We asked 5 prominent Ukrainians about Trump’s debate comments on Ukraine

In between claiming immigrants were eating pets, and insisting some U.S. states allow abortions to be performed after a baby is born, Donald Trump on Sept. 10 once again raised concerns about what his second term in office would mean for Ukraine.
Speaking during the highly-anticipated presidential debate between him and Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump refused to say that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, and dodged a question as to whether a Ukrainian victory was in the United States’ best interests.
Instead, he said it would be best to “get this war finished and just get it done, negotiate a deal.”
The former president has repeatedly promised to end Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 24 hours if elected but has not publicly elaborated on how he plans to achieve that, and did not elaborate during the debate.
One plan reportedly involves ceding territory to Russia, something President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly said Kyiv would not do.
In response, Harris went on the attack, saying if Trump had been in office when Russia launched its full-scale invasion, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe.”
“Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch,” she said.
“It is well-known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because it is so clear they can manipulate you with flatter and favors,” Harris added.
We asked five prominent Ukrainians for their takes on Trump’s comments, and who they think would be a better president for Ukraine to cooperate with amid its ongoing fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion.
professor of comparative politics at Kyiv Mohyla Academy
“The Democrats’ decision to replace Biden with Harris was justified. Harris looked more dynamic. Trump was confused, and it’s not clear how he’s going to address (the war in Ukraine). On the other hand, Harris was more resolute as far as Ukraine was concerned.
“Trump would be more unpredictable. Harris’ victory would make U.S. policy more predictable (in terms of Ukraine policy), although not necessarily more active.”
director of the Center for International Studies at Odesa National University and senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
“The candidates’ views expressed last night did not surprise me. As for Harris, her principled position to support Ukraine was confirmed.
“I liked her attempt to explain how aiding Ukraine is not just about Ukraine, but also about the broader region, and how it is in the U.S. interests. I think that the Biden administration has not done enough to explain this to Americans. So, it was good to see how Hariris presented this aid not as some altruistic project but as an investment in the common security for Ukraine, the Euroatlantic space, and the U.S. included.
“As for Trump, his refusal to say that he would like to see a victory for Ukraine was somewhat shocking even for experienced Trump watchers. But it is hardly surprising.
“Trump’s view of Ukraine has been persistently negative for the last eight years at least. Much of this view was shaped by people antagonistic to Ukraine, including (Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor) Orban, whom Trump praised last night.
“Support for Ukraine does not match Trump’s transactionist mindset; ‘we help them but what do we get in return?’
“So, nothing was surprising last night. Promises to end the war, but not being able to explain how — that was to be expected, because, of course, there is no plan. But what is almost certain is that when Trump returns to the White House he is going to apply pressure on Kyiv to concede to Russian demands.”
adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office and head of Kyiv School of Economics
“My position is very different from most others. When Trump was asked if it was in the U.S. interest for Ukraine to win, he avoided the question and said that it was in the U.S. interest for the war to end.
“Haris was not asked such a question, but she had the opportunity to say it. Instead, she talked about how she supports Ukraine and about the leadership of the U.S. Neither candidate said that winning the war was in the interests of the U.S.”
lawmaker and chair of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee
“I view Trump’s comments as election rhetoric which should be treated with a grain of salt. His rhetoric is aimed at the part of his audience, his voters. He is trying to present himself as a politician who can easily reach any deal and who ‘knows well’ both Zelensky and Putin.
“But if he is elected he will have to face another kind of reality which will be rather humbling. I don’t think that as of now he has any plan of peace for Ukraine. He will start seriously thinking about it only after being elected. Of course, if he is elected.
“As for Ukraine, we are in a rather vulnerable position because our survival depends a great deal on American help. That is why we should be very careful now because we don’t know for sure who will become the next American president.
“We shouldn’t spoil relations with either Trump or Harris. In a word, we should be patient, and wait till the end of the presidential elections. After that, we will be working with whoever becomes the president.”
writer and director of the Institute for Central European Strategy
“I think this debate didn’t show us anything new. People didn’t change their opinion regarding the candidates. People who support Donald Trump still support him, and people who are against him will vote for Kamala Harris.
“The key development of campaign intrigue to watch in the next two months is if Harris can change the accent from running an anti-Trump campaign because right now she is developing her campaign on the fact that she is better than Trump, that Trump is evil. So the question is will she be able to make people vote for her because she has a better platform, a better vision for the future, and not just because she is not Trump.
“And the main goal will be to deliver such a message to the key states. Will she be able to do it? I don’t know, but her starting position is very good in my opinion and as a Ukrainian, I wish her success.”
The Kyiv Independent’s reporters Martin Fornusek, Dinara Khalilova, Oleg Sukhov, and Kate Tsurkan contributed reporting to this piece.