President Joe Biden, the subject of so much criticism for his contribution to the Democrats’ wipeout, could still make a significant difference to Ukraine – and his own legacy – before he leaves the White House.
In a lasting and defining act as head of a global superpower, Biden could bolster Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s war effort by giving permission to fire Storm Shadow missiles deep into Russian territory, making it harder for president-elect Donald Trump to reverse the decision in January. The Franco-British missiles rely on a classified US targeting system, which means the US President must sign off on any decision.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have been urging Biden to make such a move and discussed the matter again on Monday in Paris, after a push in September came to nothing. Biden has been reluctant to allow the missiles to be used to strike inside Russia amid fears it could prompt Moscow to launch lethal attacks on European and US military.
Biden, who is set to lobby Trump to continue supporting Ukraine, could also use his waning influence to bolster Zelensky’s chances by hurrying along already allocated Congressional funding to the country.
A hazy picture is emerging of Trump’s attitude towards Ukraine, but it’s certainly not clear yet. The president-elect dodged the question during the electoral campaign, saying only that he could end the war “in 24 hours”. Clearer was the messaging from his running mate JD Vance, who argues the funding amounts to a tax on Americans for keeping Europe safe. In a crass post on Instagram on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr shared a video of Zelensky looking unhappy alongside his father Donald Trump, with the caption: “POV: You’re 38 days from losing your allowance.”
Away from the adolescent rhetoric, concrete decisions are being made. In a move that chilled Kyiv, on Saturday Trump announced that he would not appoint Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, or Nikki Haley, his former UN ambassador, to his new Cabinet, both strong supporters of the US supplying weapons to Ukraine.
Any proposed swift end to the war raises the prospect that Ukraine may be driven into a settlement that would freeze the conflict in its current position, with Zelensky unlikely to secure the recovery of Crimea and the Donbas, reparations from Russia or membership of Nato. Without that membership there would be nothing to stop Putin recovering, re-arming and resuming the war in a few years.
Zelensky’s turbulent relationship with Trump dates from a controversial 2019 phone call that ultimately led to an impeachment trial of the next US president. A visit by the Ukrainian President to an ammunition plant in swing-state Pennsylvania during the US election campaign inflamed tensions with the Trump team, which dubbed the move a political stunt. Even so, Trump and Zelensky met in New York in September, the Ukrainian pitching his so-called Victory Plan, which aims to force Russia to negotiate.
Putin, who likes to simultaneously play the role of hard man and present Russia as the victim of outside aggression, admires Trump and his “manly” response to the September assassination attempt. Barring China’s President Xi Jinping, Trump is probably the only international leader who could realistically bargain with Putin.
So it’s unsurprising Trump was straight on the blower to Putin last week urging him not to escalate the war in Ukraine. What is still being digested in European capitals is the role of his tech bro buddy Elon Musk who joined the call, how close the billionaire is to Putin, and how he will slot into Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump, Putin and Xi are all strongman rulers who have centralised power around themselves and encouraged a cult of personality. And this is what worries British defence strategists, so keen to protect the so-called “rules-based” international world order. Abandoning Ukraine could embolden China to accelerate its planned invasion of Taiwan.
Trump’s team may be correct in his analysis that Europe should have paid more towards and better managed the war on its doorstep. Even the mercurial Macron seems to have accepted the argument, saying the European Union should be more “carnivore” and less “herbivore” on the international stage.
But a massive hike in European assistance to Ukraine can’t compensate for the loss of US backing. Even if, in the unlikely event, Trump keeps US funding flowing, Ukraine’s European allies lack the production capacity to send significant stocks of weapons. Simultaneously, Ukraine only has enough ammunition for its American-supplied tanks, launchers and air defence systems for a few months.
Ukraine’s other key allies, including the UK and France, have said repeatedly that they will continue to support the country under any circumstances, concerned that allowing Putin to prevail would set a precedent for future Russian incursions in Europe, including in Georgia and Moldova.
Currently, Starmer is awaiting the conclusion of the strategic defence review before setting out a timeline to raise spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent, which is not expected until spring. On Monday John Healey, the Defence Secretary, declined multiple times to commit to that target being met within this Parliament, even though it was a manifesto commitment.
The review might even conclude Starmer needs to find closer to three per cent on defence spending, a near impossible sell to already groaning taxpayers.
As transatlantic relations get more complicated, the Prime Minister’s trip to France is an acknowledgement of the shared interests between the two nations as they seek to navigate joint challenges, including Russia and Trump 2.0.
Starmer will use Britain’s influence – such as it is – on the US while he still can and Biden remains in office, hence the renewed push on Storm Shadows. But Zelensky is on borrowed time – and so is European security.
