Post-Election Surprise: Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Deal and How to Counter It

The United States has held another election, and once again we are trying to find signals in the results that could be positive for Ukraine. This time, the focus is on Donald Trump’s major political defeat. Two years ago, a large part of Ukrainian society, with even greater enthusiasm and naivety, hoped that after winning the presidential race, Trump would “sort everything out” and end the war on terms favorable to Ukraine. So what could realistically change for Ukraine after this year’s US midterm elections? One important clarification: the new Congress, in which Democrats will confidently control both chambers, will begin its work on Jan. 3, 2027.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can be expected to seek to change the legislative and public atmosphere in a direction more favorable to Ukraine. They could do so through hearings and investigations, such as the already announced inquiry into Elon Musk’s suspension of Starlink operations in Ukraine, as well as through resolutions and statements in support of Ukraine. The likelihood of legislation providing new aid to Ukraine, imposing sanctions on Russia, or ensuring the uninterrupted operation of the PURL mechanism and the provision of intelligence is considerably lower. Even after the “blue tsunami,” Democrats will not hold a two-thirds majority in either chamber – the threshold required to override a presidential veto. Other Topics of Interest Ukraine, South Korea Move to Repair Ties After POWs Dispute Seoul says it remains open to humanitarian aid for Ukraine as the two countries seek to resolve a diplomatic dispute over captured North Korean soldiers. Counting on additional votes from Republican members of the House and Senate currently appears doubtful, given that the Republican caucuses have become even more conservative after the elections. Moreover, the new Congress will no longer include some Republican politicians who consistently supported continued assistance to Ukraine. The president may not even need to veto unwanted legislation. He could instead refuse to use allocated funds or granted powers, while delaying implementation of congressional requirements. Thus, a change in the foreign policy status quo is possible only if Trump abandons the turn toward Russia that he and his team began several months ago. Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect this. His statements about a new “very big” and “beautiful” deal with Russia are evidence of this. Trump has said the agreement would concern not only the war in Ukraine but “all” of Europe. The details remain unknown, but based on the signs available so far, the deal could be very close to Russia’s pre-war ultimatum to NATO and its capitulationist demands toward Ukraine – essentially, a document based on a Russian “draft.” The philosophy behind such a project is clear and archaic: dividing the world into spheres of influence among major powers that would, when necessary, determine the “form” of individual states. This is reminiscent of the diplomatic congresses of the 19th century or the Yalta system. The latest indications that Trump intends to move toward such a world “order” include his CBS interview and the appointment of Stephen Miller as a senior figure in his administration. Miller advocates a model of international politics without “sentiment,” based exclusively on “strength” and “power.” Trump and his inner circle’s interest in building an economic and political “bright future” with “humanist” Putin appears to outweigh the further reputational damage the president will inevitably suffer from playing Russia’s game according to the same foreign policy “score.” All this is taking place against the backdrop of Russia’s terrorist attacks on Ukrainian civilians and its attempts to destroy Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure – actions that Trump appears willing to ignore despite all moral considerations, placing the aggressor and its victim on the same footing. Whether the plans of these new “masters of the world” are realized will depend to a large extent on Ukraine’s European partners, for whom a “moment of truth” is approaching. It will depend on their understanding of the urgency of the moment and their readiness to move from intensive discussions, attractive initiatives and long-term plans to firm, forceful responses to Russia’s hybrid and kinetic aggression. Mark Rutte’s method of dealing with Trump has run its course. Trump and Putin’s “beautiful” deal must be countered by a European plan for a new security architecture based on the continent’s new security realities. It should rule out a return to business as usual with Russia and integrate Ukraine into a new European defense system. Such an approach, combined with stronger military support for Ukraine, would ensure Europe a permanent seat at negotiations on the war in Ukraine and European security, regardless of any attempt to reduce European states’ role to merely implementing agreements reached between Trump and Putin. At the same time, European participation in any negotiation process, should one begin, is in Ukraine’s interests. The critical situation also requires a new quality of action from the Ukrainian government. Public demands for radical changes in the way the state is governed during wartime, as well as the restructuring and cleansing of the country’s highest levels of government, will apparently remain a “voice crying in the wilderness.” Two requests concern more immediate matters. First, Ukraine needs to make its communication in the United States more effective and professional at every level, especially following the significant changes to the composition of Congress. Second, Ukraine needs to improve the collection and analysis of timely, reliable information about developments in the United States concerning Ukraine and prepare more thoroughly for negotiations. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.