kyiv, Ukraine (AP) — There is no doubt that the U.S. election will determine the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.

The status of military aid from kyiv’s main international donor depends on who becomes president, as does any prospect of a ceasefire that could benefit Ukraine.

Some in Kyiv say the country’s very existence depends on who wins the White House.

As Americans vote, exhausted and undermanned Ukrainian soldiers maintain their defensive lines under constant Russian fire, knowing that the results will dictate their future.

The war in Ukraine is one of the most controversial issues in the November 5 elections: former President Donald Trump, Republican candidate, and Vice President Kamala Harris, Democratic candidate, defend very different points of view on the level of support the United States should continue to provide to Ukraine.

After a whirlwind tour of the West, kyiv’s leaders tried to promote their version of what President Volodymyr Zelensky calls his “victory plan”. They hope that key decisions – including Ukraine’s NATO membership – will be made by the new administration.

For now, they have no choice but to wait.

“We believe that whatever the last name of the future president of the United States, the United States will not give up its world domination, its world leadership as such. And this is possible only thanks to the support of Ukraine and the defeat of the Russian Federation,” said Mykhailo Podolyak, Zelensky’s advisor.

Harris would likely continue Biden’s policies

Harris, who has denounced President Vladimir Putin’s “brutality,” would likely continue President Joe Biden’s policy of support, albeit within the strict confines of Ukraine’s ability to strike deep inside Russian territory that have frustrated the leaders of kyiv.

“President Biden made clear from the start of this conflict that his top priority was to avoid all-out war with Russia. I think it remains America’s top priority,” said Malcom Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute in London.

The United States has provided Ukraine with more than $59.5 billion in military weapons and assistance since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. But kyiv has always been a prisoner of tense U.S. policies that have often undermined its potential on the battlefield.

Ukraine lost territory and troops as its weapons stockpiles dwindled during the six months it took the U.S. Congress to pass an aid package. Even the promised military assistance did not arrive on time or in sufficient quantity.

Ukraine still hopes for Western approval for strikes inside Russian territory with longer-range weapons provided by its allies. It also holds hundreds of square kilometers in Russia’s Kursk region after an incursion in August.

Yet Biden’s commitment to supporting Ukraine has never wavered. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a $400 million package during his recent visit. Zelensky said he was hoping for another tranche of $800 million, the first tranche earmarked for Ukraine’s production of long-range capabilities. Another $8 billion is expected by the end of the year.

But for some, all this is too late.

“If the amount of promised but not delivered aid had been reached, we could have entered the negotiations in a stronger position with Russia,” said Lt. Gen. Ihor Romanenko, former deputy chief of the General Staff general.

Trump’s vague wishes and Putin’s praise

Trump has repeatedly challenged U.S. aid to Ukraine, made vague wishes to end the war and praised Putin.

He is also considered very unpredictable.

Some Ukrainian officials even privately welcome this quality, saying it could deliver results more quickly. But much is still unknown about the decisions Trump would make.

“He emphasized that he had a very different approach to Ukraine than Kamala Harris. And if what he says now translates into action, then Ukraine will have a very difficult time,” Chalmers said.

“Donald Trump talks about the very high probability that the United States will cut off most, if not all, military aid to Ukraine, which could tip the scales, given the situation on the ground, although than in the stalemate, in which Russia currently has the advantage. in favor of Russia,” he added.

Podolyak said Trump “understands the logic” of Zelensky’s plans after meeting with him. “Mr. Trump realized that there is no way to agree on anything in this war, because it is necessary to force Russia to understand what a war is and what consequences it has. Russia will have in this war. In other words, Russia may be forced to do something, but it was not asked.

In the face of Trump’s harsh rhetoric, some Ukrainian officials say that despite his expressed views, his actions as president have sometimes benefited Ukraine. Some of the harshest sanctions were imposed on Russia’s elite under his administration. Trump also approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, something President Barack Obama failed to do.

Most Ukrainians fear Trump will end all military aid to kyiv, and no other country can match U.S. support. Ukrainian soldiers remain defiant, saying they will continue to hold the line no matter what.

But the practical implications would be disastrous and kyiv could be forced to accept devastating ceasefire terms, with a fifth of its territory under Russian control.

“If the aid is stopped, the situation will become more complicated,” Romanenko said. “In this case, the seizure of Ukrainian lands will continue, but we do not know how quickly, because their offensive potential is not unlimited.”

Zelensky’s plans are at stake

Zelensky presented his vision of ending the war to Trump and Harris, arguing for its necessity. He said Ukraine hoped for a post-election response from Washington, particularly on the issue of NATO membership, insisting that such an invitation was irreversible.

Both Ukraine and Russia are feeling considerable economic and societal pressure to maintain the war effort. For the first time, Zelensky openly raised the possibility of a partial ceasefire. But important questions remain about the fate of the territories occupied by Russia.

Russia has devoted a large portion of its government budget to defense spending and continues to lose thousands of troops. The potential introduction of what Zelensky estimates to be 10,000 North Korean troops This indicates that Moscow is having difficulty mobilizing new conscripts.

Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and struggling mobilization efforts, however, are under far greater pressure than Russia’s. kyiv must find a way to reduce the intensity of the war and attacks on shipping and energy resources.

“Ultimately, this will only happen if both parties calculate that they will get a net benefit from it,” Chalmers said.

“What worries me would be the uncertainty of the coming months, when the Russians might believe that a last-ditch effort will allow them to extract much greater concessions from the Ukrainians,” he added.

Zelensky’s plans were developed taking this reality into account. That’s why his team insists that Russia must be forced to talk rather than convinced to do so. Without nuclear weapons serving as a deterrent, NATO is the only logical alternative.

“I said, ‘We don’t have nuclear weapons, we’re not a member of NATO, and we won’t be a part of it during the war.’ That’s why I need this package. And you can’t be against it,” Zelenskyy said, describing his argument to reporters.