administration for Ukraine. Donald Trump has claimed he could resolve the war “in 24 hours,” yet he has not specified how. He has also criticized President Zelensky, stating that “he should never have let that war start,” and referred to him as “one of the greatest salesmen I have ever seen,” who secures $100 billion from Congress with each visit.

As of this morning, the fact that these assertions are gross exaggerations has become irrelevant. They now serve as the distorted perspective through which the president-elect of the United States will view the most significant conflict in Europe since World War II. While Trump may select a cabinet that slightly modifies the pace or tone of his inclinations, his ultimate desire is to withdraw. The strategic reality that Ukraine’s conflict has offered the Pentagon a relatively low-cost method of undermining its second-largest adversary without American casualties is inconsequential. This situation contradicts two of Trump’s primary aversions from his first term: expensive U.S. military involvement overseas and antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin’s initial reaction—that US-Russia relations cannot deteriorate further under President Joe Biden—suggests a sense of satisfaction. Analysts generally view the upcoming year as a calculated risk for Russia. Moscow has been deploying troops to strategic high ground around Ukraine’s military centers in the Donbas region, specifically near Pokrovsk, Kurakhove, and Chasiv Yar, with the intention of exerting significant pressure on Kyiv this winter to force its withdrawal from the Donetsk area.

A successful campaign in Donetsk could potentially open the way to major urban centers like Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, rendering the Ukrainian capital highly susceptible and possibly altering the dynamics of the conflict. However, time is not on Russia’s side. Western officials have indicated that the current casualty rate—estimated at around 1,200 dead or injured daily—is not sustainable without implementing another major and unpopular mobilization. Furthermore, next year could bring significant challenges for Moscow in terms of armor and ammunition production.

Putin has strategically played his recent cards with the hope that Trump would emerge victorious, banking on the belief that Trump would continue to be instinctive—favoring isolationism and harboring skepticism towards America’s long-standing alliances.

Trump’s approach is characterized by erraticism and unpredictability, particularly regarding intricate and lengthy issues such as foreign conflicts. He tends to favor quick solutions, exemplified by his decision to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, engage in a direct meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, or authorize a drone strike against Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani. It remains uncertain whether he genuinely considered the implications of his policies on Ukraine or if he simply wishes to avoid discussing the war and its financial burdens.

Regardless of the pace or thoroughness of Trump’s strategy, the repercussions will be evident in the coming weeks. I remember the significant dip in morale among Ukrainian forces last December when U.S. military aid was stalled for approximately six months. Frontline soldiers expressed their fears of having to abandon their positions without that support, despite knowing that the Biden administration was, in principle, still committed to assisting them. Now, they face a new challenge: the potential for limited aid from the Pentagon and European NATO allies, while the Trump administration adopts a more adversarial stance towards Kyiv.

Moreover, Trump assumes the presidency at a particularly dangerous juncture for Kyiv since the onset of the conflict. Various analyses indicate that Ukraine has experienced unprecedented territorial losses in October, with the fall of minor villages that, while individually insignificant, collectively represent a strategic disadvantage, leaving the eastern front particularly exposed.

NATO’s strategy has long exhibited a significant flaw; the Biden administration was hesitant to provide Ukraine with sufficient military support to potentially defeat Russia, fearing it could lead to a broader conflict. Conversely, Biden was also unwilling to allow Russia to emerge victorious. Consequently, the alliance urged Ukraine to persevere, hoping that eventually, Putin would falter. This created a complex contradiction at the core of the support for Kyiv, yet it was preferable to demanding Ukraine’s capitulation.

Without a strong resolve to fight—an understanding that victory is achievable—it becomes nearly impossible to expect Ukrainians to endure bombardments in trenches or advance their armored vehicles against hostile fire. No one wishes to be the last soldier to perish in a conflict; no one desires to sacrifice their life defending a family that may ultimately live under Russian control.

Trump’s potential return to power could further complicate Zelensky’s position. For years, Zelensky has effectively championed Ukraine’s cause, akin to a skilled salesman. However, he now carries the heavy burden of the controversies from Trump’s first term, particularly regarding Trump’s demands for investigations into the Biden family. Can Zelensky continue to be that effective advocate? Would a new leader in Bankova be more successful in securing military assistance or negotiating a feasible peace agreement?

Those who are weary of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine—whether they are allies of Kyiv or soldiers on the front lines—should be cautious about endorsing a deal backed by Trump. Historical precedents, such as Russia’s actions in Syria in 2013 and Ukraine in 2015, demonstrate that Moscow often negotiates to gain time for military preparations or to achieve its strategic objectives. Putin is likely to accept any territorial gains he can secure at the negotiating table, but he will subsequently regroup and continue his ambitions. Domestically, he has framed the war as a struggle against the united forces of NATO. The consequences of an overstretched Russian economy, a staggering death toll, and the reconfiguration of Russia’s industrial capabilities in pursuit of this conflict cannot be easily reversed. Putin increasingly relies on the war to maintain his authority.

This need for conflict is evident in his recent assertive actions towards neighboring countries. The recent unrest in Georgia and Moldova, where pro-Russian factions have attempted to undermine pro-European movements with limited success, may lead to increased Russian intervention in the near future. It is improbable that Putin will relinquish his aspirations for expanded regional dominance. It is essential to recall his initial intentions: the war was initiated with the goal of occupying Ukraine and preventing its integration into NATO and the European Union. The significant Russian casualties over nearly three years likely necessitate a more substantial victory than merely retaining the territory already acquired.

A crucial lesson from this war is now under serious threat. For the past two years, Putin’s most ardent critics have emphasized that there is no longer a need to fear Russia; the Kremlin has exploited the image of its formidable Bear as a psychological tool to compensate for its military weaknesses. Ukraine’s unexpected resilience has demonstrated that this fear was unfounded, revealing Moscow’s difficulties in overcoming a neighbor it once dismissed as incapable of defending itself.

A Trump administration might soon urge the global community to accept a seemingly analogous assertion that is, in reality, profoundly distinct: that the West should not fear Russia, as it poses minimal threat. This scenario would represent Putin’s most significant triumph and the West’s most glaring vulnerability.