“160 000 votes of Ukrainians can decide the fate of the elections in the USA.” Baylor University political science professor Serhiy Kudelia explains the “Ukrainian question” in the American election context

How important was the "Ukrainian issue" during the campaign? Did it somehow change?

The main issues of this election concern domestic politics: the economy, the migration crisis on the southern border of the United States and the ban on abortion. They are decisive.

Republicans tried to tie Ukraine to immigration. This is how populist gimmicks like: Joe Biden cares more about the border between Ukraine and Russia than about his own border in the south, and US spending in support of Ukraine should have been directed to stopping illegal immigration in the southern United States. These strange theses worked. Right-wing populist politicians have dominated the republican camp for many years. This style was set by Donald Trump, and other politicians followed him, including the former governor of Florida Ron DeSantis. There was also an entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

Of course, there are Republican politicians who support Ukraine, like Nikki Haley. But they are less popular, and Haley came in third in the primary. Pro-Ukrainian candidates had approximately 30% of the republican electorate, and conditionally anti-Ukrainian candidates, who advocate reducing aid to Ukraine, approximately 70%.

When it became clear that the majority was in favour of cutting aid to Ukraine, it became the dominant policy of many Republicans in the US Congress as well.

Are we talking about the time when they voted for a 61 billion aid package ?

Right. At the end of last year, the Republicans decided that the immigration crisis should be solved at the expense of Ukraine. Thatʼs when the Republican leader in the House of Representatives was changed to Mike Johnson, because the previous House Majority Leader was trying to negotiate [with the Democrats]. Before his appointment, Johnson was endorsed by Trump. Therefore, his actions must be interpreted, always remembering that he is Trumpʼs creature.

Johnsonʼs letter, where he demands the release of the ambassador and Trumpʼs statements — is it a logical continuation of the Republican position? Did something trigger them?

Firstly, itʼs worthy to say about Trumpʼs vice president J. D. Vance. Trump chose the vice president from three people. Among them was a supporter of Ukraine, who spoke from Reaganʼs position on global leadership and the fight against authoritarian regimes. Secondly, we should say about the candidate is Florida state senator Marco Rubio, who previously had a favorable attitude towards Ukraine, but has adapted to Trumpʼs position.

Well, the 3rd option is J. D. Vance, who in recent years has been the loudest critic of both Bidenʼs position on Ukraine and Zelensky. He personally accused the President of Ukraine of corruption. Trump chose him. It became clear that Trump — if he wins — will choose the toughest policy towards Ukraine. J. D. Vance is the only one from the American delegation who refused to meet with Zelensky on the sidelines of the Munich conference this year, calling it a waste of time because "he wonʼt hear anything new."

Republicans chose confrontation. Trump said that he will force Ukraine to negotiate if he becomes president. In response, Volodymyr Zelensky made harsh statements — unexpectedly for me — in an interview with The New Yorker magazine last week. In this interview, Zelensky spoke about the logic of his victory plan, but at the same time he criticised not so much Trump, but primarily J. D. Vance. When he said that Vance should read history books about the World War II, Trump probably took it as a challenge not only to Vance, but also to himself personally.

Zelenskyʼs sharp statements overlapped with the domestic political context following the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, in which Trump demonized immigrants and accused them of eating cats and dogs. This turned out to be false, but J. D. Vance continued to defend Trumpʼs position. Democrats are now criticizing Trump and his team for these statements. And to this criticism were added the words of Zelensky, which are now quoted by all American media. And on the first day of his visit to the USA, Zelensky goes to the plant in Pennsylvania, accompanied by Governor Josh Shapiro.

During Zelenskyʼs visit to the weapons manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania.

X (Twitter) / «Бабель»

Zelensky was accompanied to the plant by the governor of the state, an influential Democrat Josh Shapiro. Republicans did not like this.

X (Twitter) / «Бабель»

But may such a trip be considered campaigning for the Democrats?

This trip is definitely a mistake. Shapiro is Kamala Harrisʼ key public defender. He always supports her in the media. For example, after the debate, he was the first to comment on it and explain why Harris defeated Trump.

Shapiro was considered a vice presidential candidate to keep in touch with Harris. So he is a very influential political figure and an active participant in the election campaign. When Zelensky takes a photo with him at the factory and signs artillery shells, and Shapiro emphasizes in his Twitter account that 160 thousand Ukrainians live in Pennsylvania, he seems to be giving a hint to these Ukrainians, kind of I am with Zelensky now, have you understood who to vote for?

So that you understand what 160 000 Ukrainians are. Let me remind you that in 2016, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton with a margin of 40 000 votes. And in 2021, Biden defeated Donald Trump already in Pennsylvania with a margin of 70 000 votes. So, 160 000 votes of Ukrainians can decide the fate of elections not only in Pennsylvania, but also in the entire United States.

Why Pennsylvania? Itʼs not the only state that swings typically during elections.

Because southern swing states will obviously vote for Trump. There are two swing states to the north — Wisconsin and Michigan — which are the most likely to vote for Harris. So, Pennsylvania is left.

Republicans say that aid to Ukraine is a waste of money and it would be better to support their own defense industry. But in fact, this visit showed that US money is left in American factories: production is launched, jobs are created. Isnʼt it? And if we are talking about the presidentʼs visit, shouldnʼt he be accompanied by a representative of the government according to the protocol?

People unfamiliar with the domestic political context of the United States might think so. It would be possible to explain the visit the way you describe it, if Zelensky was not accompanied by one of the key leaders of the Democratic Party. I mean, it would be possible if it was not Shapiro, but, for example, the mayor of Scranton, who does not have any political role.

In July, a delegation of republicans came to Ukraine, and they met with Zelensky. You can say that it was campaigning, but for the Republican Party.

You canʼt say that, because no one knows about this visit except you and me.

Okay. But after the trip to the plant, there were speeches by both Zelensky and Trump.

Right. Zelensky spoke at the UN Security Council and said that people who propose negotiations with Russia are crazy, because there is nothing to negotiate with Putin. This thesis is clear to Ukrainians. But when Zelensky talk about this in the United States at the Security Council, and Donald Trump listens to him, then guess how he perceives these words and to whom, in his opinion, they are addressed.

So on Tuesday, during a speech in Pennsylvania, Trump said that he listened to President Zelenskyʼs speech at the UN Security Council and that he looks like a person who has been driven to a dead end.

After these statements, and after the letter demanding Markarovaʼs dismissing, how should Ukraine act?

Public statements will no longer have much effect. But the ambassador cannot be dismissed, because it will be perceived as absolute weakness. On the other hand, this situation cannot be left as it is. Donald Trump may become the next president of the United States. And even if it doesnʼt, there remains Mike Johnson and a large part of the Trumpists in the House of Representatives, who can block all actions in favour of Ukraine. The situation is complicated.

And how to explain the fact that Trump at the last moment agreed to meet with President Zelensky, but at the same time publicly demonstrated his message?

It is important that he agreed only after another appeal by Zelensky — which he demonstratively made public. By this, he wants to emphasize that the bilateral meeting is more important for the Ukrainian president than for Trump himself. Probably, one of the motives of the meeting for Trump is to neutralize the negative consequences for himself from Zelenskyʼs visit to Scranton. And a signal to the Ukrainian community of Pennsylvania about Trumpʼs readiness to conduct a dialogue with the Ukrainian leadership.

This meeting will not remove all the tension in relations with the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party, because such tension is caused not only by political differences, but also by personal antipathies. But at least she clarified the positions of the parties and initiated communication between the teams in the event of a Trump victory.

How do different groups of Americans perceive Ukraine? Is it possible to divide them into some conditional groups that differ regarding the acceptance of Ukraine? Not just Democrats and Republicans, but maybe some others?

There are two philosophies in the Republican Party. One says that the US should solve its own problems and take care of itself. The second is the globalist philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon: America is called to play a leadership role in the world and promote democracy. Trump shares an isolationist philosophy. But about 50% of Republican voters believe that Ukraine should be supported to the end, as long as necessary. Among the democrats, there are much more such voters — about 70-80%, so there is no discussion in the democratic party about what Ukrainian politics should be.

Another group is voters who do not associate themselves with either of these two parties. About 30% of them are, and in their views on Ukraine, they are more like democrats. Therefore, if you look at American society in general, about 65-60% believe that Joe Bidenʼs policy towards Ukraine is correct.

What do Americans understand about Ukraine and the war?

I came to America in 1995. At that time, Ukraine was known for Oksana Baiul (who defeated the American figure skater) and for Chornobyl. Since then, awareness has grown significantly. They understand the historical context, know other outstanding personalities. I think the majority has already noticed that Ukraine is not part of Russia.

I have always had a problem, even in an academic environment. Scientists who studied the former Soviet Union perceived Ukraine through the lens of Russia. They believed that it was enough to understand Russia in order to understand Ukraine. Now that has changed. Most Americans understand that Russia is trying to destroy Ukrainian independence, and that Ukraine is part of the Western world. This is a huge progress.

At the same time, I cannot say that academic interest in Ukraine has significantly increased. Unfortunately, Ukraine became famous not because of its success as a state, but because it became a victim of external aggression and the place where the biggest war in Europe since the World War II is taking place. The longer this war lasts, the more often Ukraine will be perceived as a problem region and a burden for the United States.

Is there an understanding that defending Ukraine is in the national interests of the USA?

Recently there was a survey about this. Americans do not have a clear understanding that the national interests or security interests of the United States are directly tied to the Russian-Ukrainian war. The majority believes that Ukraine should be supported as a democratic state in the fight against an authoritarian aggressor. The Republicans play on this and say that the conflict in Ukraine can drag America into a war with Russia and lead to the World War III.

Is Trump as president a real threat to Ukraine in this war?

It is clear what Trump wants to do. He has been perceiving Ukraine as a toxic state for him for several years, and believes that Ukraine deserves to lose part of its territory. In addition, the world is divided into strong and weak states for Trump, and the weaker should yield to the stronger in this world. The idea that Zelensky should sit at the negotiating table and give up some territory is part of Trumpʼs philosophy of strength. If we perceive agreements that will lead to the loss of Ukrainian territories as a threat to our own security, then yes, Trump is definitely a threat to the security of Ukraine.

Babel always tries to understand the details and tell you about it. Support us: https://babel.ua/donate