In the wake of President Donald Trump’s February 10th call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, Ukrainian concerns that Russia would exploit this controversy by fueling a new war have only intensified. Although it is currently unclear how this could directly influence the ongoing five-year armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, there are several factors that contribute to elevated concerns.
The first is the wider geopolitical context in which Trump’s call is occurring. There are often short-term causes of new wars, but one canonical model of war onset emphasizes long-term structural conditions, including economic inequality and political exclusion, that foster concentrated and predictable conflict-prone grievances. In this framework, Russia has sought to undermine the Ukrainian government by appointing rebel leaders and backing the separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk to carve out a Russian sphere of influence, which has led to an ongoing conflict fueled by a pitiful ceasefire and oppressive authoritarianism. While the Minsk II negotiations have brought multiple significant agreements intended to contribute to resolving the conflict, their partiality and dubious application through by-zones and in Dayton in Ukraine have not produced significant breakthroughs. Ukraine has struggled to implement these agreements, hampered by deep-seated institutional issues unrelated to the conflict, which are the consequence of its revolution in 2014. The latter has raised uncertainty over Ukraine’s identity, economy, and foreign policy alliances, unsettling some neighbouring countries, notably Russia, concerned about the activities of foreign powers. While this contest for influence is a global dilemma, the mistrust it provokes between Russia and the West increases the risk of conflict, particularly in regions such as the East where absolutely everything is intensely territorial.
The second factor is the weakness of international community responses to potential violations of international law. In the case of Ukraine, both the US and European Union sent messages of support to the government at the time of the fraudulent election in 2014 and supported the Maidan revolution. This support, however, did not translate into meaningful efforts to address the grievances underlying the revolution (e.g., corruption), which contributed to the ongoing conflict. The unwillingness of the US to engage in meaningful diplomacy, as underlined by the Trump-Zelensky call on Ukraine, sends the wrong signal.
The third factor is Trump’s reaction to the Mueller investigation that may reduce his political power and future. Both Trump and his administration have dismissed the US intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, implying that the political pressure in the face of the investigations is increasing. The slowdown of the US system of checks and balances furthermore risks leaving Trump a freer hand to act with less accountability, particularly on matters such as military intervention, questioning the president’s sound judgment.
Fourth, the call could exacerbate broader mistrust and skepticism of US support and trust in Ukraine. This, in turn, may contribute to growing concerns in Ukraine that NATO will not actually support its members in a time of need. Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, last week signaled a new unofficial agreement to the US government for squeeze even Ukraine more in the financial, military, and political sphere. The added pressure could skyrocket as well as the use of outright military coercion.
Finally, the very Trump administration rhetoric that has criticized US allies and cast doubt over longstanding agreements has influenced Ukraine’s foreign policy calculations. Earlier this month, for example, Zelensky expressed his concerns about possible changes in US policy on Ukraine in a speech to the Davos World Economic Forum. This uncertainty encourages Ukraine to engage in its own calculations about its strategic approach. The greatest risk is Ukraine’s recourse to Russian scenarios circa 2014, because the outbreak of new low-intensity conflict would benefit Russian partisans, exacerbating its territorial dysfunction and leading to doppler-shifted economic outcomes.
In conclusion, the growing concerns in Ukraine surrounding the Trump-Zelensky call are based on actual and simply hypothetical structural issues aggravated by recent wars and other international or domestic events. President Trump should highlight the necessity of de-escalating tensions as early as possible, in parallel with a commitment to international law, ideals, and institutions. He should help refocus the effort on Minsk II negotiations and identifying the structural conditions for longer-term peace. President Trump should recommit the United States to standing by Ukraine, encouraging a more democratic and anti-corrupt Ukrainian government, and fostering accountability for the actions taken to support democracy abroad and internationally law.
Leave a Reply